Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anolytic last won the day on July 11

Anolytic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,865 Excellent


About Anolytic

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/26/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,305 profile views
  1. Now look at this

    I haven't watched the video to figure out exactly what is the case here, but there is nothing wrong with a trading ship like the LGV being repurposed as a trap or an unexpected hunting ship. Most pirate ships afaik were captured ships that the pirate put a few more guns on or otherwise repurposed for privateering. Devs have specifically encouraged this kind of thing by allowing us to put guns on trade ships that used to not have guns. I have seen quite a few privateering players using the trader lynx to maximum effect with guns on them. And I've even myself surprised a few people who attacked my trader brig and didn't expect me to shoot back.
  2. Unity 5 - Testbed Feedback topic.

    Many people did not get guns. I got 66 redeemables, including longs on my main. My alt, which I created on the Testbed for the first time, got only 54 redeemables and no guns whatsoever. EDIT: After redeeming some stuff I got guns on my alt. Double what I got on my main so far even.
  3. Unity 5 - Testbed Feedback topic.

    Nice! Let me know if you find out!
  4. Naval Action Meme collection

    The fate of the seal in Naval Action:
  5. Hmm. I've seen similar functions implemented on other forums I've been on, and it was not a great success as it drove activity away from the main forum for a while initially right after the implementation, and then one after another the clubs died from stagnation and lack of ventilation. But let's see how it works here.
  6. Server Health is a Game Design Issue

    As an RvR-player I have to agree completely. The mechanics implemented to make RvR more important, more involving, more imperative, at the request of RvR-players - myself included - negatively affected gameplay for the average player without having the desired effect, nor proportionally improving gameplay for RvR-players who asked for it. With your clan wars idea you have the opportunity to make port ownership changes by conquest mostly irrelevant to new players, PvE-ers, Traders and OW-PvPers. That is what I was most excited about, and I was disappointed when it seemed you moved away from this in favour of safe-zones but still having regions in the center of the map change hands. RvR-players cannot recruit or involve new players in our playstyle if what we do negatively affects the base population of the game. The game tried to do it by force, by making RvR so important that everyone would have to join in and help their nation. All this really did was increase the stakes and the pitfalls, and drive away players. Make RvR an end-game path you can be a part of by choosing by your own volition to join a war company with all the positives and the negatives only really affecting you if you have taken that choice. I'm not saying make it rank restricted. You can make that choice (and un-make it) starting from lowest rank all the way up to highest rank, but you make the choice yourself, knowing the consequences that come along with the excitement and beauty of port battles.
  7. Can I pay for premium account in Legends, but have my money earmarked for development of OW game? On a more serious note, this looks interesting. The payment model is pretty much how I imagined it. It is not exactly to my liking on principle, but I'll give it a try. The OW game is more my pace and the pay once, get full access model is my preference. But Legends still looks very interesting, and as it will still have the combat of the OW game at its core, I am surely going to sink countless hours into this game as well. I guess what I'm most wondering is, if premium accounts are monthly subscription based, will there be a pay once option, where you pay the equivalent of ~14 months subscription fee and get a lifetime premium account? I am sure that some players like me would appreciate that kind of payment option, and that with retention rates of average games it would also be economically beneficial for Game-Labs.
  8. Serious Exploits

    Please provide any evidence of this. Screenshots, video or F11-report numbers. These events sound like lag/bugs and superior boarding mods/skills. If any of this was to be caused by exploits it would seemingly require server side manipulation which is impossible. This accusation belongs in the tribunal and needs evidence, not just assertions. Why would someone who already had 3:1 advantage use what would seem like obvious exploits in a battle they were already going to win?
  9. Server Health is a Game Design Issue

    6 missions a day is a lot of time spent if they also have to gather and sail the resources to where they craft. With average of about 30 minutes per mission and 30 minutes sailing to and from, as well as some time just ordering and dismissing missions to get them in a convenient spot, that's 6 hour per player. And they also want to keep some of those hard earned combat marks for buying upgrades, upgrade blueprints and perk resets. If they all five lost their 1st rates in a PB, which is a likely thing to happen if people were willing to take risks in RvR anymore, they would probably take a month before they were ready to do another PB. That is the problem. Those five players, after loosing their five 1st rates, should be able to just sail home, all of them extract all of their resources and sail them to their warehouse, dip a bit into their reserves of labour contracts and materials, click 5 times and have 5 new 1st rates ready to defend or attack the day after. Warfare of attrition is only good for the winners, and with the levels of attrition we have now in-game even the winners suffer. The only winning move is not to play - unfortunately. In my clan, through the meticulous work of our officers mainly, we have reserves of everything from labour contracts through materials, to permits, that if our nation looses an entire RvR-fleet one day, our clan can click out 25 new ships within 24 hours to replace both ours and other clans' losses. Probably not many clans can do the same though, and even our reserves would only hold for so many total losses before they are depleted.
  10. Server Health is a Game Design Issue

    This post gives me great hopes for the future of NA. I hope that you take this opportunity to also rework/remove conquest marks/victory marks. The idea that was widespread on this forum, and which I myself hesitantly but regretfully supported, that lineships should be rare and hard to come by, has done a great disservice to the game. People buy this game primarily not for RvR or PvP, but to sail ships. By making it excessively hard to get to some of the most desired ships, players just gave up. The knowledge slot grind is a good limiter for both RvR and OW, but the marks simply inhibit players as well as RvR. If RvR was active - and one of the reasons it is not - even the winning nation getting the map win, would loose more ships every week than they could replace with the victory marks they get. And at the same time it is just demotivating that everyone in the nation gets the same reward for a map win, and there is no special reward or bonus to the people who actually worked for it. Players should be able to build whatever ship they want if they can gather the resources and gold. Clans that cooperate well should be able to easily and quickly replace their lost ships from their reserves. Marks should be only for paints, blueprints, upgrades and skill books. There should be a bonus for successful RvR to the participants. It wasn't too bad what we used to have when we got random resources dropped after a PB. It helped with recouping losses financially or materially. Conquest marks pensions was also far superior to the Victory marks system, but still should have rather been just combat marks.
  11. merge servers (PLEASE)

    That's an unbecoming way of trying to diminish an opponent rather than actually argue. I seldom agree completely with @Bearwall's arguments or wording, but there is nothing to warrant saying that his response was an explosion. His reply was measured, well structured, on topic, and on point, without any outbursts. The fact that his response is in 3 successive posts is in large part to blame on the IP Board forum software which makes it a hurdle to combine into one post responses to several comments spread out over several pages. When you ask a stupid or convoluted questions, you shouldn't expect a direct answer. It is well known to both of us that, no, there is no mechanic to reserve PB slots, save for having hostility points and entering in the first 2 minutes. What new information would you gauge from this "yes or no-question" of yours? The question itself is nonsensical. Reserving slots in PBs is not an issue here. "Reserving" players to fill those slots is the issue, as @Cornelis Tromp pointed out in his replies.
  12. Server Health is a Game Design Issue

    Legends sounds great, but it is the OW game that I absolutely love, and always will be. It is the OW game where I find something new to explore, discover and admire every day I play, and which allows me to roleplay and immerse myself in the game and the community with such time-wasting activities as making videos, newspapers, declarations and art. Some examples (I would put them in spoiler tags, but hello kitty IP Boards): http://www.danmarknorge.org The "hardcore sandbox" game works well for me because I enjoy all these things that accompany it, and I endure grinding and the preparations necessary between opportunities to really fight. However, I do need someone to play with - other than my alts. Please do not put too much emphasis on the "hardcore" part. I will be the last one to leave this game, but if all my friends are gone, I will have nothing left to stay for except PvE. I really loved your new conquest ideas, and I think they have great potential to make the RvR-game more spontaneous and fun, like it used to be a year ago when, barring griefing and flag exploits, there was something happening every night and win or loose you could come back the next day and try again, not having to wait a week to get a ship and all your upgrades back. I think that you abandoned too soon some of the absolutely best parts of your ideas in your clan wars concept and I hope you revive them. The ideas gave me great hopes and great optimism for the OW game. I want to support this game every way I can. Unfortunately, visiting, reading or commenting Steam forums is simply not part of my habit, whereas I check this forum here every five minutes all the time I am awake.
  13. Portbattle timers PVP EU

    I really think that they really should reverse it so that a port battle can only be activated between UTC19 and UTC24 (PBs to happen between UTC17 and UTC22). That way counter-grinding is actually possible. The change to allow activating PBs at any time was not an improvement at all. For one thing it leads to more PBs being scheduled at the same time accidentally, often against the same nation.
  14. Forum Merge --> Server Merge?

    Forums haven't actually been merged though. There are still separate National News and Guild forums.