Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Raxius

  • Rank
  1. 1st Rate collision Bug

    i think this thread should remain related to the subject/topic. and it was a request for an update not a demand. your post here batman is pointless. you are not even relating to the issue.
  2. 1st Rate collision Bug

    the United states left the battle long before we engafed the Locean in boarding and was graped below 400 crew (340) vs 1100 crew. and 4 other russian ships stern raking etc. please keep this thread factual as its clear the result of the battle in the absence of the bug. devs any update on ship replacement?
  3. 1st Rate collision Bug

    to be fair the locean would of been boarded by russians as the boarding process was triggered an he was surrounded by 5 1st rates. and he was down less than 50% crew. so please remove the pvp marks rudi has gained and please replace the santisima's the locean would of been sunk regardless.
  4. 1st Rate collision Bug

    hello support, please look at these screenshots. we were boarding a L'Ocean and both santisima's flipped 100m apart through the air and upside down in the ocean. as a result we have lost both santisima's and we killed the locean as all 3 ships flipped out. please replace our santisima's as this is a clear undenyable bug. Santisima 1: Player name: Sam121252 upgrades: french rig refit, carteghena caulking, navy structure refit. cannons: Long 42, Long 24, Long 12 and 42pd carro. Santisima 2: Player name: Raxius upgrades: Navy Structure refit, french rig refit cannons: Long 42 Long 24 Long 12 carro's 42pd. please replace these ships and fix the collision bug which causes 1st rates to instantly fly through the air and sink. please reply promptly, Raxius
  5. Well it's happening....(huge port exploit)

    it does not matter anyways, it seems you have requested the devs to intefere with gameplay. any more support required by US to fight 2 players??????? perhaps ban me too so you can recapture little river? pathetic.
  6. Well it's happening....(huge port exploit)

    hello to all, I am the person responsible for this chaos they clearly cannot fix. we do not have alts or use alts. TDY was my clan i was leader.. when i left i passed leadership back to original Leader who in turn left an passed leadership to a a player who he deemed fit to lead TDY no tdy member was kicked but we did demote the officers as we felt they would abuse the clan warehouse. making ports free for all is no exploit. players from TDY should of defended little river but they could not. US should of taken Little river from me after i took it, but they could not. please stop shouting exploit when the reason you are in this mess is simply because you are unable to fight 2 players. thanks.
  7. this game isnt world of warcraft it isnt even released how can you explain paid DLC?? there isnt even a UI and you want to sell content?? no, in seriousness with the introduction of paid DLC i will quit. how long before more and more content gets added via paifd DLC.i draw the line with first item
  8. i have already bought the game...with the introduction of paid DLC.... i will quit.
  9. perhaps PVP server should do a vote.. on what they want. my suggestion.. is simple restrict safezones to a specific rank (eg post captain) all ranks above would have completed tutorial by then and be used to game mechanics and therefore should not be protected by AI reinforced safezone of multiple 1st rates. second rule is captains above post captain that are attacked in CAPITAL AREA (so the inner safezone) there battles remain open indefinately for more players to join as word of the attack spreads throughout the nation. the attacker cannot be reinforced in this instance but the defender can. the reason behind this idea is to allow players incentive to use other coastlines of the map and not remain restricted in the protected zones. the current issue is too many players including veterans remain in the safezone to completely avoid PVP why should this be a mechanic on a PVP server? players complain to me about there low ranks being sunk , the problem is that the veterans are amongst the new players so they are caught in the firing line. one thing is clear.. server pop has made this problem worse and players are encouraged to remain in protected areas which only reduces content and makes pvp hunting silly taask as if you are pvping alone.. be expected to always fighr 10+ players.. is this the direction naval action wants to take in its pvp content?
  10. so your saying do not take them? well that clearly shows inbalance since pre-map winners have clear advantage and WILL bring them whilst others have to farm like a pig for same privilege. thanks for pointing that out
  11. back to the overall subject.... we play naval action for fun and a past-time and it is NOT fun to sink 40 players to obtain a permit (yes i know their is other ways but in terms of converting marks you will need to sink a lot of players). please revert the conversion back to combat marks as this will create equal opportunity and create more RVR. new players especially suffer from this update as they would need to sink 40 players to even begin opening slots on a 1st rate. not to mension risk it in rvr just to repeat the whole process. i am not inagreement with this patch i think it hasnt been thought through at all. if you want 1st rates to be more valuable make them more expensive to craft or introduce a consumer if you dont want too many sailing around at once for example an item that is consumed whilst sailing in OW such as provisions... or rations. or even make them 1k combat marks per permit.. but atleast allow it to be equal as new players will not use 1st rates even if they have the marks to convert to victory marks because they are too VALUABLE with the current conversion. with high hopes i wish you change it. Raxius
  12. 100 pvp marks for 1 victory mark.. i dont think your getting the point.. devs
  13. to elaborate rather than a weekly mark reward for ship permits you change to this: successful participants in portbattles obtain 1 conquest mark! conquest mark rewards include elite upgrades, labour contracts, potentially even ship notes for insta crafting. victory marks can again be converted by combat marks (so no restriction on ships) not only will this help with balance but you get what you want too.. More portbattles simultaniously as port BR limits restrict amount of players.. so this being said nations will do more than 1 or 2 portbattles at a time.. depending on their population and coordination to aquire the conquest marks to keep reinforcing their ships and portbattle fleet, adding ship notes as a potential item to purchase with conquest marks allows fast replacement to pb fleet. as this can also be an issue where people dont wana risk their ships for the rest of the fleet. hope this clears up my idea. please let me know what you think
  14. why not just revert to conquest mark system. change the mark requirements for ships so players CAN fight with same ships. However the marks provide other benefits such as access to elite upgrades, labour contracts not only will this encourage RVR and PVP but it will also add some balance to the overall map so players who participate in RVR and WIN can then improve their ships performance, this way players with elite upgrades in some respect DESERVE them and will use them effectively. therefore successful RVR provides a PVP advantage which is its own reward as you have set rewards for PVP marks well. just an idea. but restricting ship access to RVR winners in my oppinion is ridiculous as this will only discourage RVR and furthermore discourage time spent on the game.
  15. i think the devs may need to revert back slightly and add some AI economy. what i mean by this is: currently port makes money based on player econ eg they buy/sell in a port percentage is taxed and added to the cwh of owning clan. clearly looking at the ports on the map this isnt enough. most players are usually operating around the safezones and this is the safest place to have shipyards (excluding the nations without a capital). in essence here the safezones are preventing port income across the map. so i can only see 2 quick solutions. 1) add some AI driven econ to add to port tax ai traders generate money in some ports (plenty of good trading ports on the map) 2)restrict safezones for a specific rank eg post captain or flag captain, any rank above this in safezone will be unable to call reinforceents and shipyards are limited to level 2 in capital or safezone area's. this does 2 things. 1, improves vulnerability to all players and promotes pvp and non safezone hiding, allows players to explore the map and get out more because it will be in their interest to do so. ports will then generate money from both player and AI this way ports will make money most of the time and will be worth fighting for. please let me know what you think of these suggestions and discuss. i hope something somewhere changes in the current RVR/port system around econ which will promote pvp and competition. thanks