FIX people being able to sink a Galleon in 5 minutes with just fire arrows

[Eragnor 0]

How in the world can people take down an anchored Galleon with fire arrows in under 10 minutes with 2 people?
The most expensive ship in the game being destroyed in 10 minutes with the most basic weapon doesnt seem quite right.
If someone comes in with a flamethrower or another ship with guns and sinks it, fair enough, but naked people sneaking on an island and taking a galleon in  10 minutes is just not to way.
When you add that docked ships cant be hit by tools in 10.0 Add fire arrow to it aswell.

Thanks

[Caldrin 55]

I would think they are using oil plus fire arrows to do it.

Should not be stopped.. I mean sometimes it's the only way smaller clans can do anything against bigger ones.

Sneaking in Ninja style and destroying enemy ships. 

 

I'm sure damage will be balanced out at some point tho..

Edited January 9, 2019 by Caldrin

[Brick 11]

29 minutes ago, Caldrin said:

I would think they are using oil plus fire arrows to do it.

Should not be stopped.. I mean sometimes it's the only way smaller clans can do anything against bigger ones.

Sneaking in Ninja style and destroying enemy ships. 

 

I'm sure damage will be balanced out at some point tho..

The problem is Zergs are the ones using those tactics... 

We had 6 ships sunk last night at 4 am while we were offline, we got on this morning and by noon we had a zerg of 50 OwO banging on our door. 

They need to get rid of offline raiding.

[slightlymad79 40]

1 minute ago, Brick said:

The problem is Zergs are the ones using those tactics... 

We had 6 ships sunk last night at 4 am while we were offline, we got on this morning and by noon we had a zerg of 50 OwO banging on our door. 

They need to get rid of offline raiding.

If you were offline how do you know they used fire arrows?

 

32 minutes ago, Caldrin said:

I would think they are using oil plus fire arrows to do it.

Should not be stopped.. I mean sometimes it's the only way smaller clans can do anything against bigger ones.

Sneaking in Ninja style and destroying enemy ships. 

 

I'm sure damage will be balanced out at some point tho..

I totally agree smaller clans need fire arrows because they may not have access to cannons , ships etc there needs to be some risk for raiders that decided to leave the ships in shallows and bombard helpless clans

[Brick 11]

1 minute ago, slightlymad79 said:

If you were offline how do you know they used fire arrows?

 

I never said they used fire arrows, I was just saying that zergs use the tactics of sneaking in when no ones on.

[Caldrin 55]

Go and do it to them.. I bet they have a shit ton of ships that need sinking we did it to a guild that sunk all our ships when we were offline.. they had like 20 ships and big ones as well by the end of it they had none.. they have not been back since..

I guess they need some way for ships to be protected when the entire clan is offline but will have to wait for that.

 

[slightlymad79 40]

Poster if you really knew how to play the game & had access to a Galleon you would know leaving AI on cannons facing the sea absoloutly wrecks anything that comes near , if there were gaps in you defence then its your fault not the games.

Our neighbour has repelled many attacks offline.

Go watch a Chinese stream they literally have galleons and AI covering their bases . Stop calling for nerfs it will affect balance too much

[Brick 11]

Just now, Caldrin said:

Go and do it to them.. I bet they have a shit ton of ships that need sinking we did it to a guild that sunk all our ships when we were offline.. they had like 20 ships and big ones as well by the end of it they had none.. they have not been back since..

I guess they need some way for ships to be protected when the entire clan is offline but will have to wait for that.

 

So you're saying a small crew should go instigate a fight with a zerg? Makes sense

Just now, slightlymad79 said:

Poster if you really knew how to play the game & had access to a Galleon you would know leaving AI on cannons facing the sea absoloutly wrecks anything that comes near , if there were gaps in you defence then its your fault not the games.

Our neighbour has repelled many attacks offline.

Go watch a Chinese stream they literally have galleons and AI covering their bases . Stop calling for nerfs it will affect balance too much

We have 4 Cannon towers, all of our AI were killed while we were offline.... Cannon towers dont do shit to stop offline raiding lol

[slightlymad79 40]

I have it caught on video an enemy straying too close to the neighbour he gets sunk in literally 1 salvo so get a treasure map get gold sink a ghost ship get crew its easy 

ok read the post

 

Im saying watch the stream not instigate a fight

 

Again read the post cannon towers have 0 range you need mortars for those

Use ships fro max range not towers leaving un defended ships is dumb

 

Mechanics are there use them 

 

[Brick 11]

Just now, slightlymad79 said:

I have it caught on video an enemy straying too close to the neighbour he gets sunk in literally 1 salvo so get a treasure map get gold sink a ghost ship get crew its easy 

You caught an idiot on video, congrats. No offense but one stupid guy doesnt equate to the majority. 

All they have to do is stay at a distance and swim to shore, shoot the AI then bring in the boat.

[MightySheep 14]

Yeah I dont give a shit about realism or whatever, this is extremely dumb for game balance. HOWEVER, you very little defence at all if this happens.

[Big Bojangles 35]

This game is broken and encourages zero actual PvP.  While there may be a place for "ninja" tactics, there is a problem when the whole meta revolves around that.  Sneak in whenever you can to not actually fight anyone sink all their shit.  Set up a base on their island then wait to make sure they are offline and raid them.  Wow what a great PvP experience, so much fun, why not call the game pussy pirates you only take whats not defended.  Doesn't matter if its a small tribe or a mega, everyone plays this way because it is allowed and is unfortunately currently the best way to play.  That is a problem, I don't see how its hard to understand.  Fix the claim system, and make ships harder to attack when they are not on the open sea, or leave your offline raid zerg fest game as is and lose all your players cause its not a fun or rewarding experience.

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

5 hours ago, Brick said:

So you're saying a small crew should go instigate a fight with a zerg? Makes sense

We have 4 Cannon towers, all of our AI were killed while we were offline.... Cannon towers dont do shit to stop offline raiding lol

We're a 10 man crew that has to go a burn down ships of one of the local big 10 companies. We have to destroy their bigger ships to have any hope in surviving. Almost daily we burn down 4 brigs, and almost daily there's 4 brand new brigs sat there the next day. We enjoy the splinter cell, sneaky beaky bits and it provides us with content. 

I'd suggest, if it takes your company more than 3 hours to make the boat, then you shouldn't have the boat. Why? Because you're spending too much time farming/building than you  could be sailing the ship, you might as well be on the PVE servers. 

[Big Bojangles 35]

1 hour ago, ShoulderRabbit said:

We're a 10 man crew that has to go a burn down ships of one of the local big 10 companies. We have to destroy their bigger ships to have any hope in surviving. Almost daily we burn down 4 brigs, and almost daily there's 4 brand new brigs sat there the next day. We enjoy the splinter cell, sneaky beaky bits and it provides us with content. 

I'd suggest, if it takes your company more than 3 hours to make the boat, then you shouldn't have the boat. Why? Because you're spending too much time farming/building than you  could be sailing the ship, you might as well be on the PVE servers. 

Lol but why is this content why is this the game.  I agree if you can't easily make it your wasting your time, however destroying ships for the sake of fun or content shouldn't be the game and isn't PvP.  Make it so we can sail and fight on the water and not just grind endlessly so hopefully keep our shit when you don't get PvP'd but just offlined constantly.  Makes zero sense.

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

14 minutes ago, Big Bojangles said:

Lol but why is this content why is this the game.  I agree if you can't easily make it your wasting your time, however destroying ships for the sake of fun or content shouldn't be the game and isn't PvP.  Make it so we can sail and fight on the water and not just grind endlessly so hopefully keep our shit when you don't get PvP'd but just offlined constantly.  Makes zero sense.

Well once the ships start falling over, then all hell breaks loose and we have to fight off the hordes of angry nakeds whilst making a dash for our boat home. So I guess that's pvp. We're all employed, so it's not like we're doing this at 5am in the morning. Usually at about 7pm gmt. 

Maybe the breaking of the ship isn't pvp, but it is survival. Cant imagine we'll stick around playing once our grid gets absorbed into a zerg. Not into that zerg life. 

What your really wanting then is more ship combat, that can be found by doing exactly what we're doing. Going to a zerg, burning down there ships and poking the hive. Fighting for a few hours and then logging off. Atlas is basically Rust with more boats. If you want to use the big boats, you're gonna have to be in a zerg. 

Edited to add: Additionally, sinking a Galleon provides a ton of resources in a much shorter time than it would be to farm those same resources normally. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by ShoulderRabbit

[Big Bojangles 35]

3 minutes ago, ShoulderRabbit said:

Well once the ships start falling over, then all hell breaks loose and we have to fight off the hordes of angry nakeds whilst making a dash for our boat home. So I guess that's pvp. We're all employed, so it's not like we're doing this at 5am in the morning. Usually at about 7pm gmt. 

Maybe the breaking of the ship isn't pvp, but it is survival. Cant imagine we'll stick around playing once our grid gets absorbed into a zerg. Not into that zerg life. 

What your really wanting then is more ship combat, that can be found by doing exactly what we're doing. Going to a zerg, burning down there ships and poking the hive. Fighting for a few hours and then logging off. Atlas is basically Rust with more boats. If you want to use the big boats, you're gonna have to be in a zerg. 

I mean I'm not knocking you to actually get enjoyment out of the game you paid for, or even upset by what your doing.  I just mean why is this the game, it could be much more if they just had developed systems and balance in the game.  They could easily achieve what they are trying to do but in a more fair and fun way to do it, and there are plenty of games to take good and bad examples from.  Its just a lazy nonsensical approach to game development, and they even claimed they learned their mistakes from ark, when instead I have seen them make all the exact same mistakes or worse with zero "lessons" implemented at launch or even something that would resemble a PvP experience.  Its Player vs Offline Player at the moment, or people that play like you just to troll and make your own fun, still not a healthy or good PvP experience.

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

2 minutes ago, Big Bojangles said:

I mean I'm not knocking you to actually get enjoyment out of the game you paid for, or even upset by what your doing.  I just mean why is this the game, it could be much more if they just had developed systems and balance in the game.  They could easily achieve what they are trying to do but in a more fair and fun way to do it, and there are plenty of games to take good and bad examples from.  Its just a lazy nonsensical approach to game development, and they even claimed they learned their mistakes from ark, when instead I have seen them make all the exact same mistakes or worse with zero "lessons" implemented at launch or even something that would resemble a PvP experience.  Its Player vs Offline Player at the moment, or people that play like you just to troll and make your own fun, still not a healthy or good PvP experience.

I see what you're saying and whilst you suggest our actions are trolly, I don't know what other approach a game where you can have 100 + man companies. It's not exactly like we can ask them to adhere to a 10 v 10 man death match for some prize. There's no simple solution to fixing the issue of offline raiding. As far as I've seen, no other game has had a fair way of dealing with it. Majority of the victories will come to whoever has the most players.
I never tried Ark i must admit - Didn't get the appeal. 
What would you suggest IS a healthy or good PvP experience? 

[Big Bojangles 35]

1 minute ago, ShoulderRabbit said:

I see what you're saying and whilst you suggest our actions are trolly, I don't know what other approach a game where you can have 100 + man companies. It's not exactly like we can ask them to adhere to a 10 v 10 man death match for some prize. There's no simple solution to fixing the issue of offline raiding. As far as I've seen, no other game has had a fair way of dealing with it. Majority of the victories will come to whoever has the most players.
I never tried Ark i must admit - Didn't get the appeal. 
What would you suggest IS a healthy or good PvP experience? 

One that actually encourages PvP.  As for a game that is an example of what they want to do and how to make it work, you can look at eve and their systems in place.

[Bad News Bear 59]

Kind of wish NPCs could use carbines, could put a perch overlooking ports for ship defence

[HuiMoin 1]

I think this guy has a good idea on how to help smaller companies with this issue: 

 

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

1 minute ago, Big Bojangles said:

One that actually encourages PvP.  As for a game that is an example of what they want to do and how to make it work, you can look at eve and their systems in place.

I played Eve for years so i'm fairly clued up. 
Eve's an interesting example though as it runs a pvp and pve world (bare with me) on the same sand box. Any player that wants to just run missions and chill can do so with probably 99% safety from players attacking, whilst retaining the option of venturing out for pvp. They can build up assets to cover the odd pvp roam safely.

This game doesn't offer that. It doesn't give you a safe bank somewhere. Is that something you want? 
Sov/Territory (pre Fozzie) being about defensive timers? This was shown to not be a good idea as they changed it because bigger groups just turned up on mass with bigger ships and scared the opposition away. Thus stopping content. 
After Fozzie, things didn't change. If anything it only enabled more trolling with speedy frigs. 

Eve in recent years has done just as much to encourage pvp as it has to discourage it, if not more.

I actually see very little difference between our actions to get people to come fight, and the actions of Eve players. 
 

[Big Bojangles 35]

4 minutes ago, ShoulderRabbit said:

I played Eve for years so i'm fairly clued up. 
Eve's an interesting example though as it runs a pvp and pve world (bare with me) on the same sand box. Any player that wants to just run missions and chill can do so with probably 99% safety from players attacking, whilst retaining the option of venturing out for pvp. They can build up assets to cover the odd pvp roam safely.

This game doesn't offer that. It doesn't give you a safe bank somewhere. Is that something you want? 
Sov/Territory (pre Fozzie) being about defensive timers? This was shown to not be a good idea as they changed it because bigger groups just turned up on mass with bigger ships and scared the opposition away. Thus stopping content. 
After Fozzie, things didn't change. If anything it only enabled more trolling with speedy frigs. 

Eve in recent years has done just as much to encourage pvp as it has to discourage it, if not more.

I actually see very little difference between our actions to get people to come fight, and the actions of Eve players. 
 

Yeah I see, your point there I'm not as familiar with eve just some concepts that sound like they would work from others(like the declared war type thing and the your ship goes ofline when you do thing).  Regardless of using another game for example, destroying other people's parked ships while they are out playing the game or offline shouldn't really be a thing(obviously it would need balanced somehow).  Also raiding someones base while they are offline shouldn't really be a thing, and the claim system needs a complete overhaul.  So in a sense I am refuting exactly what the core game is right now because it offers little to no PvP.  I don't play PvE because it is just as broken and I enjoy PvP games for the persistent player versus player challenge that PvE simply cant offer due to the nature of it.

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

1 minute ago, Big Bojangles said:

Yeah I see, your point there I'm not as familiar with eve just some concepts that sound like they would work from others(like the declared war type thing and the your ship goes ofline when you do thing).  Regardless of using another game for example, destroying other people's parked ships while they are out playing the game or offline shouldn't really be a thing(obviously it would need balanced somehow).  Also raiding someones base while they are offline shouldn't really be a thing, and the claim system needs a complete overhaul.  So in a sense I am refuting exactly what the core game is right now because it offers little to no PvP.  I don't play PvE because it is just as broken and I enjoy PvP games for the persistent player versus player challenge that PvE simply cant offer due to the nature of it.

Unfortunately this game is a sandbox. Yes, I'd agree I'd like to see some protections especially for smaller groups. Maybe being able to store a ship in safety in a dock like building as a 1 per company. Thus the smaller companies can spend less time rebuilding their ship  whilst the larger companies that can tank losing a few ships and protecting one of their bigger assets. 

That being said, the trolly side of me was especially happy to see their resident streamer looking particularly sullen when he'd got to their dock to find atleast 4 sunken brigs and a variety of sloops/schooners on fire/sinking/sunk.

[Big Bojangles 35]

3 minutes ago, ShoulderRabbit said:

Unfortunately this game is a sandbox. Yes, I'd agree I'd like to see some protections especially for smaller groups. Maybe being able to store a ship in safety in a dock like building as a 1 per company. Thus the smaller companies can spend less time rebuilding their ship  whilst the larger companies that can tank losing a few ships and protecting one of their bigger assets. 

That being said, the trolly side of me was especially happy to see their resident streamer looking particularly sullen when he'd got to their dock to find atleast 4 sunken brigs and a variety of sloops/schooners on fire/sinking/sunk.

Lol yeah I agree that is funny and yeah its an open world sandbox mmo.  I just don't see how its a smart business decision to put the future of your game and product in the hands of some players without putting in any systems to dictate how that should work or even an attempt at balance to that people can have a meaningful and rewarding experience after giving you their money.  How in that business model are you supposed to have faith in future revenue when the person dictating it has zero interest in your bottom line.  Seems like horrible business sense and game design to me, but I guess only time will tell.  They seem to be making a lot of illogical decisions to me and all the people saying get good or join a mega wont even be enjoying the game once there is only a few company's to play for that dictate everyone's in game experience and tell you how to play when you log in.

[ShoulderRabbit 5]

3 minutes ago, Big Bojangles said:

Lol yeah I agree that is funny and yeah its an open world sandbox mmo.  I just don't see how its a smart business decision to put the future of your game and product in the hands of some players without putting in any systems to dictate how that should work or even an attempt at balance to that people can have a meaningful and rewarding experience after giving you their money.  How in that business model are you supposed to have faith in future revenue when the person dictating it has zero interest in your bottom line.  Seems like horrible business sense and game design to me, but I guess only time will tell.  They seem to be making a lot of illogical decisions to me and all the people saying get good or join a mega wont even be enjoying the game once there is only a few company's to play for that dictate everyone's in game experience and tell you how to play when you log in.

In terms of business, I think they've done the lot of us over. When they make the next game, they'll do the same, promise the world and everyone's amnesia will kick in, temporarily forgetting the issues they have with the developer.  But that's getting off topic.