Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/23/2015 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Hey there guys, I am making this thread because I thought it would be useful for us players to know how many crew members each ship requires to sail properly, especially when in the Open World Test. I did look for a thread like this but had no luck finding one so apologies if someone has already made one! I have added the OW ranks with their max crew now and will update this as soon as more ranks are added etc. Ship Crew Sizes: Lynx - Full crew size of 40 (Battle rating 5) Cutter - Full crew size of 40 (Battle rating 20) Privateer - Full crew size of 55 (Battle rating 20) Pickle - Full crew size of 55 (Battle rating of 20) Yacht - Full crew size of 40 (Battle rating 30) Brig - Full crew size of 120 (Battle rating 25) NavyBrig - Full crew size of 135 (Battle rating 35) Snow - Full crew size of 130 (Battle rating 35) Mercury - Full crew size of 135 (Battle rating 60) Cerberus - Full crew size of 195 (Battle rating 80) Surprise - Full crew size of 244 (Battle rating 100) Renommee - Full crew size of 240 (Battle rating 120) Belle Poule - Full crew size of 280 (Battle rating of 150) Frigate (Cherubim) - Full crew size of 280 (Battle rating 150) Pirate Frigate - Full crew size of ??? (Battle rating 160) Trincomalee - Full crew size of 315 (Battle rating 180) Constitution - Full crew size of 450 (Battle rating 250) Bellona - Full crew size of 650 (Battle rating 280) Pavel - Full crew size of 830 (Battle rating 270) Victory - Full crew size of 850 (Battle rating 300) Santisima - Full crew size of 1050 (Battle rating 330) Open World Ranks: Midshipman - Max crew of 40 Ensign - Max crew of 60 Junior Lieutenant - Max crew of 120 Lieutenant - Max crew of 150 First Leutenant - 200 Master & Commander - Max crew of 250 Post Captain - Max crew of 350 Flag Captain - Max crew of 650 Commodore - Max crew of 800 Rear Admiral - Max crew of 1100 Vice Admiral - Unknown Crew Size Admiral of the Fleet - Unknown Crew Size
  2. 2 points
    First of all greetings to ye all, yes yes i am "new" as it were! Secondly i am not sure if this has been talked about (probably has) but i was wondering if at some point recognition ingame will be possible? I mean it's great fun to see floating player names above ships but i am hoping for a more true to life experience like spotting the different styles the seafaring nations had, next to the colours they flew obviously!
  3. 1 point
    I have added a basic shipbuilding page to my website. It includes all the ship plans that I know about. More will be added as I discover them or if other people send me them. Be aware, I coded it very clumsy and I am not sure that it is 100% accurate. If anyone finds any mistakes, let me know and I will see what I can do. I am not a web-designer, so of course I know that it is designed horribly. I will not be adding module building or anything else. This is just a basic ship plan and materials list with prices that I have thrown together so I don't have to manage spreadsheets. This is more for the casual shipbuilder who doesn't want to get involved with spreadsheets and go all hard core. This will give you a list of what you need and how much it basically costs you to build your ship. You can select the ship, the framing type, and if you want, the pricing. Pricing of Very Low is the lowest buy price you can typically find in the shop. Default is medium to account for the high demand and low supply of different resources. Right now, because of the scarcity of iron, you might want to set it to a higher one. Again, I cannot confirm that there are no bugs but I hope I have worked them all out. If you find historical blueprints of the ships we have in game, please post them here so I can use the real ship plans. http://namap.neocities.org/shipbuilding.html Screenshots:
  4. 1 point
    --------------------------------------------------------------Standard Disclaimer And Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As it stands right now, crafting is fun and the pace of crafting is very good. Many players seem to be content sailing the ships as their blueprints are revealed and are not obsessed with long 'shopping trips' around the Caribbean looking for the perfect ship. I have spent a lot of time reacquainting myself with the Snow and I like it very much. That being said, the level of shipbuilding skill seems to be nothing more than an indicator of having more blueprints and having a bigger reserve of crafting hours. It appears (as I don't know the mechanics, obviously) that a level 1 shipbuilder and a level 21 shipbuilder have exactly the same chance of building a ship of a given quality. This seems off. All numbers used in the following two options are just approximations. ----------------------------------------------------------------Option One------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A level 21 shipbuilder has built several ships, has experience in shipbuilding. He has made mistakes and learned from them. He has broken numerous vessels and seen how they are built. He should, therefore, have a higher rate of success at building a ship of higher quality category, a ship with higher level attributes, or both. An example: Level 1 shipbuilder builds ship with no crafting notes. The ship he builds will be quality category 80% Basic, 15% Common, 5% Fine. Same percentages for attributes (speed, explorer, etc). Also the number of attributes will be low. Level 21 shipbuilder builds ship with no crafting notes. The ship he builds will be quality category 10% Basic, 50% Common, 40% Fine. Attribute ratings and number of attributes will also be higher. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Option Two ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps building many ships of the same type could be used as a way to improve quality and attribute outcomes instead of merely looking at player crafting levels. A player who has made 20 cutters would obviously have learned many Cutter-specific lessons. An example: Ships 1-5 80% Basic, 15% Common, 5% Fine. Ships 6-10 70% Basic, 20% Common, 10% Fine. Ships 11-15 60% Basic, 25% Common, 15% Fine. etc... ---------------------------------------------------------------Final Point----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I feel if either of these options are implemented, crafting will feel more like expertise. A shipbuilder with many levels of experience or many ships of a certain type could reasonably expect a higher-quality outcome. Perhaps there is already such a system in place behind the scenes, if so, awesome.
  5. 1 point
    Iron problem will be solved guys. We need to test the limits to see where they break. Iron was a first one.
  6. 1 point
    Unless you can capture ships with 5 durability limiting ships to nations would be more restrictive and unrealistic than free for all: French player crafts Tonnant class ship and it gets captured. No sane player would sail it because of the danger to modules => no Tonnant in British service in the game.
  7. 1 point
    Yeah, most of our veteran members weren't online either. More than half of the US team was TF and not TDA. I was really impressed by the US clans ability to organize together. Someone from TF was recording. I don't know the status of the video though.
  8. 1 point
    1. Rudder damage is still excessive when fighting AI. Not sure if they have magical aim or something because they hit my rudder constantly.
  9. 1 point
    Meanwhile the Spanish are sitting on their iron and laughing. If only they had more than six players.
  10. 1 point
    I like the map. It is so satisfying to plot a curse and to have a perfect landfall. The only thing that would be usefull is the possibility to add color or notes to ports. What I mean is that the ingame map get some tools so the map can be customized by every captain to create his own unique map.
  11. 1 point
    http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7082-connectivity-issues-lags-disconnects/ not the best explanation, but I hope to get it fixed in a next couple of days
  12. 1 point
    Make OW speeds (at various points) correspond to that of the battle instance; for example, the Cherubim/Frigate is very fast downwind, but terrible upwind, this is not properly reflected (from my observations) in the OW speed of the ship.
  13. 1 point
    AKD hit on my concern - people entering the battle and just leaving because reasons (fail team, you all suck and I'm not losing my Santi, etc). If there is no loss for leaving the match, whether you're winning or losing, I think you'll see antisocial behavior because people on the internet are that way. So if we accept the above, we have to ask "what can we do to encourage people to fight and fight hard?" Is there a shortage of people that want to get in and fight? Why, if you're going to run around the map for an hour, did you join an event in the first place? Put language in a pop-up when you click to join an event that tells you you're required to fight your ship, and that running around solely in order to draw the match out is punishable by loss of rank and assets. Send violations to the Tribunal and make a few public examples right off the bat, I'll bet the behavior stops pretty quickly. It's a PITA, but in the end, the number of violations if justice is swift and brutal should trail off to nearly zero.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    *Raises a glass* Here's to those Damned Rebels..... may god have mercy on your souls!!! Congrats Johny and to all the TF members.
  16. 1 point
    I just noticed that our clan has passed 1 year in age. I raise a toast to those who have signed with us and to those that will.
  17. 1 point
    Something to consider for both crafting and fleets is that cost has never worked as a method of limitation, and attempting to use cost as the limit produces a system where only players who grind 7 days a week have access to high end gear. IE, if SoL are cheap everyone will have them and use them all the time which is bad, and if SoL are very expensive to build/upkeep then only the grindmonkeys will have them, which is also bad. What might be better would be to have a system where ships take real time to craft (no PotBS insta-click a ship out), and the higher end ships take significant time to build, reflecting that real ships normally took years to construct. Plus 3rd rates and up would only be able to be built in the largest harbours, which might even have a limited number of slots for shipyards (making such ports extremely valuable in RvR). The cost of a ship within a system like this can be reasonable, thus the limit on SoL production is time and shipyard slots, not grinding.
  18. 1 point
    AI-fleets and port fleets: I absolutely hate the ai fleets. All of them! They mess up every battle in which they join! They don't even help the player that is being attacked. You can easily spike out the player from underneath of 11 1strates if you want to. (tried and tested) And NO, i would never want 5 ai frigates on my side when fighting 1vs6 because i want to be responsable for my loss, my wins, everything myself. I dont want any AI interfering with my pvp experience. Have you ever seen battlegrounds in any mmo that have ai that fights for you? No, because noone wants ai involved in pvp! If i attack a player close to their nations capital, i want PLAYERS to come out and help him. I want him to yell into nations chat: "Puchu, that goddamned pirate is attacking me in front of english harbor, come, let's kill that bastard and hang him from the highest tree!" Then we get a proper fight. Then the nations can show what they are worth. If your nation lets me kill ppl in front of their home port... well ... get your stuff together. (Or pay me to roam in front of another country's port, Or pay me to defend your port instead. I am buyable ) Fires: A strange tactic has evolved during the last days with all sol fights: Usually ppl will get demasted before they catch fire, because everyone is shooting sails instead of hull. So, once ppl are demasted, you can either board them or shoot their hull. If someone shoots the hull and they catch fire, ppl will usually not put it out to pevent getting boarded and to cause massive damage through self explosion. That "suicide bomber" strategy goes against everything that would be logical at the age of sail. Suggestion: Right now in NA, the lives of your men have no value at all. When historically the lives of good trained sailors and officers were very valuable. Caring about the lives of your crew (which could actually hang you any time) would totally change the behavior in combat. Effects this would have: (it would surely have more) 1. Surrendering would be more likely to prevent crew loss 2. Boarding would only be done at a really significant advantage minimizing own crew loss 3. Suicide bombing would disappear This "value of life" coule be achieved by introducing crew exp. crew exp could slightly improove ship behavior, boarding and gunnery skills. (only slightly) Crew exp would increase by fighting and would decrease by crew lost. In addition to that i would like to see a morale system, where the more crew exp there is, the more morale your crew has. If a very experienced captain with a very trustworthy crew attacks a bigger ship, morale should be high because the crew is like: "We know our captain, we can trust him, he knows what he's doing" But if a new captain with a new crew attacks a bigger ship, the crew should be like: "Aehm... are you sure this is a good idea..." The lives of "your men" and the trust of your crew were very important in the age of sail. That should be somehow reflected in this game.
  19. 1 point
    "In English, the noun 'alpha' is used as a synonym for 'beginning.'" NA has come a long way, and there's still a long way to go. We're not even in Beta yet (which is usually the last testing phase before full release), so I'd recommend waiting until Beta - at least - before you start judging the final product. I'm going to diverge from some posts on here and point out that, as alpha testers, criticism and feedback is exactly what we should be giving. Constructive, admittedly, but nevertheless our opinions as testers should count. To dismiss Madroc's post out of hand would be irresponsible. That said, I'll reiterate: don't judge this as a final product. This post presumes to know what the end result of NA development and release will be, and it provides feedback as if this were a finished product. I racked up a good sixty hours+ of gameplay in Naval Action in less than a week and though there were frustrations (it's a steep learning curve if you don't read the guides ) I haven't tired of this game. At all. Let me repeat: I've played the better part of one hundred hours of a game that's still in alpha, a game I paid good money to play, and I do not in any way feel as if my money was wasted. This is much closer to a full release than any other alpha I've played, and knowing that they're still pouring their time and love into it (with conservative estimates of full release in a year) fills me with confidence. I respect your opinion, Madoc, as a fellow tester, but I disagree. Regards, Capt. Blackjack.
  20. 1 point
    This is a very narrow minded point of view. No offense. While your arguments are sound up to a point, it's still overwhelmingly narrow sighted/minded. A proper Open World old ship sea game hasn't been done well in a LONG time. There are old contenders such as Age of Sail, and another awesome one I forgot the name of, but they are old. Hardly known by today's gamers. What the game industry needs above all else is developers like Game-labs. Instead of sticking to the same old same, cookie cutter games, such as Arena's, etc. They decided to place their bet, that they could create a modern day version of old games that were mind blowing for their time. If done right, Game-labs could make an exceptionally epic game. Will it be the most popular? of course not, good games, with good depth, great and challenging gameplay, and worth sinking every second of your day into rarely are the most popular. Despite the unfortunate irony, they decided to attempt to bring a game which the game industry is severely lacking. An open world classic ship game. I for one, completely support them on it. But I've gone off on a tangent slightly, because there's some massive points you fail to acknowledge. 1) This open world is in its extreme infancy. It is by all means so close to an Alpha stage, it practically is. Huge necessities, and plans they've had for it are not even remotely in Open World yet. 2) Judging ST vs OW when OW is at probably around 10% of its completion is beyond ignorant, especially if you fail to acknowledge all the devs have planned for it. With this mentality why do anything new in gaming? Let's make every game that has to do with planes, ships, or vehicles in general an Arena style, cuz #faillogic
  21. 1 point
    Same here, I wouldn't want an arena MMO, I would ask a refund if the OW would be scrapped for that. I remember when War Thunder appeared - some people in the combat flight sims community told me that it was a necessary compromise for flight sims to make money and attract a new crowd, but that thanks to realistic modes and single player campaigns I'd still find it to be a great flight sim etc. Instead, I discovered a horrible business model hidden behind a terrible grind, and there was no way to play War Thunder in a way that provided an immersive historical experience. It wasn't long before I stopped playing it and I won't go back to it. I don't want to see the same thing applied to a greatly promising naval sim, no thanks.
  22. 1 point
    Look, I have a very simple solution for all of you who have been spending the last month-and-a-half b***ing about not having enough pvp, or it being difficult to find pvp... Why don't you pick a neutral town .. like Las Tortuga, or Island Harbor... or something nearer the capitals, and just declare it and the waters around it the friggin' Thunderdome. Yes, there's not a magic little button that lets you insta-que, but there's nothing to stop you from all sailing to one spot on the map (heck with the new teleport ya'll can just make it an outpost for easy travel) and organize yourselves, challenge players to duels, etc. Heck you even have cross-nation chat to make it easier. 'But... but... but that takes work!' Well, yeah, but don't p*** in my sandbox because you want an easy button.
  23. 1 point
    Online will first go up and then it will go down. It is a circle of life and death for games. We have no plans to artificially create barriers or paywalls or other limitations forcing players to log in. We charge a good price, you play for as long as YOU want. Not for as long as we want. We have a chance to create something unique molding elements from other types of games into sandbox environment (defined antiganking ROE is one of the examples). We better have a best age of sail sandbox with some organized warfare elements (no competition in this segment) than just another 1000th arena game in age of sail skin.
  24. 1 point
    1) No objectives worth fighting over. They need some kind of incentive to draw players to a certain area, something everyone will want. Also maybe offer faction points only accruable through pvp combat that allows you to buy nice stuff. Even if you lose, you would still get some for participating, I dunno. 2) Not enough players...sorry but sea trials was not enough with 30 ppl...what makes you think in a huge OW it will be enough? Let's see what happens with 500-1000 ppl. 3) Everything to lose, nothing to gain for the underdog. I mean you lose dura, pay huge repair bills if the person wants to be a dick about it. 4) People's mood and RL stuff. Not everyone wants to pvp 100% of the time, it doesn't mean they don't want pvp normally. I logged on today while WFH, I just wanted to run logistics (moving ships to diff outpost) so I could kind of semi-afk sail, a dutch player in a trinc kept engaging me, I finally turned around and smacked him down. Other times I am shopping for either a ship or modules or proper cannons. I don't like fighting with crap loadouts really, because you know the ppl who engage on you are going to have decent loadouts. Other times I get out of a huge battle and I'll have like 10% hull left on both sides and ppl just start chasing me and trying to keep me in battle even when I tell them in OW I need to repair first if they want real pvp. I think they should put something in like if you win a battle with lower BR, you gain a dura pt. I'd imagine ppl would try abuse that mechanic...maybe just not apply it against starter lynx or ships with only 1 dura.
  25. 1 point
    Hi Guys: I'm JMLVQZ, the author of the Montañes study that is quoted above. First of all, thanks for appreciating the work. If any tecnical information related to this ship is required, don't hersitate asking for it. Note: It has been funny to read the automatic translation of my original writting. Hahahaha, really funny.
×