Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/16/2019 in Posts

  1. 6 points
    Im getting so mad that some dipshit guys are carebaring in Pirate nation, that they are blaming each other for not doing the "proper" thing in pirate "nation". Bring back the outlaw battles for the love of god, so we can deal with these pirates ourselves. I can imagine it would be just for the better of the pirate nation, the ones that dont care fore others and want to be shit towards other players within the same nations. For example green on green and loot stealing which we would be a ble to solve ourselves. @admin The reinforcement zones are removed, which were the case that you removed outlaw battles. Re implement it again and make the pirates more immersive. Thank you in advance!
  2. 6 points
    I'd already posted my wish list for Pirates in another thread. But as usual no response from devs. Move Pirates from MT to Secret Islands Pirates can only raid and loot ports not capture them Return of Outlaw Battles Remove ability of Pirates to craft ships larger than 5th rates. So only level one shipyards. Any Pirate Ship becomes a Refit so slight boarding and crew size bonuses for any ship sailed Return of the Smuggler Flag option for Pirate 7th rates so they can enter and raid from any port. If Pirates don't like the changes there are plenty of other nations they can move to for sailing ships of the line and RVR.
  3. 5 points
    Outlaw battles were a safety switch. See enemy - attack a friend. We wasted 3 months on them. 3 weeks to code and then 2.5 months to fix all bugs and loopholes. There will be no changes to pirates. Current in game pirates are a Pirate Republic of Mortimer (Mathew) town formerly known as a Pirate republic of Nassau (or an offshoot of libertaria on madagascar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Pirates Any changes to them will be welcomed by 50% of pirates Those exact changes will be hated by another 50% of pirates Those 50% of pirates will be very very upset and will become very negative persons as they will consider their content STOLEN from them. The positive voice from happy 50% will not be heard as usual as they will be in game. While unhappy 50% will be on steam and here on the forum, creating more negative impression for new comers. As a result here is the simple answer on pirate limitations PS If new mechanics are introduced they will be introduced as Profession (outlaws) and will be deployed in similar form as Dark Knights in Final Fantasy 14 or Worgens in Wow (expansion purchase required)
  4. 4 points
    Conttoy PB 🏴‍☠️ 16.12.2019
  5. 4 points
    Conttoy PB 1st winning PB fleet with Pavels?
  6. 4 points
    Saint - Nicolas port Battle British Leader : Shocktrooper Basteyy Russian Leaders : Chaos and Anarchy! #BritsCan'tWinWithoutFireships
  7. 3 points
  8. 3 points
    Jérémie PB British Leader : Shocktrooper Basteyy Dutch Leader : Powder Monkey We messed it up at the beginning a bit but was a nice fight. GG
  9. 2 points
    Hi I had never done a mission raid on a port before and new stuff is always exciting (and this was a key feature I was really looking forward to). So I a managed to trick 3 other players to joining a raid on Gasparilla. Gasparilla had 3KK in tax profit yesterday, so it's not the most profitable port in the game but it is a money maker no doubt! So our hope was high for a decent payout.. After fighting buffed AI in front of the towers and forts, then capturing a Indiaman our epic reward was around 100K reals and 500 doubloons that spawned from the chest. Bringing out 3x 1. rates and a 5. rate for that "reward" when we had to divide it by 4 is actually just stupid..! IMO Raid missions need a serious reward buff. Should at the very least 10% of the daily tax income of the port (300K in the Gasparilla example). It would be awesome if the raids where connected to the tax profitt of the port it self. So it would be a kinda of economic warfare thing, stealing profit from the clan owning it. Also giving a massive incentive to the port owners to actually try and intercept the raiders.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    thanks and gg) very good battle) Give to @Cid a Medal. He is the most surviving person on this server
  12. 2 points
    i say - We dont have lead in grup. We work together and lead together. do not write me as a leader in your posts, please. Because it looks like I'm a little boy hungry for fame. But if u wont - write "Russian Leader: Сhaos and Anarchy"
  13. 2 points
    Naval Action is a game that allows the player to play as he wants. Join to low population nation. This will give you a maximum targets. Don't like the flag. There is a guide how to change flag Such words like "i know a lot of players" do no increase importance of your suggestion. Suppose that over a month over 4,000 unique players play the game. How many players will transfer to new pirate nation? What if the new game mode will have the same popularity as the Polish nation in the game?
  14. 2 points
    You know what the appropriate answer is? Keep current pirate "nation" but introduce another pirate "outlaw brethren" which is so hardcore it does not follow the usual rules but features that what OP and several other ideas in that style proposed. Problem solved. No hard feelings among existing pirate "nation" - but you will count them voting for the new faction by the numbers by whom they leave "nation" and join outlaw brethren...
  15. 2 points
    I thought Pirate King @koltes was supposed to make pirates great again. How'd that turn out?
  16. 2 points
    I don't see why we can't have a "Never disengage" option just for custom battles. The whole point of custom battles is quick action and testing dumb designs. If I want to build a 120,000 ton behemoth that only goes 15knots I should be able to without having to worry about the enemy trying to flee. This only applies to custom battles of course. Campaign should be as set in reality as possible, where dumb unrealistic/unbalanced designs will be at a severe disadvantage.
  17. 2 points
    This here? https://naction.info/index.php/Rules_of_Engagement#Open_Battle_Instances
  18. 2 points
    I honestly have no idea why this thread even exists, the ppl that created it sure never read the available blogs the developers put out and also never played the actual game. What this will be is a game very much like Rule the Waves but taken a step further with a 3D engine. Also we get the chance to correct all the little things which would have made RtW a better game. Like a overhaul for the (relatively) frustrating battle generator mechanics where you have very little control of what ships showup together etc which makes specialized craft almost impossible (special for escort designed ships vs raider for example). Also completly new features that were abstracted in RtW can be implemented now (especcially in battle) There wont be an MMO/linear campaign i dont know how you ppl excpect this to go.... this game was pretty detailed on how it should look from the blogs put out by the devs. If you dont want a game like that DONT BUY INTO THE ALPHA and ask for the fundamentals to be changed thats not what a alpha is there for.
  19. 2 points
    I don't. So you assumed wrong about me. How many others?
  20. 1 point
    Hello all, Im in the process of making a Narrative story video series using Age of Sail. Effectively its a Lets play series with a narrative from the point of view of the Captain in the game. Ive uploaded part one already and i think any advice or criticsm from the community would be greatly appreciated. Also if anyone would like to help or participate in the idea (voice acting, Historical, Naval Advice) please say. Here is the first part for anyone who might be interested
  21. 1 point
    LAMA is still recruiting! If you are interested in many Port Battles, big screning battles and many PvP fights, then join us! Join the Royal Navy, join LAMA! PM me on forum or ingame (same name as in forurm) or PM @Captain Cid in forum or ingame (his ingame name is "Cid") if you are interested. Good winds to y'all and see ya hopefully in the Royal Navy soon!
  22. 1 point
    Rediii didn't have masts and he tanked like an ironclad haha
  23. 1 point
    Russia when they realised they lost to Britain even when Britain didn't use fireships :
  24. 1 point
    ooo Reverse, i love u muack muack with friendly muack muack
  25. 1 point
    People cannot join the raid battle against you as the battle does not show up in OW. If they see you going into a battle they can only wait till you exit.
  26. 1 point
    You might also consider a "Letter of Marque" I'm perfectly happy killing people as a Brit and taking their stuff, but if there were a new mechanic that made that more fun....
  27. 1 point
    Sometimes, quite often in fact, a caliber group will get stuck in ladder firing forever. You can easily see it when it happen as the hit chance number stall and never lock. The only work around this bug is to change target. If there is only one target... well...
  28. 1 point
    Torpedo started to out range secondary battery as early as 1900. That was one of the main driver for bigger caliber.
  29. 1 point
    All of the above are great ideas i would like to see them in the game!
  30. 1 point
    Honestly, if you're in a clan that's too small to take out privateer fleets, seasoned wood isn't going to be economically feasible anyway. Have you done the math on what 70lh, 100 ton of tools, and 3 dubs per log adds up to on a ship of any size? If you can't field 5 or 6 experienced players to hit a privateer fleet, you're not really equipped to safely move the amount of tools you're going to need to get anything built, either. I don't disagree that the shed should come with BPs... but I'm just pointing out that getting a usable amount of seasoned wood out of a shed takes a lot MORE work and manhours than knocking over a few privateer fleets, not less. Maybe it's time to partner with another small clan to do them together? Agree to a fair loot distribution strategy before you join the battle and go at it!
  31. 1 point
    Very weird. I've had excellent performance on small caliber guns from Battleships to Torpedo boats. I wouldn't say they're a precision instrument, by any means, but they seem to produce results that appear realistic. Given that four or five 3"-5" hits severely incapacitates the smaller craft, I think its an even balance for now. In the Destroyers vs. Torpedo Boats mission, 4 Destroyers held off and sank 6-7 torpedo boats (at a cost of all 4 destroyers, mostly due to the fire from the heavy cruisers), of which were hit multiple times from the small caliber batteries on the pre-dreadnought. I've experienced similar results in the Rise of the Heavy Cruisers mission with 8" batteries supported by triple 5" batteries and against destroyers in the Cruiser Killer mission with 3 CA's sporting 6 triple 10" batteries and the same triple 6" batteries. Multiple hits on destroyers with 6" guns that did an impressive amount of damage until the DD structure went below 20%. Then, apparently, they become exponentially more resilient at patching holes and being naturally resistant to raging infernos.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    ohhh....come on...there are just SO many instances of that kind of thing happening in real history as to be a valid reason why the AI shouldn't too ;).
  35. 1 point
    So I re-did the battle. Of course the AI ship is different. Somewhat more plausible, but not really viable imo. Funny enough I couldn't quite make my ship the exact same - it came out 430 tons overweight. Had to thin the turret tops and reduce the range - I tend to build my ships 'campaign ready', so I don't give the ships shortest range. Stopping the bad habits from forming. Anyway, here is mine And the AI Note with less hit chance, he is hitting me 2-1.
  36. 1 point
    Congratulations. Enjoy him/her every second. F*** game some time 😁
  37. 1 point
    Congratulations. In Spain we say that children at birth bring bread under their arm. (successes at work, joy in the family etc.). So be it. 🍼🍼🍼
  38. 1 point
    I see that happening all the time. Very annoying because you loose your aiming bonus when that happens.
  39. 1 point
    pretty much what the title says. World of Warships already gave me PTSD of 2 Battleships standing bow-on 100 metres away from each other and doing zero damage with all shells bouncing. no more pls. this isn't how it ever worked in real life. please don't make another warship game where going broadside to the enemy is a Mistake that only a noob whould do. i was playing around in custom battle today, and a dreadnought hull BB that was sailing away from me, with only 300-something of max armor and not even the best armor quality multiplier (it had like 80%) was totally 100% invulnerable to yamato 18inch AP shells even at less than 2km, it took HUNDREDS of those shells as i put the game in fast forward and kept sailing away like no one's business. all this because ships become invulnerable as soon as they are not broadside, i've seen similar things happen with even cruisers too! this is just wrong. currently the game models angle of the belt but not the transverse bulkheads at all. the result is when the target is bow-on or stern-on, all shells count as if they were hitting the belt (ie: the side belt) at like one or zero degrees of angle. you need to model the transverse bulkheads that close the front and back of the citadel. that way, the more bow-on/stern-on the target is, the worse your angle get on their belt yes, but the easier your angle get to penetrate the transverse bulkheads. just like in real life. being able to set manually their thickness in the ship designer whould be nice, but not nessesary. if you approximate them as having the same thickness as the belt, heh, whatever, it's good enough in my book. but you need to at least model it because this bow tanking is annoying and ridiculous. please tell me this is planed; eventually...?
  40. 1 point
    Congrats admin! I wish you many nights of uninterrupted sleep!
  41. 1 point
    Maybe. Maybe not. Remember that Bismarck was designed when not even the designers knew what that ship was going to be used for. Germany had commitments in the Baltic and knew for sure they'd be travelling through the North Sea a lot. Those are pretty confined waters and weather rarely is perfect. Chances are any engagement in those space-restricted seas would happen at much closer ranges than, say, an hipotetical engagement in the Pacific. At closer ranges smaller calibers come into play with a lot more strenght - going for an incremental armor layout makes sense there. I do agree that turtleback wasn't the go to option in most cases. That (combined with the displacement restrictions of the Washington Treaty) is why most nations went for AoN layouts. But as always there's not a "magic formula" that's "best". There are best solutions to given scenarios. AoN was the best solution for the most likely scenario for most navies. For others, however, it didn't look that good. See, imagine, you're CiC soviet fleet and you're designing your baltic and Black Sea Fleets. Both very confined waters where engagement ranges are expected to be quite shorter than in open oceans. What's your most likely best choice for a battlewagon to operate with those fleets, AoN or incremental? ;).
  42. 1 point
    Those times will be fun. Remember that "all or nothing" was an armor layout specifically designed to fight battles at long ranges (beyond 20km) where main battery hits have a good probability of happen, but where smaller guns (cruiser sized or less) have a very low or nonexistant chance to hit. Also AoN didn't preclude designs from adding plating armor beyond the citadel. Or more. Some nominal "all or nothing" historical designs actually had large chunks of armor on spots nominally not to be armored according to the concept. Yet the average player will expect that once that armor model is in place they can go with 0 armor on the extremities of the ships (and elsewhere not on the citadel). And do so. And there'll be consequences for that for players who use that layout without understanding it's purpose and realities and put their battleship 10km away from the nearest opposition, only to have their ship's large unprotected areas ruined by relatively light guns, and their battleship ability to fight subsequently compromised by the ensuing structural damage. So I do expect a lot of yells of terror and forum posts about the "useless" armor model when that happens. People will completely ignore armor on the extremities (based on the wrong idea that those areas should receive 0 armor), and ignore the long range nature of the layout. And the subsequent ammount of end-ship fires and floodings that will stem from that, from hits of guns of all calibers, will cause many an instance of people saying that armor is not worth it and that it needs a buff ;).
  43. 1 point
    Port au Prince PB : British Leader : Shocktrooper Basteyy Russian Leader : Captain Reverse
  44. 1 point
    It is really annoying mechanics indeed. Hope they'll change that soon.
  45. 1 point
    False information. We had more games simulatenously in early access. Ultimate General AND Naval Action. In a couple of months we will have 3 (TLIML and 2 ultimate admirals) Stop spreading hate and bullshit.
  46. 1 point
    I just realized how silly this seasoned wood business is. As soon as we all have the ability to do it that will be the only wood we will build with and everything goes back to the same relative place. It just screws up the game for a period of time without actually changing anything. I wish effort was spent on real advances and not pointless changes.
  47. 1 point
    I just have to say, yet you are kinda bashing the game because it doesn't conform to what you want (despite the main aspect of the game is missing). As for game balance, you obviously haven't been to the WoWS forum. Its a constant thing going on over there.
  48. 1 point
    Well considering this game is in alpha 2, i don't know why you expected people who expect a singleplayer game to just accept your ideas of multiplayer. Don't get me wrong the ideas sound interesting but your inability to understand the basic fact that this will most likely be a singleplayer game forever doesn't surprise me the least. Also being a closed beta tester for world of warships means nothing since i've seen supertesters and peeps with your forum title being utter trash at the game. Im not looking forward multiplayer in this game atm, because i basically want a RTW's with HOI and TW features in the campaign as do a lot of people on this forum. And well insulting peeps isn't going to generate any sympathy for your cause. Like i said the ideas sound cool, but being an arse about it won't help in the slightest. With a game like this multiplayer would be impossible to balance or you would have to dumb the game down so much to cater to potatoes that it no longer resembles what it once was. If the devs want multiplayer thats fine, but add it when the actual game itself i fleshed out and polished properly before moving onto such a monumental task. I mean since WOWS's balance is god awful (thanks to cv's) and the events mostly time-gated trash that while you 'hAvE a cHOicE' still provide no new perma content and offer asinine rewards for such monumental effort, with a playerbase known to fail at the most basic of tactics and controls in said game. Oh well, try again next year i suppose.
  49. 1 point
    3 Victory marks 25 Combat marks 25500 Doubloons 2384 Reals Dividen by 6 = 0,5 Victory marks / 4,17 Combar marks / 4250 Doubloons 397,33 reals for each Unfortunately I havent checked the Tax of campeche at this day. I was just happy that we had a mission against a russian port and not vs Spain or Brits like usual and that i could motivate 5 other people. We had to take whats available. Lucky as hell that the mission and the npc raid + player pb all lined up perfectly. Planning had to be done within the 8h before everything happened.
  50. 1 point
    I disagree, every ship should have some purpose/role otherwise we can just remove it. But of course not all ships should be good in everything. There should be a diversity for good BR/thickness -> RvR... fast->hunter/OW PvP... cheap ship -> PZ Pavel isn't even cheap
×
×
  • Create New...