Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About Random

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

428 profile views
  1. I have just over 2000 hours in NA, so I'm not entirely new to the combat system of NAL. I have played NAL for the last week and got to a Reno so far. Here's some feedback I'd like to share: 1. Interface and information delivery While I understand that a tutorial is in the works, since I don't know what will be included in the tutorial, I figured I'd list my concerns here anyway. The leveling system for both the captain and the officers is very unclear. I figured out that I do eventually gain levels and get more officers when my rank finally changed. Until it changed I had no clue when and if it was going to happen. It shouldn't be that hard to provide information on leveling, NA already does it fairly well. Similar to above, it is very unclear what the red book represents. I was able to figure it out eventually, but interface should not be a puzzle for players to solve... 2. Ships and cannons progression I am not a fan. I would much rather prefer ships to be unlocked by class. This will give players options to choose between ships according to their play styles. For example, while a brig can be an introductory ship to 6th rates, once a player gets enough experience in it, Snow, Navy Brig, and Mercury get unlocked. Those are somewhat balanced and provide good alternatives to each other depending on whether you want to tank, have more speed, or have an option to use heavier carronades. If you don't do that, you are taking what is so great about all of the ships available in the game and throw it away. Variety and choices are what makes players happy, rigid progression and grind make them quit and leave bad reviews... As it is right now, the Snow is terrible. Part of that is due to the locked cannons of higher caliber (another part is that it is rated higher than other 6th rates even though it is very squishy and the game has no open world where Snow is actually valuable due to chasers and speed). That dooms new Snow captains to failure and makes little sense. Why can't I take the same 6pd-ers that I used on the Brig, Navy Brig, and Mercury, and use them on the Snow? Progression is great at keeping players engaged, but it should not force them to resign to failure and to grind, grind, grind until they can have an even chance in battle. I can outsail my enemies, but if I can't hurt them, my sailing prowess is useless. Give players the tools they need to be successful and let natural propensities, learning abilities, and persistence sort them into PvP gods and cannon fodder, there is no reason to force that issue. 3. Basic cutter If that is the only fore and aft ship available and you are not going to add Privateer and Lynx to the game, you might as well take the Cutter out. It is never going to be a viable choice that players will go for and thus is only used to impose restrictions on players. It needs to be in a class with viable alternatives similar to the example with 6th rates above. 4. Upgrades/modules There needs to be more of a variety in those - again, NA already does it very well. NAL is not giving me a lot of options to customize my ship. When I unlock all five slots, I can have a fighting ship that is slightly better than stock, or I can have a boarding ship. NA has a lot more options than that - Speed vs Tanky, Boarding, Turning overload, Indestructable masts... all coming with drawbacks, allowing for a much larger range of customization. Again, variety and choices make players happy, let us customize ships to a greater degree. 5. Bugs/features So far I have had a rough time keeping my rudder out of yellow in a Mercury. Every second magical broadside from AI hits the rudder. One time I gently side swiped an AI ship and my rudder got damaged even though it never came into contact with that ship. Similarly, I've had a rough time with the pump on the Snow, somehow it gets hit very often. I've had a few instances when I received a notice that I sank even though I did not. Once it happened completely out of the blue while I was not engaged in any boarding action and had plenty of HP and Structure left. In that battle I also got a notice that an enemy ship sank even though it did not, it won a boarding. The fake "sinking notification" after successful boarding seems to be a recurring issue. Instead of a number I often have a line going through the icon where the number of loaded guns should be displayed. Not sure what that is... Perhaps there should be a "fight AI only" option so that players don't have to wait 5 minutes when population is low to fight AI only battles. In the long term if the game succeeds and has high population, it can still serve as a training mode since battle instances close automatically and players can't practice maneuvers. AI has shot through my ship on a few occasions. I first though that it was a bug and AI was doing some green on green damage, but I have seen this issue reported on these forums. I think that's it for now. Thank you!
  2. When was the game really good?

    Foe me the game was most fun in early months following the Steam early access release. Back then fights were plentiful wherever I went and people engaged each other with wild abandon and little regard for their ships. But I do not think that it had anything to do with any particular mechanics, but rather the novelty of the game. With time, as they inevitably do in most things, people naturally developed tendencies to game the system and the understanding that it is just pixels evolved into a burning desire to win at all cost.
  3. Learn Something About Customer Satisfaction

    If so many people "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" your meaning, perhaps you need to work on your communication skills... I still have no clue what you are complaining about and how you would like it fixed...
  4. Learn Something About Customer Satisfaction

    Do you have any hard data other than your subjective information? You bring up several valid points, but dismissing similarly valid counter points will not help you engage others in a productive discussion. How do people who like PvP ruin the game for others on PvP server? I mostly do trading/crafting/missions on PvP server due to time constraints that do not allow me to engage in meaningful PvP. I, however, understand that I chose to play on a PvP server and that other players could be coming by to hunt my trade fleets. I welcome that challenge and that risk as it makes things more meaningful and interesting. I do not wholly understand what you are proposing. Do you want people to be able to engage in risk free PvE on PvP servers? Please elaborate and propose something specific that would alleviate your concerns and provide a more enjoyable gaming experience for all.
  5. I don't think he said that there was an agreement. It seems that he is reiterating Swedish demands, though it is unclear if anyone ever agreed to them or to whom he presented those demands to prior to posting them here...
  6. Because the point is that these basic cutter shenanigans are intended to waste time of those who are legitimately engaging in RvR. Joining such a battle would be exactly that - wasting time trying to prevent shady counter hostility instead of spending that time on generating legitimate hostility. Such exploits are antithetical to the purpose of basic cutters in the game.
  7. Given how valuable various upgrades have become, I would consider removing basic cutter's ability to tag fleets at all. I've done so and was able to collect 3-5 upgrades per battle and a decent amount of various repairs. Since I was using a basic cutter, I was not risking anything and had unlimited repairs that helped me last through the battle. That just doesn't seem right to me; basic cutters should be a learning stepping stone for new players and a last resort measure for those who have managed to lose everything.
  8. Franco-Danish Trade Wars

    In case zee Germans come...
  9. Franco-Danish Trade Wars

    From whom would you defend France from Basse/Grand Terre? That location makes little strategic sense and two regions are definitely not required for "defending France". Sounds like a bunch of hastily produced bull to me...
  10. Ship Knowledge - A Poll

    I like the idea of such a system, but I think that it can use some work. I would suggest creating categories of fore and aft ships, brigs and so on. A ship from each category can gain xp for that category, but a certain amount of xp in lower category is required to sail higher category ship. I would also propose creating tiers of upgrades and letting players decide if they want to learn a new upgrade or upgrade the knowledge of an old one. For example, I can learn a low level version of Pellew's sights and have some xp to spare, or I can upgrade my pumps to the next level. The "grind" element is still there to keep people playing, but it opens up opportunities to specialize without having to achieve max levels.
  11. Fleet issues and suggestion

    I know that, but that's not always the best route to take for them... Say I have three traders lynxs, they can all go in a different direction and have a good chance of escaping, but there's no way to make them do so right now.
  12. Fleet issues and suggestion

    I went into a mission sailing my Surprise and having a Brig in my fleet. We had one Essex to fight and I figured that I'll have the Brig put a couple of broadsides into the Essex and then escape. But then it happened to me again... My suicidal fleet ship attempted to board the enemy and lost. This time, however, I explicitly told it to follow me as soon as the battle started. The fleet map/fleet interface acknowledged my command, but as I passed the enemy ship on its port side and turned hard to starboard, I saw my Brig lower its sails and come in on Essex's starboard side to initiate boarding. That's issue number one; why did it not follow me as instructed? Issue number 2 has already been voiced several times: why did the AI trade a slightly damaged Essex for a Brig when it won the boarding? Issue number 3 is where did the rest of AI crew go since only 110 of them went to the Brig and none were left on the Essex? Issue number 4 is why could I not retrieve whatever the Brig had in its hold? The interface told me that it had 22.9 something of something on board, but there was nothing displayed in the window (both of us were at a complete stop when I searched it). Issue number 5 is me getting double the PvE marks and gold. It appears that the system treated the battle as me having defeated both the Essex and the Brig, while I only really fought my own Brig since the Essex just sat there with 0 crew after taking over my Brig. This can probably be exploited in many different ways such as figuring out a way to have large AI ships board a small fleet ship for a much easier fight and quick PvE marks/gold/loot rewards... Now on to my humble suggestion: We have several perks that are geared towards helping individual players in combat. We also have fleet perks that do not give any bonuses to individual players, but instead allow them to add AI ships to their fleet. This is a great feature for traders as that allows them to transport more cargo in one trip. AI, however, is pretty dumb. On top of that, controls that we are given are severely limited. If I have three trader ships in my fleet and I tell them to escape, they will all go in the same direction; there is no way for me to tell them to split up other than to have one or two of them follow me. See above regarding my hesitation to tell AI to follow me from now on... What if by expanding fleet commands we opened up a whole new way of playing? What if we had not just skilled individual players, but also skilled fleet commanders? I would suggest adding options to tell AI to keep it's distance or to close in (for long gus vs carronades loadout), to use different ammunition instead of just "demast", and to be able to set course for each fleet ship similar to the way protractor works on the map. Add a wheel that players have on their screen to the fleet/map screen and have it show the direction of each fleet ship as it is selected. Add to that wheel a control tab that player can drag to set the course for that ship. I think that this will greatly increase capabilities to command a fleet in battle, while still being fairly difficult to master and time consuming in battle.
  13. Dear Sirs (developers) My thoughts.

    Fully agree as well.
  14. I want to throw several things out there and hope that some of them stick: 1. NA is first and foremost a game and it's primary function is to provide a source of entertainment. If it does not do so, it fails in its primary function. 2. Realism in NA is a relative issue and overabundance of realism would kill the game the minute it would be implemented. I for one don't want to have scurvy in order to have the game be more realistic. Nor do I want to fully comprehend the misery that life on a ship would be in the time period the game is set in. Nor would the realistic long and uneventful voyage be any fun for anyone... etc... 3. If people insist that the game is designed for a niche market, they should insist that the map be made smaller to accommodate small numbers of players. Otherwise, their opinion is worthless as they do not contribute to development, but rather throw useless arguments around just to shut down other ideas. I would propose that the current map be divided into much smaller regional maps that would have transition points that would take players to other regions and indicators of how well populated the area is. That way when server population is low, people can have an option to congregate in more populated region if they are looking for PvP or go to less populated areas if PvP is not on their agenda for the day. This regions can be closed or opened depending on server population in order to facilitate player congestion while still allowing room for expansion. This is probably not going to be implemented, but being absolutely ok with a huge map that spreads people too far apart from each other and claiming that the game will never enjoy large numbers is absurd in my eyes, so here's an example of how to do the opposite. 4. NA is a game centered around player vs. player contests, as such it is not dissimilar to any given sport. Sports have rules that can be enforced by referees and can be broken or obeyed by players. NA can have rules if developers and community so desires. We already have rules on the use of profanity and other abuses. To claim that an idea will not work due to potential abuses is close minded if you do not consider the fact that it could work better than the current concept if something else is added to it. Consider the possibility of adding a set of "gentleman's code of conduct" and an actual tribunal comprised of elected captains that would settle complaints and accusations. Again, if population remains low, their workload would not be overwhelming, if population grows, the number of potential judges would also grow. 5. I do not play NA anymore because it is simply not fun for me with current ROE. It stopped being fun long time ago and 5 minute timers were more enjoyable to me. I do realize that the novelty of the game for many players was a factor that might have limited gank squads back in those days and that correlation between my enjoyment and ROE could very well be spurious. The fact that the game in its current state is not fun for me remains true. Players leaving the game and server population numbers dwindling remains true. Patches and game updates not bringing people back remains true. Whether it will change upon release remains to be seen and I intend to keep my eye on it. 6. When someone throws out an idea, consider discussing its merits and how it can be modified and improved to create a better game environment for all instead of shouting it down. If you are satisfied with a status quo, there is little need to say it more than once. Unless you are providing solutions to problems, your criticism is hollow and largely useless. 7. If you believe that precluding me from having a choice in the open world game is a good thing, we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the open world. I want to have a choice whether I sail to aid my friend or don't. I don't care if it will take me an hour or a week to get to the actual battle, I want to be the one to make a choice whether I use my time to do that. That does not mean that I advocate that all battles be open indefinitely, I fully realize that if I am in New Orleans and my friend is attacked at Cano Macareo I should not be able to do much about it. However, if I am in port at Cano Macareo and my friend is attacked just outside of it, it is absurd for me to not be able to come to his aid. Unless you can tell where each of my crew members is in port at every single moment in the game, leave your "you are in port and crew is scattered" arguments to yourself. For all you know my crew is at the dock loading provisions and can easily abandon it to sail a short distance and join the battle. Unless you've installed a GPS tracker on my ship, leave your "you just sit in port" argument to yourself as well. For all you know I am simply switching out upgrades or buying repair kits. That one 30 second pit stop should not make me unable to help a friend. This game promotes cooperation and building relationships. Helping others and knowing who will come to my aid is a crucial part of the game for me. Without it the social part of the multiplayer game is largely lost and revenge ganking is invited, promoting negative interactions instead of good fights that inspire mutual respect between opponents. This is a game set in the open world, it should be fun and full of choices. Limiting either one of these will inevitably result in people leaving the game. Some limitations are expected when one plays with others, the extent of them, however, is subjective and should always be up for a discussion. 8. Discuss ideas and search for solutions to problems when they are presented. Saying "no" is not a discussion. Presenting arguments to illustrate why you said "no" does not solve the problem that was presented. 9. Thank you for reading.
  15. Please Restore the Social Perk

    Now who is assuming? I provided relevant information that (although as Hethwill pointed out should be taken with a grain of salt) shows a steady decline of the playerbase. Personally, I will wait for the full release to raise any alarms regarding the playerbase, but the correlation (not necessarily the causation) is there. I did not draw any conclusions as I don't have enough data to do so. Neither did I assume anything, especially regarding reasons why people left the game; I would advise you to follow suit and speak of facts, not suppositions and highly subjective assumptions. For me personally, the game was a lot more fun with 5 minute timers, but at the same time I was also subject to the "freshness" factor of the game. After 1500 hours of playing it (yes, I had a lot of free time) this factor has worn off, but as my interest in the game has not faded, I would encourage everyone to test the new "circles" system, reflect on it, and to offer meaningful suggestions and seek compromises as this game is not being advertised as "PvP or bust" game, but rather seeks to establish a thriving world of opportunity to do as you wish in a sandbox setting. From what I have seen so far from the "2 minute timers are great" camp, your arguments seem to center solely on PvP aspect of the game. If you only focus on that, however, what do you need this giant map for? It wastes time and limits PvP, ask the devs to remove it. Alternatively, realize that there is more to this game than your approach to it and that other players have their own playstyles and their own preferences for various activities. Respect their position and seek a solution that works for everyone, otherwise this whole thread, forum, and the very idea of testing are meaningless.