Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Kpt Lautenschlaeger

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

92 Excellent

1 Follower

About Kpt Lautenschlaeger

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  • Birthday 10/10/1971

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rostock, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

218 profile views
  1. 1. Abolish Conquest Marks. I like the idea of extra labour hours as port battle rewards. Should this lead (back) to SoL inflation, think about a direct cap: no player can own more than one 1st/2nd rate, one 3rd rate, two 4th rates, something like that. Depending on rank, even? 2. In the long run, think about PvP events beyond port battles: e.g. automatically generate convoy or blockade runner missions in border regions. 3. Errh. Dunno. Keep up running a game I find really enjoyable?
  2. Errh, you're right of course. Should have read more carefully.
  3. I read this... PvP marks conversion added to convert left over pvp marks into combat marks ...to mean that there will be a redeemable we can use for conversions.
  4. Added the ability to switch ships with fleet in ports (even without outpost) Luvverly.
  5. I tip my cocked hat to those masterful captains, jolly good show.
  6. Das spielt gerät aus den Fugen

    Ich muss gestehen, dass ich viel zuwenig Port Battle Erfahrung habe, um das beurteilen zu können, aber: könnte es sich nicht ergeben, dass je nach Fahrstil der Kapitäne, Ressourcenbasis, Hafengeographie, (Mondphase, etc. ... ) unterschiedlich zusammengestellte Flotten konkurrenzfähig sind? Was das Problem derer angeht, die außen vor bleiben: stimmt, aber das haben wir ja jetzt schon. Bin bei den Spaniern oft genug zu einem PB gefahren, und musste draußen bleiben. War gar nicht so schlimm, da gab es immer noch munter Screening-Kloppereien. @Twig, auch eine witzige Idee. Hat zwar auch ein gewisses Frustpotenzial, wenn man die passenden Schiffe nicht zur Hand hat, aber fördert die Aufrüstung von modularen Universalwerkzeugsflotten. Allerdings würde ich die Limits vorab bekanntgeben, sonst pestet man sich zu leicht.
  7. Das spielt gerät aus den Fugen

    Die Idee finde ich gut. Man muss sicherlich die genauen Zahlen austesten, aber wenn man dem Limit von 25 Schiffen ein Limit von x-tausend BR an die Seite stellt, hat jede Partei die Wahl ob sie (beispielsweise), einen Major Port Battle lieber mit 15 Vickies bestreitet, oder mit 25 gemischten Schiffen, wo vielleicht Fregatten mitsegeln, um entlegene Circles zu contesten oder zu cappen. Ich könnte mir denken, dass sich da zu den Port Battles - die vor dem Wipe doch eher eintöig waren in der Schifssauswahl - ein zusätzliches Meta einstellt.
  8. Das spielt gerät aus den Fugen

    Ich möchte dem meine Wahrnehmung entgegen stellen, wohl wissend, dass sie nur genau das ist: (m)eine Wahrnehmung. Kurz gesagt sieht es für mich so aus: Naval Action > Port Battles Dass die großen Clans im Moment alles daran setzen, Ihre PB-Schiffe (incl strategischer Reserve) auf die Reihe zu bekommen, sehe ich bei uns genauso. Es stört aber mein Spiel nicht. Ich bin zwar in einem großen Clan, level' mich aber gerade mehr oder minder efolgreich durch die 6ten und 5ten Ränge, da brauche ich noch keine Conquest Marks. Ich würde sogar soweit gehen: für mich macht es das Spiel interessanter. Die großen Clans organisieren Material, das sind Möglichkeiten für Minenbesitzer und Händler. Sie bereiten Port Battles vor und kommandieren sie (und lösen sie nicht bloß aus). Da kann ich selbst als kleines Licht in einer Privateer mitschippern und Kundschafter machen, weil ich eine Kommandostruktur anspielen kann. Meiner Ansicht nach werden bald nicht mehr die CM-Schiffe der Engpaß sein, sondern Kapitäne, die sie gut fahren können. Ich vermute, dass kein großer Clan sagen wird "Wir horten unsere CMs, und stellen so sicher, dass unsere Port Battle Fleet incl. Screen künstlich klein bleibt." Wie gesagt, meine zwei Pfennige.
  9. The most desperate plea to the Developers

    Or even 'Toss Overboard', to give it more of a period feel?

    [gets on the soap-box and takes a deep breath] I disagree. Naval Action, by its subject matter itself, is catering for a niche audience: people who are interested in (reasonably) realistic Age-of-Sail combat. This is not a mass market game like Word of Tanks or World of Warships. Tuning this to mass market preferences will (a) not pull in the mass market players, because they don't relate to Hornblower et Cie.; and (b) make all the niche audience grumpy monkeys, because these preferences do not produce an Age-of-Sail experience. Rather, define an experience, design it, and then be ready to tweak it based on the feedback of players who have signed up to your experience. Which, from where I'm sitting, the devs are trying to do, with all the hair-pulling, finger-pointing and heated language that's inevitable in such a process., [gets off the soap-box, looking for a cuppa]

    My assessment of your criticism differs in all points, with the notable exception of f.. Which is not to say that i think you're wrong in fact, merely that I evaluate those facts differently. This is driven by the following views: I see the creation of the 'Arena' (or whatever it will be called) as a good thing. First because it will allow me to jump into a casual battle every now and again. And I would think the same thing to be true for potential players out there leaning towards the casual. And second, because it may give the "leet PvPers" you characterised so aptly a vent or a way out. I'd rather get my face kicked in by them in the Arena, than lose assets to their mast-sniping in the OW, which I have spent time and effort on to grind up. As for the timesink: I agree, the OW game is time-intensive, both in terms of overall playing time required, and time-per-session. However, I don't see how to get around that in a game that, at the end of the day, seeks to evoke the Age of Sail. Steaming across the map in an hour would break immersion for me. Admittedly, I use the sailing time to paint up tabletop gaming ship models on the side, so it doesn't hurt me that much. The grind. This is purely a matter of taste, but I still enjoy it, at least for the moment. Cuttering around, or running 7th level fleet orders with the clan mates is fun for me. But I can see how people can be turned off. A usual, just my two pennies' worth.
  12. Imperial Fleet of Holy Roman Empire [HRE] auf PvP 1

    Bin gestern das erste mal mit dem Clan in's Gefecht gesegelt, und sehr freundlich aufgenommen worden. Ich bereue es nicht, Spanien den Rücken gekehrt zu haben. Go Knäcke!
  13. Are these type of players hurting the Tame

    As far as I can tell, the only accomplishment that accrues in Naval Action without the need for the player to do anything is Labour Hours. And Labour Hours are worth diddely-squat if you do not go out of your way to collect materials to convert them into something in order to get a reward-cum-endorphine-shot. So, no, NA may have its problems, but this is not really one of them as far as I can see. The other low-involvement set of mechanic are those which allow you to teleport your presence and your ships, effectively casting "Be where all the action is" once per day. Sounds like that will be remedied with Le Patch (tm). I will reserve my opinion on whether this is a good idea until after the patch hits. My bet is on "cool with 1k players online, sucks with 100".
  14. Rework of Alliances

    I'm inclined to agree with Bach. Particularly with the low player numbers likely to be present on the two new servers initially after the wipe, I think mechanised (as opposed to player-negotiated and player-enforced) alliances are too rigid. Would it make sense to introduce a 'notoriety' counter per player? Something that either states explicitly, or is tracked on, how many BR of each nation a player has attacked in the past, say, four weeks. So if I (Spaniard) encounter a Dutchman in the OW, his ship info would state 'has 42 notoriety with Spain'. Then each nation and its clans could formulate non-mechanised policies based on nation and notoriety.
  15. Limiting SoLs

    Turning this thing on its head: I grew up with narratives that had 74s (i.e 3rd rates) as the working horse battleship of the Napoleonic wars. With frigates (4th and 5th) being the main combatants in the war of 1812. So I would really like to see either an incentive or a cap that induces major engagements to be between 3rd rates predominantly, with the occasional 2nd and 1st strewn in for variety. After all, Trafalgar only had one Santi and one Vickie, innit?