Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. If they did fire at saladin - everybody makes mistakes. they should find him, apologize, recover his ship or pay a reparation and if saladin states all is clear, the issue will be resolved.
  3. The screenshot said a lot you have made 3 shock in the battle I can only guess that you have made 1 riggings shock (71 sails) and 1 crew shock at least(90 crew) if a understand correctly you guys help the Noto players so I’m guess you did grapp and chain saladin #
  4. Taking an alt to an enemy side is not allowed in the following cases It locks entry to another player (or unlocks the battle BR requirement) Alt actively interferes in the battle or does not help in the battle If you alt joined the battle on the enemy side - you can mitigate the issue by clearly announcing its false flag in battle chat, surrender it (you can pick up repairs) or try to escape it from battle. If reported for alt interference in battles and RVR if reported both you and your another account can get banned in game (as it is against steam EULA - interfering with normal accepted standard gameplay in games) Thats why battle join Karma system is needed urgently. Take an alt to an enemy side once - he is now your enemy and can never help you.
  5. by the way.. you did the RIGHT thing asking the question first. This is how it should be. If unsure ask in tribunal. I should have said it first before the statement that it is not allowed.. for the clarity purposes Did you or your friends shoot at captain saladin?
  6. Hello Captain If a battle is open the game allows them to enter and fight in the battle. You can ask people to leave but if they dont - its because the game allows them to stay. You can ask but cannot force them out.
  7. Today
  8. With the recent update when the British send me a letter so I can sell the prisoners that are in my harbor each time they only buy a small percentage of the amount that I have for example 176 of 459 or 440 out of 915 so you can see that they don't buy them all but they all disappear at once when I agree to sell what they are asking for. Bottom line I am getting ripped off each time I sell. Do you think this is a glitch or bug or is this intended to clean out the prisoners from the harbor?
  9. Lo hago desde la pantalla de construcción de edificios. Ahí hay un botón, arriba a la izquierda que se llama "Todos los planos". Ahora me he dado cuenta de que no me dejaría seguir, sí que marca que no tengo nivel de astillero. Imagino que ahí saltará y no me dejará seguir.
  10. You should not dig the hole deeper by changing the story or reinterpreting the facts. You should admit the mistake - that you thought you were within your right to dictate the participants in the battle if you started it, and that you apparently thought that green-on-green was justified in this case - and apologise. It can happen, and mistakes can be forgiven. Even though the alts seem so sure of themselves in referring to the rules of green-on-green and of engagement. And yet they are so utterly wrong about the rules, which in this case are quite clear. A little oversimplified, but: Of course, if Cpt Salladin had been allowed to tag Lord Hartz on his own, then the other Russian players nearby would have been under no obligation to join the fight and help him. But instead alts were used to tag the main account and try to block Cpt Salladin from getting the engagement. This alone in itself is an instance of alt abuse which is not permitted. This is by no means evident from the screenshot. The screenshot does not show wether or to what degree green-on-green contributed to Cpt Salladin's demise. But after the engagement this was posted in Russian Nation chat in the ensuing argument: There are more actions than actual cannon fire that constitutes green-on-green. Blocking, ramming and, yes, pushing, also counts as green-on-green when it is intentional. Perhaps - as he should be. They were in the battle after all. They even instigated it. He should expect help from them. Of course - you are not actually allowed to be shooting at your own alts, which could be construed as alt-farming, but that little loose-loose situation is entirely self-created. Report it. Give us examples. I didn't see any tribunals by you recently. Don't copy what is bad. Don't use it as an excuse. Who? Tribunal that shit please. So it's this kind of whataboutism... Your recordings of others doing it to each other will do you nothing. But yes, somebody shoots at you repeatedly in a port-battle on purpose, then you as the victim can accuse that somebody of green-on-green. If it's a new forum user and he's therefore on pre-mod, don't worry. Somebody will be along in time and approve the comment. Moreover the tribunal can surely see hidden posts that are here, but may have been not approved by a moderator yet.
  11. I would be interested. OW has never been much more than a buffer for combat. I think it would work better as a chess board than a condensed sailing map. Sailing around is cool, don't get me wrong, but sailing on OW is idle time. It's not realistic, hardly strategic and frankly very boring and time consuming. NA would see more success if it's OW was like a grand strategy map, uniquely separate from the combat instance that over shadows it.
  12. this tribunal is so far ridiculous, asking a player to leave, he didnt so the british player sank him, is it required to assist the russian on russian characters if you dont want to? in terms of green on green warning shots were fired but clearly you can see on this screenshot the british player is the reason salladin lost his ship, perhaps he was angry he didnt get support from the other russian players? the community has become so poisoned i mean the amount of times i pvp and players use alts to close BR or, alts / spies in clans this game has become ridiculous @Anolyticyou response is based on limited and also some incorrect information, i see russian players alt farming daily, i report it and nothing... a russian player reports green on green or alt farming when it is not the case entirely (few warning shots then legitimate 1v1) and all a sudden its a big thing? perhaps you can prove what happened by using a log or something to see the damage... because iv;e been told and i fully believe none or very little damage was taken due to green on green, infact in other also legitimate battles more damage is given in freindly fire, perhaps the recordings i have of multiple port battles with players shooting masts who have not agreed green on green is also punishable in the same way?... take a step back here this is crazy lol one of the players would like to defend himself in this tribunal but does not have authority to even type here, is this the system? you have the right to enforce silence and wait for sentence?
  13. Buenas! Te transportarte a Remedios desde otro puerto con el menú del Astillero puesto? Sino desde donde accedes a la selección de barcos para craftear? Los bonus aparecen en el barco una vez construido, no se visualizan antes...
  14. Why so salty? And just an Fyi this is the first thing of yours I have EVER responded to so dont be a prick.
  15. I'm sorry to say Raxius, but you're just wrong here. You can ask him all you want not to, but he has every right to attack anyone who in the Open World is labelled "Enemy Player". You may not like it, but that is the price you pay for sailing together players from different nations. You may end up in a situation where your friend gets attacked and you can do nothing to help because the attackers are from your own nation. This dilemma we've faced countless times in REDS and whenever someone sails out on their non-Russian accounts they have to accept and be aware that they may be attacked by other Russians right from under the nose of their clanmates. You cannot do green-on-green to protect your friends in other nations, and there have been numerous tribunals demonstrating this. Of course he can. Have you not been paying attention the last few years? The only alternative is hardcoded diplomacy, where the game-mechanics enforce diplomacy, like we had some years ago when we got the western and eastern alliances. As it is, you have to take rogue players and clans into consideration when making diplomacy. How is Wasa vs Redoubtable a "fast kill"? He was maybe looking for a challenge, and it was right there. So he went for it. Diplomacy in this game is based on trust and mutual understanding, but it cannot be enforced on those who are not within that circle of trust. However, I'm not sure you can call it "diplomacy" when it is between yourself and your alt. I may ask someone in Russia to let my Danish trader accounts go when they encounter them - and they may or may not acquiesce to my request based on how good a relationship we have and my reputation. But it would be pretty brazen of me to use, say a pirate account I could have, to ask pirate players to let my main Russian account alone. Imagine then if I put an alt into every nation in-game and sailed them on trading missions all 12 together... I would be diplomatically invulnerable to PvP! This is trust you may well have between yourself and your Russian alt, or that someone might have with a friend they sail with who is in another nation. But the RUBLI player is under no obligation to share this trust of a, to him, random British player he encounters in OW. And not either should he accept that trust on the word of some Russian players whom he has never before interacted with or seen in the nation, and who in fact turn out to be alts. There is "player driven diplomacy" in the game today. But there is no "system". We have an open world with sandbox rules. It seems we may get a system with admin's longterm vision for the new Karma-mechanic. But as of now you need to dispel the idea that the player driven diplomacy constitutes a "system" which is recognised by the game or the game rules. We have no enforceable diplomacy in this game, which has been shown countless times by so-called "rogue" players and clans. I think the players in question should offer Cpt Salladin to replace his lost Wasa and an apology for the mistake that was made. And note that formally it is the players on the Russian side, that are on trial here and who committed green-on-green and other inadvisable actions. But their admitted status as alts means that any punishment may fall on their main characters when the link can be sufficiently proven. Note also that the 2 involved players have been kicked from the clan RED29.
  16. I haven't been through any thing from start in a long time, what exactly are your talking about?
  17. im sorry your opinion was never asked for, does this thread have anything to do with you??? or do you have to follow everything i post just to be a personal troll? the gaming community in Naval Action has become so childish and bitter the entire community.. is just childish and immature.
  18. Yesterday
  19. Kaptain America and Comrade Crunch were hunting with me in open world. They warned Salladin multiple times before the battle and after the battle had started. The battle started under Kaptain america and with the Rules that the Devs and Admins had approved was green on green action carried out buy the Russians as they started the battle and told the Salladin not to engage. My understanding of the green on green rules comes from the BETA to prevent Griefing and stealing loot. This player didnt care but only but himself against multiple people from his own nation. Also Green on green is sometimes the only actions left for people in this circumstance AND in battle with people who are working against you via pushing and ramming. I am getting tired of this Admins and devs. Follow your own rules, stop violation steam EULA for your game, Stop changing core mechanics.
  20. The reason why the players did not want to attack the NOTO player is because we were hunting together on open world, i was not in the battle but i warned Salladin several times in open world not to tag him we are playing together, this battle took place on the US coastline where we were grouping up to pvp against US players - if your saying that if 8 players want to work with someone and 1 player doesnt and just wants to attack him even though he has been for-warned before, and during the battle then it means that your system of "player driven diplomacy" is broken. as one rogue player can ruin all diplomacy! i feel ashamed to think you would consider de-ranking these players over 1 selfish player looking for a fast kill when he knew what was going on and decided he didnt care about the 8 players spamming his pm telling him not to attack. the reason why salladin wasnt the tagger was because the russian player fast tagged him to prevent salladin from doing it (to try to disenagge) the NOTO player was outside a russian port and was purely based on trust to work with him. please think on this properly, the outcome of this tribunal will determine whether many players (myself included) have any faith in the player driven diplomacy system) The NOTO player could of attack the russian but we also asked him not to as we were working together fight US players to which he agreed. I think it isnt fair to force the NOTO player on tribunal you cannot garuntee all players will follow rules in terms of player-made diplomacy and if this issue swings in the rogue players favor then its clear your diplomatic system is broken and you promote rogue players
  21. we were pvping with the british player and had asked him on multiple occasions please do not attack the british player he is with us pvping on the us coast and on multiple times he ignored that even before the battle we had asked him not to but instead he decided to ignore our attempts to communicate by simply saying no and even gave him multiple chances during the battle to leave and break off. and it would be a shame to punish us for trying to work with a player of a different nation purely because of a action of a rouge player who was asked by multiple people to please dont attack him we are working with him. and by punishing us you are basically saying diplomacy is against the rules in your game because you cannot guarantee the actions of every player in a nation therefore how could you try to work with players from other nations due to rogue players? speaking of which what proof that we actually did damage to saladin is there? a screenshot and wheres the proof that wasnt damage hartz took from kaptain america? wheres your proof we even did hit you?
  22. I like it. But what about when everybody sits in port all day only, doing their defence duty. Who will populate the Open World. I'm not saying this would be the nail in the coffin for OW, but if we make it too convenient to just sit in port and get insta-PvP, then we might as well shut down OW and make PvP lobby based. I know you wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think OW has its charm, and Naval Action Legends didn't do so well (for a lot of different reasons that might not be only about the concept).
  23. nope, but they wern't meant to, they were meant to help weight off sets.
  24. This is an Idea which we had hoped for for a long long time and which might make NA playable for people with less time on their hands. The goal: 1. Give people a way to quickly come into NA, have a real fight within a few minutes and the feeling of "time well spent" and logg off again. 2. Increase the amount of PvP happening on the PvP server. 3. Increase the feeling of danger when attacking an NPC. The idea: 1. When in port, you can click on an Icon that says: "Defense Duty" 2. When you are on "Defense Duty" and an NPC of your nation gets attacked, you get the option to join that battle as the NPC ship. (If you decline, you will be brought to the bottom of the Defense Duty queue and the next one gets the option to join. You have 20secs to accept.) 3. You will then fight that battle, gain exp , ship exp and some loot from that battle (amount is debateable), but you cant take boarded ships with you. They then belong to the Admirality. 4. After the Battle you are back to port. The reasons: Loki runes are a great way for people to get instant fights, but they are a loose loose scenario. The Loki looses time, that they could have used for farming or trading or grinding and gains nothing from it but the enjoyment of the fight, which is simply not enough for many players. And the one who gets a loki in his ai fight is usually sad because he took on bigger enemies, thinking he can easily kill them, but might loose his ship for this. If Defense Duty is there, basically all fights (lets exclude traders and small ships below the surprise) are pvp fights. People will be pvp'ing way more, everyone will get better. There are also advantages for starting the fight. The starter of the fight can pick his enemy, can pick his ship, which is usually better than that of the ai, will also get a pvp reward for the fight, and will get more loot and the option of taking home the enemy ship. Should there be a cost to Defense duty? No. It's there to make a quick fight possible and shall help people get real fights. (This is for admin:)The Defense Duty will overall reduce the amount of reals and loot that is on the server, because the AI fights become way harder, since they often are pvp fights. So it is a hidden mechanic to reduce the amount of money that is available in the game. The Loki is very unpredictable. This Defense Duty mechanic makes it so, that you should never attack a too big of an enemy force, since you are most likely to have real players in it. That's more predictable and you can adjust better. Thats nicer, than getting surprised in the middle of a hard fight. Being a Loki can be very frustrating, since you often get spawned into an already lost battle with one side already down. That would be eliminated, since you get the option to join the fight right when it starts. What do you think of this idea?
  25. I managed to get through the Battle of Cape Saint Vincent but the Nile was a cluster, I got overwhelmed and had to retreat for the loss. The Dutch battle following it is going to be another blow out as they outnumber me 2-1 in large capital ships.
  26. Those with access to Malabar teak will go for it. Those with access to African teak will use African teak.
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...