Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/19/2020 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    Hi, following a situation today, I have an idea that I think could be useful. I was sunk in a crafted ocean by some marauding Swedes after the Great River/Prinz Port Battles earlier today. That is of course fair enough. If I had been in one of my seasoned wood ships the loss would have been quite annoying. Its not so much the loss of the ship as such but the fact of the enemy gaining hold of it and being able to use it in the future. I'd like to propose a scuttling perk. When enabled, your ship will sink within say 90 seconds. The enemy can still loot as per normal you but is unable to capture your ship. There could perhaps be an increased chance of a seasoned wood drop for the enemy. I'd further propose that its a one shot deal. That is, if you click the scuttle button, you get a "are you sure" dialogue box and then the countdown starts - its not reversible. I think its better that the ship sinks rather than explodes so as to avoid fireship griefing. Cheers & sail safe (apart from you trader ganking bast***s - you can please sail unsafe and get sunk vigorously and often lol ) Zorg
  2. 6 points
    Campaign, crew, officers are currently higher priority. Multiplayer is on the wishlist. Many players want campaign finished and once its delivered some of them will change the votes to yes to multiplayer. Then we can reopen this discussion.
  3. 5 points
    Just throwing a suggestion out there to either add or change an existing patrol zone to cap ship rate at deep water 5th rate so there would be a zone where the classics like belle-poule, essex, trinc, etc. could be relevant. In my experience battles with these ships are exceedingly fun. When you throw them into a zone with the modded out 4th rates they become useless BR sponges (most of the time). This would also help out newer players as it would add another patrol zone that is easily accessible for them to participate in after completing the tutorial.
  4. 5 points
  5. 5 points
    HAVOC should return SJ to the clan who previously owned it oh wait....
  6. 3 points
    Except for the Pavel, I thought the ships somehow balanced, so why was it changed?
  7. 3 points
    So the fantasy ship that should capsize whenever she leaves port, which is already the most OP ship in her class and ofc not a permit ship, just got 32pds carros...... *slow clap* *really slow clap* *hands hardly meeting eachother in dumbfounded disbelief* *slow facepalm when everyone realize that we need to adjust the damagemodel*
  8. 3 points
    To be ultra-pedantic, plenty of Royal Navy ships with octuple 40mm pom-poms or sextuple 40mm Bofors. One may also consider the rotatable versions of the Hedgehog anti-submarine mortar, and technically many torpedo launchers are guns, too. These would be called mounts, not turrets, but that's sort of quibbling too. In a more grounded sense, no, there were no naval vessels that I know of with more than four big guns in one turret. Curiously, though it is often said that a heavy weight far forward or far aft on a ship contributes to pitch, this is not actually true, according to DK Brown, the famous ship constructor. This was a common misconception through the predreadnought era, til some better science proved otherwise. It does, however, contribute to hull stress, which can be severe. That's not in the game, though, so I think this is an appropriate abstraction. I don't think we should limit the players from building idiotic designs with 3x6 super-super-firing turrets. Just give them appropriate negative modifiers, and the "problem" will solve itself. It's not like these were strict physical impossibilities, they just required too extreme of trade-offs for big guns. They would be fun to build and play around with in a video game. On the other hand, I think the auto-generated enemies should have restrictions. The computer is pretty stupid.
  9. 2 points
    As a carro Prince main, this change is pretty retarded, ngl. Why the hello kitty can I only mount 24pd carros when the Snow gets 32s? The entirety of my armament is now thoroughly outclassed by a ship of roughly the same size and displacement. Why bother using the Niagara with 32pd carros, for that matter? Why bother using it at all? You can just whirl in place with a Snow, outturning literally everything and somehow simultaneously outgunning every 6th rate. @admin, @Ink... an explanation is in order. Please, enlighten us.
  10. 2 points
    Please @admin make this happen! ❤️ people think i don’t like them if I don’t answer them!
  11. 2 points
    You missed the point completely. Try again with common sense this time.
  12. 2 points
    Im not sure if you are even playing the game or even trading at all..... because i can guarantee you, it hardly is a 0 effort thing. In fact, it is a full day's literal work. And then you end up blowing all the days work on a ship and the mods you put on it. I didnt make 10m today but i spent 10m. If i cant fund my gameplay i simply will not play. I suppose people are happy with how brutally deserted was in mid 2018 and are eagerly trying to push it back into that ditch!
  13. 2 points
    As a trader-ganking bastard, this idea has my wholehearted approval. 😁
  14. 2 points
    I think the boarding game is very clear, you just have to watch the numbers, their prep levels, and the way the prep levels move. The bit you cannot know is the battle of wits part. With AI it is easy, with other players you have to assess them for how deep they can take the double-fake. Get it wrong once and you might lose. Best approach is not to board, or allow boarding, unless you have significant numerical advantage (when against other players). If you cannot deny boarding and you have significantly lower numbers you are already screwed, unless you get real lucky (all else being equal,mods etc). If you can position your ship so you can use your guns and his are ineffective, that also helps. Perhaps that is what The Geth was referring to, ship positioning and mods. Like a lot of things in NA, you win the battle back at the dock.
  15. 2 points
    Its pretty much the meta though isn't it. Choose attack and your melee numbers go up, other guy sees that and goes defence, knowing you are probably going to switch to guns at last second, so rock-paper-scissors. You see his melee numbers go up, so you know he is in Def, but does he switch to brace and you double fake him, or does he stay in def cause he knows you know. It's like the Poisoning scene from the Princes Bride. What are you saying we should be doing that is different to that?
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    Maybe add a second layer of shallows which ships upto medium frigates (belle poule / frig / trinc / essex / ...) can enter
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    it will come - better formation controls as well (+ reverse speeds)
  20. 2 points
    Carro meta is boring as hello kitty.
  21. 1 point
    Hello Captains! We have achieved a lot last year: new ships, new missions, trading improvements, thousands of bugs fixed and finally launch of the game. 2019 was better than 2018. Naval Action has been placed into a Steam's Best of 2019 Hall of Fame by Valve and was named one of the best releases from Early Access (by revenue) This could only happen because of you Captains! Thank You. We wont let you down. Of course some grumpy landlubbers will still complain it was all alts, but who cares . Please ask those "alts", really ask them to get us on the steam top sellers list in 2020 again. Here are the plans for the next 1st Half of 2020. Please propose things that you consider critical that fill the new content rules described below or edit your old posts and link them there. Under way Transferred from 2019 2H. New player mission New player experience is finishing its development. This mission will rework the starting couple of hours for all new players and will show some of the best features from the start (including large line fights in heavy ships) as it was happening in the early sea trials. New ships Redoutable - Imported ship (this month subject to Valve Approval) Implacable - crafted ship (this month) Wrecker - crafted ship (February) HMS Victory Classic Edition - Admiralty Imported Gift ship 1st half of 2020 Rotterdam - Combat Indiaman 1st half of 2020 Gross ventre refit will return this or next month Pandora will become available on Steam for purchase Low cost edition Low cost edition is long overdue and will be developed and shipped in 2020. It bring a lot of new faces into the game and will increase gameplay quality for all owners. Upgrades, Combat model, damage and penetrations tuning New upgrades (crafted and looted) Cannon, upgrades Battle sails and wind curve rebalance Hull leeway which will make looting much easier New rewards for main battle activities PVP Leaderboard rewards Better patrol rewards Solo patrol rewards improved Port battle missions with rewards On skills and progression and rules for new content (promised in 2h of 2019) We have cancelled work on changes in progression, current skill book rework, and perks for the following reason Changing anything players already have causes immense negativity as it is taking something away from them. Features made for new players can feel that they are done at the expense of old players, who feel they are unfair to the existing community (people who supported the game before), So even if the new progression is amazing it could feel like a robbery for old players even if it is better. Thus... We will only add new content if it fulfills the following rules It must solve a specific problem of the majority or reduce negative outcome for the majority. It must be beneficial for both new and old players It must not take anything away that players worked hard to get. One example for a skill tree that fulfills the above mentioned rules could be a Bravery Skill Tree Bravery skill tree gives benefits and bonuses to crew when fighting outnumbered Bravery skill tree levels up when fighting outnumbered These two things reduce negativity for the majority as everyone is ganked from time to time and everyone would love to get higher chance to sink someone in those situations On new content Overall we feel like our hands are tied with the current content. Even positive changes like the PVP 20 Min balancer was very hated, really hated by many initially. Now - many months later it is universally accepted by most pvp players. Its not perfect, not the best but a lot better than anything we had before. Such changes cause a state of uneasiness and beta feel and should not happen when the game is already released. As a result our focus will only be on to following priorities New ships New missions, events, rewards, and activities Quality of life improvements Removal of toxicity from community communication Some improvements in AI On moderation Moderation systems in game will need to change drastically to promote friendly community. Current system of in game chat moderation is slow and inadequate. Developer's assigned moderators were causing claims of bias and negativity. As a result moderation will probably move to the community. Moderation could be done by voted player representatives who will moderate their nation in all chats (help, nation and global) clan leaders and officers who will be able to moderate their clan members in all chats reports on players will come to player representatives and clan leaders by mail clan leaders will receive some motivation for taking action on the reports on their members The systems are going to be worked on this year. meanwhile please use report and ignore for people whose style you do not like On AI One important area neglected for a very long time will be Artificial Intelligence. The NPC Ships will learn new tricks and skills Will position better for broadsides Will learn to chase and escape better (useful for player fleets and auto-escapes during disconnects) Will choose targets better and focus fire better Will sail better closer to land And some other improvements like better operation as a group AI improvements become possible as Game Labs as a company continues work on Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail strategy game, and this year will also start work on a new single player focused game with first person view from deck - Sea Legends - about smugglers and privateers in the Mediterranean and North sea. This research will be shared and will greatly benefit the improvements of quality of PVE combat in Naval Action. Overall - we have a great 2020 ahead of us. If you want something added to the plan feel free to do it in comments. Please stay on topic when discussing issues. Remember that all feature proposals and changes proposals must fit the 3 point framework It must solve a specific problem of the majority or reduce negative outcome for the majority. It must be beneficial for both new and old players It must not take anything away that players worked hard to get.
  22. 1 point
    List of ships that changed and decks, left - old, right - new https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1frzTMxV3TrvlYfA6K3h0zfCCWbuk3kekKI1eYc0MY8U/edit#gid=1751816059
  23. 1 point
    Who even cares about old screenshots when Russia is still alive
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Just nice to have s goal ppl can fight over. In San Juan Havoc just keep bringing in that regard. - Taking danes only decent crafting port, in a honourless way. - Havoc keep telling all danes basicly is trash, and only Havoc did anything in the Danish nation. - Telling us to fight back, and when we do, cry over it. Rediii’s naughty boy list is simply to great. Plz tell me where we can find a better goal. I just can’t see it.Havoc is simply a gift that keep giving and giving and giving and giving and giving. Thats why I have a lot of love for you, as I have for others that create content in this game.
  26. 1 point
    This isn't the case for every nation, though. Smaller nations have a damned hard time of trading in bulk without being targeted. If your nation is large enough to own ports on both sides of the Gulf of Mexico, and populous enough to provide impromptu escorts aplenty in those waters, how could that possibly compare to some poor, lonely fellow trying to run a gauntlet of 3-4 enemy nations in the Windward Passage?
  27. 1 point
    Oh come on Back in DK you kept bullying swedes while not being interested in RvR - we needed them on our side but you had different views. So we changed, took the port with us and now all of a sudden you talk about unbalance in RVR / bad disribution of 55 pt ports? Where does the sudden interest in rvr come from?
  28. 1 point
    Why was it deemed necessary to nerf the availability of doubloons? I'm not sure about PvP, because I only play PvE now, but the extra difficulty of obtaining doubloons has made the game excessively arduous, IMO.
  29. 1 point
    The currency is not reals, its playtime. So there is no Inflation. I think the playtime you have to "work" to buy you a copper plating (f.e.) is almost the same. Beside this basic ressources got cheaper in relation to the playtime you need to afford them, and that helps new and poor Players. Dont Listen to this idiotic whiners that only see that the nominal real prices doubled! TRADE IS FINE (But stick to your plans spicing up the trade with special deals that have to be found ... ) And pls hurry with the implemention of small privateer fleets, so small groups and single players can Farm the seasoned woods too ...
  30. 1 point
    It’s not broken. It’s working. Kudos for not allowing contracts to be placed on tradable goods. As for the price of upgrades/books/ships: it’s basic economics. Yes prices are inflated, and if you’re not making bank with the current Econ system you’re doing it all wrong. The economy is NOT broken.
  31. 1 point
    so u assist my suggestion? When even 2 stong is assisting me it has to be good... lol
  32. 1 point
    From Ballantyne’s Warspite. He, of course, might be tooting his own horn a bit. That the gunfire was not conducted solely by aerial observation, however, is evidenced by the Italian destroyers blocking further accurate fire with smokescreens as the Giulio Cesare withdrew after being hit. This highlights an earlier point: spotting aircraft could be very useful for improving range corrections for long range gunnery, but targeting was still dependent on the ship’s own fire control seeing the target. Spotting planes did not act as “eyes” of the battleship allowing them to “see” and accurately target other ships underway at long range, although they did play that role for shore bombardment on many occasions (where seeing the target from the ship was often impossible). Other highlights in Rice’s remarkable service aboard Warspite can be found in his obit: http://www.militaria.cz/cz/detail-154‘ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1430473/Lieutenant-Commander-Ben-Rice.html (Login required)
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Congratulations on the Steam accolade. This sounds really exciting as well. Hope it gives an opportunity to provide deeper fidelity for sailing and combat model, as well as allowing for more realistic time scales.
  35. 1 point
    I want this: Advanced damage control system. Trying to keep your ships afloat and still able to fight was perhaps the most interesting part of old Great Naval Battles series games.
  36. 1 point
    Look at the bright side of it all if Danmark Norge lose all its ports - More npc fleet outside the capital to farm for this pve nation🤣
  37. 1 point
    Another thing, would it be possible to add more varied sea and weather conditions in battle even if they are not shown graphically in OW? Fighting in the same conditions in every battle is a little boring. Is it a possibility to add rough and higher waves inside the battle instance only? Conditions for the battle could be indicated with an icon over the compass in OW without having to represent it visually with game graphics. We already know the engine can do it since it was shown in the early beta, I think it would add a lot more fun to battles.
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    Список кораблей которым изменили калибр орудий https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1frzTMxV3TrvlYfA6K3h0zfCCWbuk3kekKI1eYc0MY8U/edit#gid=1751816059
  40. 1 point
    For torpedo evasion, or generally just turning away from the enemy, I’d really prefer a simple toggle for “turn together” to a new heading rather than having to micro-manage the rudder settings, but the direct rudder input is appreciated and useful in other ways, particularly in overcoming some of the AI’s more boneheaded collision avoidance logic.
  41. 1 point
    To be more exact, there will be battles of all sizes - one ship, pair, division, multiple division. The GUI must cater to all those possibilities. You don't have to use the rudder controls if you don't want to. One click will set the course or waypoint for your division, and you can tell one division to trail another with the Follow button. If you detect torpedoes you can't find on the screen, just turn the AI on - it is pretty good at that. You have to remember for every Jutland, Trafalgar or Tsushima, there are many more smaller actions from Dogger Bank, River Plate ... etc where only a division or two of ships participated. You can try getting an early feel for multi-division combat by using the Custom Battle option and just putting on dozens of ships - tests have suggested computers can mostly handle it at a tolerable frame rate.
  42. 1 point
    I would like to see additional options for balancing weight on the line fore-aft. Perhaps adding keel / ballast? Now I solve this issue mainly by moving the main caliber turrets closer to fore-aft, which is clearly not a good idea in terms of protection.
  43. 1 point
    Oh, I like the idea of having the yacht and pandora being special ships only available to certain early adopters. My post was more that since they are going to make the Pandora available to everyone, do the same for the yacht.
  44. 1 point
    You can count me in the camp of I'd like spotter planes and even eventually air power but for the immediate future I consider it a feature that can and probably should be added later with more fundamental features needing addressed first. Which brings me to an additional suggestion that I'd love to see that I can't believe slipped my mind. More scripting for the Naval Academy missions. I'd love to see them be more informative and useful to learn from but to do that I think we need to see the same AI ships(both friendly and hostile) starting in the same positions at the same ranges rather than seeing different designs every time. Maybe even script participating nations, at least for the AI, but that only really depends on how much effort is to be put into national flavor. Plus this would be a good way to make sure for the campaign the AI doesn't just keep randomly generating ships instead of using designs it should already have in service.
  45. 1 point
    Lol, maybe Greg can't remember Cartagena. 🤔 PD. Greg, I think I remember that Islmorada was Dutch until the Russians conquered it. Maybe you should do like good journalists and not lie ... 😁😅
  46. 1 point
    Вот прямо совсем-совсем простые вещи: запускаешь игру, выбираешь сервер и первое что ты видишь на вкладке "выбор игрока" - кнопка "УДАЛИТЬ". Может стоило бы с кнопки "начать" начать, а то прямо какие то не хорошие ассоциации возникают =))
  47. 1 point
    @Nick Thomadis, aren't you missing something! Installed 1931 A quick look through the topic and so far no one has put up spotter planes yet!
  48. 1 point
    There are some already in place. Gun mounts have their own statistics wich account for some. The ship statistics generated by the ship designer account for some others. There are quite some that aren't contemplated, but what's in here allows for pretty crazy stuff to be designed, put to the test, and have to say as a credit to the developers, the drawbacks of widely unpractical stuff generally show up in the resulting battle performance. Maybe not in the full scale I would expect in some instances, but meaningful nonetheless. Which ain't bad at all for a game in alpha status. It came within a split hair of actually happening. Specially after Tsushima. Because ironically, if Tsushima really proved something was that ranges were increasing really fast, that big guns were becoming progressively much better at firing quite fast, and that the very limited penetration of mid caliber guns (fast firing or not) soon would make them completely innefective against well armored ships at the ever-increasing ranges naval battles were fought at. But Tsushima also saw a sterling performance of the japanese armored cruisers taking battleline responsabilities and roles, and quick firing guns did quite the number on the russian fleet. Not lethal damage, but still hugely impactful in the scope of the battle. So there wasn't a lack of voices afterwards who suggested battleships were completely obsolete by the armored cruiser with mid caliber quick firing guns. Nor there were before, if we're at that. There's a reason why the Spanish Fleet of 1898 was mostly centered aroudn the armored cruiser. By that stage there was a true doctrinal debate about which one was the true queen of the seas. Because by that stage 12 in guns would fire maybe once each two minutes while small QF guns were firing several times per minute and engagement ranges were so short that the lesser penetration of mid-caliber guns was still judged as good enough. Quite surprisingly for many, one of the defenders of giving up big calibers after Tsushima was Jackie Fisher, as shown by his correspondence in the years prior to his access to the First Lordship. At that stage his "ideal capital ship" would've looked like an overgrown armored cruiser loaded to the brim with 9.2in QF guns in an unified battery (Fisher got that part wrong, but the part about an unified caliber for the main battery, he had it right). And of course, very fast. He made mentions of such a ship quite many times in his correspondence of the time. Of course once he got to be First Lord there were many things he could push forth, but giving up 12'' guns wasn't one of them. Nor was giving up battleships (Even if that's exactly what he really wanted). Specially because by that stage it was clear that 12'' guns would soon be able to fire a couple times per minute themselves, rendering any arguments about smaller QF ones moot. And because not even Fisher could go over the RN establishment demanding battleships first, cruisers later. But at any rate, what you mention wasn't that "fantastic". Like, at all. As for sextuple mounts....sure. Give them 250% the reload time of the equivalent triple mount, an accuracy penalty according to it's impracticability, demand insanely brutally massive barbettes in order to place them on (not to mention wide enough ships to accomodate for them), make them prohibitively costly to properly armor because of their ridiculous size, affect your ship's stability in the proper measure demanded by putting that laughably massive ammount of topweight avobe your decks (and don't get me started on superfiring mounts!!!!), etc etc etc.... and if you still want to put them on your ships, all the power for you. I've said it many times, as long as you pay the realistic price for the inordinately impractical stuff you want to toy with, you should be allowed to do so. But not for free, and not with those turrets operating as if they were twins. As long as the result and penalties attached to whatever impractical stuff you want to use are fairly represented, the game should let you get away with whatever you want to do with it. But always paying the proper price in the shape of compromises, so you then later on find out in war, why, exactly, those things were judged as completely impractical back in the day, and judged to be the equivalent of todays memes.
  49. 1 point
    Hello Sir With your timezone it may be difficult to join us danes, as most of our members are scandinavian/european. However the door is always open and the rum plenty;-) Regards
  50. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...