Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/02/2019 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Captains! Next patch will make some big overhaul towards the endgame content of RvR. We're aiming to provide more tactical experience, where every port counts, and where every battle might be different. Here are the patch notes for upcoming changes: 1) Battle Rating lowered, and varied All ports BR have been significantly lowered to very the gameplay and make it more in line with historical accuracy. "Trafalgar-like" battles will be held only on well prepared attacks on the best ports in the game (the 55 upgrade points). BR for each port could be increased by up to 20% by attacking side with proper preparation, which will be discussed later in that post. Base BR for ports with 55 points - 9800 BR Base BR for ports with 50 points - 7840 BR with limitation of maximum 2nd rate ships beeing able to enter, with one 1st rate allowed as a flagship Base BR for ports with 40 points - 5880 BR with limitation of maximum 3rd rate ships beeing able to enter, with one 2nd rate allowed as a flagship Base BR for ports with 30 points - 3920 BR with limitation of maximum 4th rate ships beeing able to enter, with one 3rd rate allowed as a flagship Each of the value can be raised by preparation, up to respectively 11760, 9400, 7050, 4700. Of course, BR limits for shallow ports will be lower, but designed in the same way - with smallest shallows beeing a place for a rather 10v10 battle, while only Nassau beeing able to hold all 25v25 battle. 2) Conquer stages To capture a port, a nation will have to follow few stages, while defenders will be able to interfere with the preparation at all of the stages. - Stage 1 - Planning and hostility Old-school mechanic of hostility missions. If Hostility will be succesfully raised towards 100%, the invasion preparation begins. At this point, defender cannot change the timer of the port anymore, until the invasion won't be cancelled or repelled. - Stage 2 - Preparation When a nation decide to attack the port, they have to make a proper investments towards it. In line with the Frontline mechanic, they have to deliver to the port allowing the attack proper amount of troops in preparation for the attack. Regiments of troops will be available to purchase in any port hold by the nation for at least 2 weeks, their capital, or a free port if nation does not have any of the above. Every nation will have their own regiment "goods" so it won't be available to purchase invasion troops by an alts, by trading from different nation, or capture them from enemy ships. However, if You manage to capture a transport ship with regiment troops, You can always sell it in a free port for a "ransom" from releasing the prisoners. Amount of the Regiments required to launch the attack, will vary depending on the quality of the attacking port, with 55 points requiring most troops prepared for the invasion. Price of the Regiments will also be variable, and will be raised by 50% percent of base cost for each failed offensive Port Battle, as morale of troops will get lowered and they will require higher wage. Price will also drop by 5% per day, which mean after 10 days of unsuccesfull attack, soldiers will already forget about a loss and will be eager to fight again. However, attacking again just after hostility lock wears off, will require invading force to commit 40% more resources, and more if a third, fourth, etc attacks will be issued. Preparation stage takes 2 days, when attacking side will try to deliver troops required for invasion, while defender will have a chance to stop the transports, and sink them before they reach the port which prepares the attack. When attacker delivers 100% of required amount, the Port Battle will be set in the middle of the selected timer (f.e. timer of 18-21 will set a PB at 1930). Even after delivering the required amount, the extra deliveries can be made to increase the BR of the Port Battle. Bringing 150% of required amount of troops will resul in 20% increased BR of the port. - Stage 3 - Port Battle Nations participate in the Port Battle. If attacker wins, he takes over the port. If defenders win, the clan owning the port will have an option to either receive Doubloons as ransom for captured troops, or deny it, which will increase another 20% raise of the regiment price of attacking nation. 3) Garrisons Nation will be able to set up some of the cities as "Garrisons" for the specific county. Garrisons will be port patrolling the waters of the county, succesfully preventing an attack against other ports in that nation. Nation will be able to choose up to 2 ports per county, each with significant maintance cost (150k per day). To have an equal battle for ports beeing protected by Garrisons, attacking side will need to first take them out. Every active Garrison will reduce the amount of BR available for protected ports by 10%, but the battle for Garrisoned ports will always be equal. Example: Santo Domingo is Garrisoned by Bani and Higuey. The base BR for Santo Domingo is 9800 BR. If a nation decides to attack it straight away, it will have to fight a battle of 9800 vs 7840 (10% BR penalty for each garrison) After taking out Higuey, they will have an option to either attack Santo Domingo in 9800 vs 8820 battle, or take out Bani as well, in order to get an equal battle for Santo Domingo. SIDE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGES: - Easier acces to PB's for lower rank players - Multiflipping beeing a costly action - Continous, unsuccesfull attacks will snowball the price of each other invasion - Varied battles with many more ships beeing RvR-able - More tactical gameplay - Possibly more Port Battles, as some of them would take place in ports a nation "can-afford-to-loose" rather than beeing "Life-death" scenario A day of implementation is unknown.
  2. 5 points
    Quelle tristesse ces échanges..... A mon grand regret, je pense qu'il n'y aura jamais de réconciliation et donc d'accord possible. Trop de rancœur, d'inintelligence, de méchanceté, d'impolitesse.. Nous devrions tous JOUER sous la même bannière, passer du bon temps, nous respecter et faire de ce jeux un centre d’intérêt majeur pour de futurs autres joueurs. Aujourd’hui ce n'est pas le cas car vous avez dégoûté par vos échanges puérils et immatures les joueurs de valeur qui recherchaient du jeux et rien que du jeux. Le jeux est mort, pas seulement à cause des développeurs, mais également parce que vous avez tout fait pour que nous allions tous voir ailleurs... Prenez en tous conscience. Et pour ceux qui le souhaitent encore # RESPECT JOUONS Bien cordialement à tous
  3. 5 points
    Start punching holes in the bottom of your ship. Do you want EVERYTHING done for you?!
  4. 4 points
    Captains, At the moment players experience problems with login on the server, the problem is under investigation, we will keep you informed. Sorry for the inconvenience
  5. 3 points
    A lot of naval game start the player off with historical countries, but you know how to play these countries optimally by reading history, so it's less interesting. What if the campaign's world map is randomly generated? Or at least it could be on good old Earth, but countries' borders are randomized, and you'd have to work with the resources and constraints of that randomly generated country. Could spice things up.
  6. 3 points
    Hello, I would like to offer some insight into Japanese naming conventions in hopes the current state of the name list for Japanese ships is changed. I have notices some fairly inappropriate names for Japanese ships here and there. Japanese Ships tend to follow a fairly simple naming convention with some exceptions and odd balls now and then. Pre Dreads, Armored cruisers, Heavy Cruisers,some Gunboats, and battlecruisers, have carried names from Mountains. Ex: Atago, Ibuki, Haruna, Akagi, Kasuga. Semi-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, Super dreadnoughts, battleships, and super battleships have carried the archaic names from provinces. Ex: Nagato, Setsu, Musashi, Tosa. Light cruisers, some un protected cruisers, and some gun boats had names of rivers: Tatsuta, Banjo, Chikuma. Destroyers are the most fun with names derived from a number of things but mostly Natural phenomena or trees, Ex: Oboro(moonlight), Murakumo(village clouds), Inazuma(sudden lightning), Matsu(pine tree), Momo(peach tree) Torpedo boats have carried names relating to birds, Chidori(1000 birds), Tomozuru(friendly crane), Kiji (pheasant) protected cruisers seem to have names of Islands, but some are from places relating to rivers, gorges, valleys, and other land masses that are related to water. Ex Takachiho, Unebi, Chiyoda, Tone(both a river, and a river valley) Carries have always been named after birds, however 3 exceptions blare Kaga, Akagi, and Shinano, Kaga and Shinanao were battleships and are named after provinces, and Akagi a battle cruiser is a mountain. Ex: Hosho(flying phoenix), Zuikaku (lucky crane) Junyo (peregrine falcon?) Corvettes are all over the place mountains, provinces, and rives, Ex: Tenryu, Yamato, Hiei Japan only had 2 "modern" Ironclads Fuso, and Chinyen. Fuso is a province name, and Chenyen was captrued from China, its name was just adapted to the Japanese pronunciation. I would be happy to help develop a full name list of both used and suitable names for differing ship types that are historical and follow Japanese naming conventions. I work in Japan, and speak it as a second language, I am also a member of the Millatery Historical society the Saiki Rekishinkai. If Voice acting becomes a thing I would know several people who would be interested in contributing.
  7. 3 points
    @Cptbarney I agree. I always smile when people ask for realism. You see I work in the movie industry. I know for a fact that a true and accurate movie about ww1 would repeal people. It would take a amazing cinematography and acting to make a story were a guy wait in the cold mud interesting. Just to have him to run across the killings field in the last 5 minutes. What people want is a good representation of reality, not reality itself. Now, for this game what does it should means?
  8. 3 points
    Could have an option to turn them off or limited so like this. Option 1: No CV's. Option 2: Limited CV's (so 1918-1926 cv's). Option 3: Full CV's (1918-194X Whenever the lastest date is for this game). Since this game will cover into the 1930's at least and the 1940's at most i guess we will expect carriers in one way or another, i have feeling it will probs be a major update or optional DLC. Eitherway this gives both parties the options to include CV's in campaigns, custom battles, Admirals college, naval academy. Etc. Without comprimising player expectations and fun i guess. EDIT: Last few words added in.
  9. 3 points
    Captains, the problem is being investigated
  10. 3 points
    @Raspoutine : Dans la mesure où la date butoire est dépassée et que les problèmes soulevés dans les derniers posts semblent une difficulté majeure à surmonter pour eux, autant arrêter de se prendre la tête avec cette proposition et continuer comme avant.
  11. 3 points
    I read that Title, and i dont think of Huge silly project ships, I rather think of Less typical ship designs, ships i would like to see such as, Chen Yuen [ing][/img] or Itskushima
  12. 3 points
    I play on PVP server but I must confess that all that jazz (set up by PVP players) about how good was having loki in PVE server did make no sense. Point is not PVP itself .... point is NON CONSENSUAL PVP. Peace server could allow consensual PVP with no problem on the side of PVE players (I guess). But the reason why devs do not put consensual PVP in peace server it that too many players from war server will transfer there to have fair fights and the population of war server - which, we shall adimit it, is the heaven of unfair fights - would get a heavy hit (which is not what it needs right now). On ther other side, putting non consensual PVP in peace server would have induced quite some PVPers to flock there just to harrass PVE players and peace server would have got a population hit (which would have been a disaster for that server). So basically PVP players advocating for loki rune in PVE server were just supporting a change that would have killed a server where they did not play in, just to have a couple of months of fun clubbing carebears. Devs just made the right choice leaving peace server in peace.
  13. 3 points
    Just glancing over the records, it looks like the vast majority were lost to torpedos / mines and capsizing from flooding. Magazine explosions come in second. Fire should still be a factor though; just not a fatal one. There are more than a few instances where crews were forced away from their stations by fire (or more accurately; smoke from the fire).
  14. 2 points
    Hello, I know alot happened and I know the developers have good intention in the loki rune. PvE may not have liked it and I am sorry many work was wasted but I still want to thank the team for removing it for us. It is not something we take for granted. I think it was unfair to you guys that some evil people review bomb the game, and it I do not agree to call dev stupid or idiot. That is no way to treat people. I cannot say for all PvE server but I know some people and me appreciate it ^^
  15. 2 points
    friends, happy to see that the game is developing and does not remain without the development and development of the game world. my offer to edit for clans for additional purchase in the game store, of course the criteria after approval of the administration. Examples of clan flags can already be found on the Internet:
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    Yep, you're exactly right. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension. If anyone would like more disinformation, feel free to contact me. : )
  18. 2 points
    I'd love to see some of the really doofy french pre deadnoughts like the Carnot or Massena. I don't know why but I just love the fancifully horrible design of their patch work fleet, with their waddly tumblehome hulls and hotel block super structures.
  19. 2 points
    Naming of Warships in the Imperial Japanese Navy, by William Lise
  20. 2 points
    v8.16 2019-11-02 Speed improved, especially for slow connections and slow computers ship compare: calculation of modifiers corrected (combination of percentage and absolute values) ship compare: search in permanent upgrade select added
  21. 2 points
  22. 2 points
    Im fine with the somewhat high accuracy as this would make the game unbearably boring and immensly frustrating just trying to basic things. Also most of the fun is watching the fat metal things blow each other up. For the sake of game balance i guess modern accuracy could be tuned down but not too much and maybe close range to knife range accuracy could be increased considerably (i mean i doubt you can miss a ship 0.3km away from you unless your a stormtrooper or just aiming at something else entirely).
  23. 2 points
    @Inkpls hurry up before this guy has a heartattack😉
  24. 2 points
    Finally get the kids off the PC and I get Loading screen of doom....at this rate ill have to do the washing up!
  25. 2 points
    Is something wrong with the game, cant get in....
  26. 2 points
    But what about submarines?
  27. 2 points
  28. 2 points
  29. 2 points
  30. 2 points
  31. 2 points
    Haha, you are not by chance an alt of admin and placed a dev announcement in the wrong section of the forum?
  32. 2 points
    I figured out secondary hit rate/destroyer main battery hit rate for 4" guns was about 1 hit in 1140 shots fired... 2" wasn't much worse at 1 in 1280 shots fired...which is abysmal to say the least. And this was against torpedo boats. Might be higher vs larger ships but this is where it count's and that quite simply isn't workable.
  33. 2 points
    Unknown battle fleet before its total destruction at the hands of a super battleship.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    bulkheads/damage system are a general problem right now. You can make ship shattering damage, damage that would break a ship in half in RL and in game its still sits with 5% structure and fires back at you. I hope that the dev either rework damage saturation or that if crew becomes a factor, the problem is solved.
  36. 2 points
    I'd rather see TBs take more damage from hits rather than be easier to hit. Their only real defense should be avoiding getting hit. That they can withstand multiple hits from 4", 5", and even 6" weaponry feels really far off the mark for me.
  37. 2 points
    I tend to agree, secondaries do work pretty well.
  38. 2 points
    you can change your reviews on steam. I believe a recent steam update reminds you if you want to update your review after a certain amount of time too.
  39. 2 points
    C'est très simple : On construit un réseau d'amis dans NA, (pour moi c'était l'Espagne depuis 2016) on s'habitue à jouer avec un groupe de joueurs, ceux-ci deviennent des joueurs aguerris, ils connaissent les exigences de NA, ils comptent sur d'autres clans qui n'ont pas la même maitrise du jeux, ces derniers se sentent "dirigés" et "dépendants" du clan des aguerris...resultats, des rivalités, des critiques, des oppositions systématiques par principe, etc... Du coup, le groupe de joueurs aguerris veut continuer de se développer et de s'améliorer, mais ça n'est plus possible de le faire dans leur propre Faction. Ils déménagent après avoir épuisé toutes les solutions d'apaisement. Ces joueurs n'ont pas "abandonné" leur Faction, ils ont juste opté pour la seule solution qui leur permet d'évoluer dans ce jeux, en se rapprochant d'autres clans pouvant leur offrir ces conditions positives d'évolution. Il vous semblerait plus digne d'arréter de jouer plutôt que de quitter sa Faction native ? c'est un point de vue L'autre point de vue, celui de ces joueurs qui aiment férocement ce jeux, est de privilégier le fun entre amis et de s'adapter sans état d'âme, un mode de survie que beaucoup on suivit. Encore une fois, les NN ne sont pas la cause de l'affaiblissement des FR, mais plutôt la conséquence. Idem pour les ex-VLTRA chez les ESP. Ces deux Factions me tiennent à coeur, elle sont malheureusement victimes de leur propre communauté avec cette particularité latine. (du genre: un stade de foot avec 40 000 entraineurs au lieu de spectateurs...). Elles sont toutes deux incapables d'accepter/respecter un groupe plus performant, de reconnaitre/admettre la valeur d'autres joueurs, d'adhérer à un objectif commun pour le bien de leur Faction, etc... De voire évoluer positivement FR et ESP améliorerait également la santé du server, peu importe la manière le résultat prévaudrait.
  40. 2 points
  41. 2 points
    I have thought about it and decided against it. It is just a matter of a few days when the number is back to normal. After that the npc battles are as important as the player battles.
  42. 1 point
    I think several nations have this issue. You would like to build a nation up but there are not enough players to do so. There are also almost no players to play with so you think about leaving your nation and recapture the ports. Which would also mean you would kill this nation completly I make it quick, this issue would be resolved with a alliancemechanic. Do we get one again? Will it be sandbox like the one we had before? Will it be forced alliances? When do we get this?
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    I disagree, I think perhaps the ability of fire damage should be linked to armor type, as that in a way represents overall construction developments. Lai Yuen had her entire superstructure and her above water line components utterly gutted by fire destroying her command facilities, and both steering houses, and crippling both of her '' guns and her 15cm guns. This was all from a single fire started early in the battle that Chinese damage control could not handle. (corruption buying less hose material so the hoses could not even get to the fire) Certainly Akagis gun fire contributed to the ability to deal damage control, and that the turrets were open barrettes did not help protect from fire, but this is an excellent case of what a single fire CAN do, but not always do. I think Linking Damage control or relating fire susceptibility to armor type is not a bad idea to represent improvements made to the concepts of prevent modern damage from spreading.
  45. 1 point
    I'm going to have to disagree with you. I only know of one capital ship in all of history that was actually destroyed by a non-flash fire reaching the magazine and that was USS Maine. On every other instance that I know of the magazine was flooded once it started being threatened by fire. This of course would still have the effect of disabling the gun serviced by that magazine of course.
  46. 1 point
    All good changes, however I do not like the randomness of the "wind instances" I would love to see more a "trade wind" type of scenario where the wind is blowing in different directions on different parts of the map and in different intensity. Maybe do a bit of a mini game as well where sails are being set to optimise the wind that you have. It sure will break the monotony of open world traveling. I will attach a screenshot of an app of real time wind in the caribbean. Maybe have something like that, that could change at random. Add a perk where a ship's sailing master can help predict the weather. Oh and while we are on weather, storms was a massive concern in the age of sail. when is this feature coming back? It simply cannot just be left out.
  47. 1 point
    TBs give a -%85 small ship penalty to what ever is firing at it. Also with how the bulkhead system works you need to damage every single bulkhead or the TB wont sink. Which is a problem because if your guns are rocking a pitiful %1.2 the damage they do is almost nothing if they hit an already destroyed bulkhead. Secondaries really need a significantly reduced small ship penalty.
  48. 1 point
    @sarrumac Is right about this. In the last few days I read quite allot about this. The main driving force toward bigger gun and longer range was the increase in torpedo range. The Accuracy, even if it improved, remained the same because the new battle range was longer. For that reason all the complain about secondary guns have to be looked trough the perspective that by the time of WW1 they were no more a option for anti torpedo boat duty. This task became dedicated to other class of ship, mainly DDs and CL. But this is a game. IRL battle were taking hours, we do not have that.
  49. 1 point
    I'd be really annoyed if this game developed into anything other than a single player focused campaign game to be honest
  50. 1 point
    I kinda disagree about the whole less complex ship design thing. Now I don't know about implementing things like hull customization and if you guys don't put it in cuz it's hard to do from a technical standpoint then ok. But not doing it because you want the ship designer less complex is a mistake I think. Being able to change the hull, even a little, in order to fit what we want would be really nice. And in some cases it just makes sense. For example, in a lot of the pre-dread hulls there's dedicated space for funnels with casemates on the sides but I, at least, haven't used all space yet in any design. I can't get rid of it though and am stuck with empty space, in some cases quite a bit of space too. Why would a ship be designed with all that empty space? Let us be able to change if we have the tech for it, centerline turret tech for example. You can make it a tech thing if you want, idk. But just let us be able to change the hulls a little bit, to add more space or main guns, or casemates, or whatever. Complexity is good, we like complexity. Please
×
×
  • Create New...