Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. I started to do proper datamining, and it turned out my curve-fitting was exactly correct, except the CL displacement power is actually 0.603 rather than 0.6. I'll probably be taking a closer look at the source code in the coming weeks.
  3. Hear ye! Hear Ye! The bastard swedish empire dastardly attacked the free city of Pasaje! In a swell swoop against the danno-norwegian nation they managed to take the port and a brutal series of rapine, murders and looting ensued! The danno-norwegian fleet has vowed to take revenge upon the evil empire of the swedes. "This evil act against the small danish-norwegian community can not be ignored. We will keep sending disposable ships to kill swedes wherever they may be able to subvert, harm or otherwise run a foul of swedish interest" one danish-norwegian spokesperson said.
  4. You can't deny the way it sounds tho
  5. Maybe they're ugly, but at least realistic. Since IRL I'm currently infiltrating pirate possessions in the Carribean, I can share this piece of intel with you:
  6. Yes yes yes yes yes ! Too many times we asked for this . No answer.
  7. Think about big galleons in NA :))
  8. This one is waaaaaay better than the blind random! I hope that most people will agree so it can stay! Thanks Dev's!!!!!
  9. Could be nice , but make them bigger , bigger towns , with more docks , cargo on terrain.
  10. What about remove it from Open World , add bigger waves in battle and realistic clouds.
  11. its really unfortunate that this option is still ingame, it takes away alot of the realism and immersive gameplay they want to create in the game. I personally feel like there should be pros and cons sailing in stormy weather, obviously you would have the option to sail with less chance of being detected and in my mind if would make alot more sense if the ship would take sail damage if traveling on full speed through stormy weather. I can also understand why they have it, because people can take cool pictures, but do we then want cooler screenshots where probably 70% of the playerbase dont know about the potential usage of it other then screenshots? or do we want a much logical gameplay where we dont have sonic radars on our ship which 70% of the players dont know how to use?
  12. One of my biggest complaints. Why can we not place barbettes amidships as it is historical as several classes had super firing turrets amidships so why is it forbidden in the game? Really grinds my gears to no end I can only place them for and aft. Come on devs fix it like RIGHT NOW!!
  13. I have found that the best way to get attention from the devs is: 1. Refrain from poking jabs, even with smiley faces, they are only human and also suffering from PTSD from all the abuse that has been hurled in the past. 2. Make a clear point and stick to it. In the post above you seem to have changed the point. It's now no longer a bug, it's a piece of game-play you don't like. I try to remember that for us this is play but for the Devs it is work. They don't have time to have DMC's with us on everything we might like to talk about; that is what the community is for. If you have a suggestion for game play changes there is a forum for that where you can have a discussion with other players about changes if you think it is worthy. Ideas which get player support tend to get noticed by Devs; which doesn't necessarily mean it will get implemented, because of other priorities.
  14. @Despe y cierra la puerta al salir, que la última vez que me preparaste croquetas eran congeladas de bolsa cuando me prometiste que eran caseras 😭 Es bromi, en realidad solo te vas del foro y así todo creo que ni eso, que es todo una broma, te tomarás una semana o dos de descanso, te irás de viaje o vete a saber, pero tarde o temprano volverás ;) ale un abrazo
  15. Nice addition!!! Helps a great deal when either landing troops or for those in tight to shore battles. I never thought of that addition, but very helpful....thanks! Oh, and by the way, I just noticed it so if it's been there for awhile then just let me live my fantasy ;)
  16. Would love to see updates to ports, aesthetically they are by far the worst part of the otherwise beautiful game. Unique landmarks and more variety in the ports would go a long way in making them seem more varied and less of an automatically generated placement of a few models.
  17. Suggestion: Dear developers please consider to add architecture style like other nations have in game for Russia, Prussia and Commonwealth of Poland. Poland examples: Prussia: Russia: Just examples above. This idea could make game more colorfull.
  18. my clan dont demand anything from small clans, but if small clans dont wont to contribute or invest in ports. why should they benefit from those ports
  19. Sounds just fine to me. If you want to save on cost and tonnage you have to cut somewhere. 18" to expensive? Use 17 or 16" or drop a turret down to 3 instead. Want that 18"? Then cut on components or armor. etc, etc. This will be even more evident in the campaign. Were you're given a budget and must work within it. If you don't want to worry about such things then the custom battle option is what you want.
  20. First of all, I'd like to say you made some fairly good points. My strongest point of disagreement with you is that you attribute game design problems and bugs to the game being historically accurate. If you've taken the time to read the forums you'll find the historical "lobby" is in fact most often arguing for gameplay improvements than rigid historical accuracy. It doesn't matter if a game aims for rigid simulation or an arcade experience if it doesn't play well. What constitutes that desired end state is of course subject of vigorous debate here. This article might open your eyes to the viewpoints and surprise you with how games can be authentic to history without being overwhelming. Regarding you first two points, without more information from you it is hard to figure out what "too accurate" and "too hard to sink" means. This is again where bugs or problems with how game systems work are attributed to the historical crowd. While we work hard to find and share references about the real accuracy and survivability of period warships, the current state in game is not a symptom of the game adhering too closely to those standards. We want the ships to be as accurate and as hard to sink as they were in reality, as best as can be simulated while being a fun and enjoyable naval wargame. That means all the game systems have to be working first, and when that's done we should reasonably expect a historical outcome. Right now that's definitely not the case. Point 3, I agree and you'll find that opinion is shared by the historical lobby. The missions are neither realistic scenarios, which makes designing realistic ships or operating with real tactics impossible, nor fun or well designed in a simple sense. Whatever the gunnery model ends up being, we're a long way from Emden vs Sydney in the scenarios. Point 4, It is impossible to quantify. I agree with you in some ways, but for that opinion to be useful for discussion with your fellow players and feedback for the devs you will need to elaborate. AI improvements especially for friendly ships under command would be welcome. Point 5, that's a huge problem. No argument here. Point 6, You were complaining about the historical lobby but the ballistics model is one of the things we have been advocating changes for the most! You (inadvertently) gave an example of how the game being more accurate would be more enjoyable. Point 7, I agree. UI improvements would go a long way. I don't mean to disparage you opinion, but the armour and ballistics systems are clearly not finished, buggy or the design goals need tweaking. We're a long, long way from being historically perfect. I think a working, feature-complete game with a "perfect" protection, ballistics and terminal ballistics model would be very enjoyable, and I'm willing to bet you would too. The frustration right now is coming from it not working, not working as intended in an "overly" historical fashion. Regarding battle duration, time acceleration. So far as I know, nobody plays Silent Hunter IV for 90 days in real time. I don't see why this is any different. (And again, the realism mods for Silent Hunter III-V not only make the games more "fun" in my opinion, they made the UI more usable, provided more tooltips and fixed major bugs) Here again is the crux of my disagreement. Everybody working together pointing out issues with the game, in design and implementation full-stop. That's what Early Access is. Posts about shell X not penetrating armour thickness Y at range Z are important. I don't believe they constitute pedantries because whatever side of the equation you're on, the gunnery system needs work. Most importantly, the gunnery system is not broken because it's too historically accurate! Finally, condensation aside, these are arguments about game design. It's not as simple as a "mode". You are already staking out a position that precludes you having fun or enjoying ships in a game that's accurate. You're ruling our a historical experience being relaxing, while earlier complaining that battles would take too long if they had the lulls in combat that real battles did. It's not as simple in changing tables so shells hit harder or more accurately, but the entire philosophy behind every decision in the game. The Devs have stated their position to be to err on the side of realism. That's not to dismiss your opinion outright, only to say that your contribution is important because within the bounds of realism your input can still help make the game more fun, identify bugs and inspire discussion with your fellow players. You would just have to accept that something can be both realistic and fun, and not attribute anything unfun to realism.
  21. Kubrat

    Clan Management

    Absolutely in support of this - especially number 9.
  22. Yes that can happen. The cases I am referring to is where a single player buys up several of my ships and they are from an unknown clan or no clan, then the ships show up for sale elsewhere. I had a practice formerly of putting trincs up at 100k or less, to encourage active play, but that is what was happening to them. Also Wasa's at 1m or less (when they were worth making) same thing. So I've been putting trincs up at high prices now, and just today at least one clan-mate bought a ship I had off the AH, at full price, which is not what i wanted to happen, but sometimes people don't ask or crafters are not online when they need a ship.
  23. I dont think this timeframe was choosen by accident, as it represents exactly 100 years of the golden age of sail
  24. People tend to have a preferred selection of items they make, just because of sourcing materials and the cost of blueprints etc. The rationale behind getting a higher level item is precisely because you have developed expertise in making that item. It does not make sense, for example, to reward someone with a elite pirate rig on their first attempt, but if they have made many of that item, it makes sense that every now and again, as a craftsman, they would turn out a really good one. It's not grinding IMo, because it is not a goal that anyone is working towards, for example i don't churn out ships, grinding, on the off-cahse I might get a purple or a gold. I just make the ships it makes sense to make, and voila, every now and then a nice surprise.
  25. @TAKTCOM Is that a burning russian warship? Impossible! Must be capitalist fakenews!
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...