Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Niels Terkildsen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Niels Terkildsen

  1. On 8/23/2019 at 11:09 AM, admin said:

    Attacking a light 6th rate in a frigate is a Gank = and Wasa counterbalancesganks it, stumbling upon your battle by actually sailing in the OW creating targets for others. Someone could have caught that Wasa on the way to your battle, but did not. 

    Attack targets stronger than you. Why do you need to gank an AI trader in a frigate? Nautical question... For a friend.

    Hahahaha... *cries internally*

    Yes, admin, why do we need to "gank" (not really fitting when there's no "gang" involved in the "killing" is it?) a 6th rate trader in a frigate................ in an AoS game?

    Oh, I know, because that's one of the things frigates were for in the AoS!


    This, 1000 times this:

    On 8/22/2019 at 9:42 PM, Anolytic said:

    Great joke...



    This ROE should be ONLY in Patrol Zones. Give us 2 min timers back everywhere else in OW:


  2. This makes me so amazingly sad. I'm now uninstalling the game (that I've had dormant on my drive for a very long time) even when people are piling in after official launch...

    All trust in @admin's judgement on this matter is gone if this statement stands.

    "No plans to change ROE. It is the final Rule of Engagement." - admin

    It saddens me deeply, but all I can hope for, now that OW is seemingly never going to be what I wished for, is for a future re-launch of Legends - in that way we can have two arena PvP AoS games: one that pretends to be an OW-sandbox game, but is just in essence a lobby blown out of proportions, and one that is completely honest about being an arena where you can wait in a lobby for proper PvP with lovely ships and canon fire.

  3. I still think we just need something like this (again):

    On 4/13/2016 at 8:05 PM, Niels Terkildsen said:

    I'm starting to think the best solution would simply be to make the tagging-circle slightly bigger, and then close battle-instances entirely: no reinforcements whatsoever.

    Any ships that would realistically have a chance to reach the fight before it's over should be covered by a wider tagging-circle. Perhaps make two circles instead of one: the first circle forcibly dragging ships into the battle-instance - the second, much larger circle, giving the ships the option to join from their position (preferably very far away, closing on the horizon when at the fringes of the second circle).

    On 4/13/2016 at 11:55 PM, Niels Terkildsen said:


    Here's an example of how this would work:



    - The aggressive group (black 1, 2, 3, and 4) have succeeded in closing in on two of the enemy ships to their leeward (green 1 and 2).

    - The dark red circle is the regular tagging-circle, and all ships within this will be pulled into the battle at their relative positions.

    - Black 3 and 4, who are in the light red circle, will get the option to join the battle as reinforcement (starting far away from those in the tagging-circle, coming from their relative positions).

    - Black 4 in this example may want to decline this offer to pursue green 3, but upon doing so will not be able to reinforce the first battle anymore.


    NOTE: Everything isn't scaled properly; this is simply for presenting the general idea. The light red circle could, for example, be even larger than this in relation to the tagging-circle.




    So, the game is going to be released while ROE is "under review"? We've been flip-flopping between all sorts of different variants since OW started, and I'd be very unhappy if the final decision was 20 minutes+ timers... 😐

    I'm afraid to say anything above 3 minutes is a no-go for me. Wysiwyg is the only acceptable ROE in my opinion.

    • Like 1

  5. 2 hours ago, Mr. Doran said:


    I agree with almost everything you write here (one exception being that I've always been positive towards the 1 durability solution). We both love the ship to ship combat of this game, and that's what motivates us to play - just like you say, we need no other motivation than the fun of the combat itself. For us, a functional lobby (with several different variants as you outlined) that would allow us to just get into Naval Action would be perfect. Hey presto, Naval Action Legends is the solution!

    There are those, however, I know a few, and I might consider myself a bit of a hybrid in that sense, that want some "meaning" in their game; those are the ones that need some engaging or immersive context around the whole ship to ship combat part: It's all about the thrill of the hunt for some, or the feeling of significance or gain from trading and "clanning" for others. For these people, the main part is not, unlike for you, and for the most part me, the PvP aspect: they don't want the game to be a lobby for PvP, they want it to be a hub for their enjoyment (and, in the case of some PvE and RvR players, they don't care if it comes at the expense of immersion, realism, or even the PvP aspects of the game - as long as it favours them - *conspiracy mode deactivated*).

    It would seem like making a lobby for PvP is a rather trivial task, and really, i believe it would be so much easier than balancing the interests of the various species inhabiting the monster that is the OW - which is why, as many here have pointed out, it would have been a much better and easier start to fine tune the PvP lobby part of the game first and then use that (with its more or less perfectly balanced ships and combat model) as the base from which to build the intricate OW (along with, hopefully, a steady stream of income needed for the development of something as big as an OW game).

    What is central though, and what I think is one of the biggest mistakes of the developers of Naval Action, is that they try to mix the PvP lobby with the OW sandbox - and sure, dichotomies are always boring, but to me they are simply not compatible. The OW has to make sense, and as you write, the only thing that makes sense is wysiwyg (not hello kittying reinforcements from miles and miles away, homing in to the satellite communications sent out from the poor victims in some gank, joining 15-20 minutes after the battle was initiated - i.e. days in the OW time scale). Yes, there has to be checks and compromises to avoid the abuse that springs from the scale imbalances between OS and instances, but that's just what we get for using that model; nobody has time to sail in the battle instance mode across the whole map (though I would absolutely love that) even if that would solve such an incredible amount of issues and make the game more immersive (that's a + word for me if you hadn't noticed).

    My point is, OW is not meant for balanced PvP even though you can get it sometimes, which is awesome; enforced balanced PvP is only viable through a lobby. OW sandbox can't be a lobby; it has to be cruel and unforgiving, and most importantly it has to make sense! When it makes sense, you get immersed, and if you're a sensible individual you won't mind being ganked, because you know it makes sense: you made a mistake somehow, or your enemies outsmarted you (without abusing some broken mechanic) - if it doesn't make sense, you don't intuitively understand why you suddenly lost; and likewise if you won because of some mechanic that doesn't make sense intuitively, it will take away from your accomplishment and enjoyment (unless all you care about is winning).

    Balanced PvP is awesome, but you can only expect it regularly through a lobby (give us NA:L back!) - only if you're lucky in an OW game. If we have NA:L our hunger for balanced PvP may be sated, and NA:OW can go on with making a realistic and immersive OW sailing game experience with a robust combat system.


    2 hours ago, Mr. Doran said:

    If the end goal is to get as many people to play PVP as possible anyways then what on God's green Earth is the point of having OW to begin with.

    This is spot on.



    • Like 1

  6. To me it's interesting how @admin seems so keen on getting maximum amounts of PvP in the OW by introducing arcade-y features like open battle instances (BR limits and 20 minute battle timers) that mess with the basic concepts of an OW "hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox" (Steam description). It's been tested, discarded, re-tested, etc. again and again; and they simply can't find restrictions that work (imo because there should be hardly any restrictions in an OW sandbox). EDIT: Let me rephrase to clarify my stance. OW mechanics should be realistic without artificial limitations (e.g. BR limits), but it should advocate "what makes sense" - that is, what would realistically be plausible in the setting (what you see is what you get, etc.).

    Why does admin want more PvP in his sandbox game? Well, because PvP and ship combat is what makes Naval Action fun and unique. That is also why many of us (at least the ones that check this subforum) simply want a game where we can - yes, you guessed it: do PvP and ship combat. OW Naval Action is a great thing (vision or idea currently, if you like), but you can't have a functioning OW game and more or less arcade-y platform for PvP in the same game, at the same time! They are incompatible. That is why we need to have NA Legends alongside NA OW; they are two different games that can't be merged into one.

    • Like 2

  7. Another issue that there might be with my suggestions is that there seems to be a limit to the total amount of ships the servers can handle (from what I've read). Well, firstly the fact the player crew and ships have to be used limits the possibility of spam; secondly I think most people would prefer to cut down on random OW NPC spawning if room was made for hauling contract ships (one is random and without an impact on economy, the other is meaningful and player created).

    • Like 1

  8. 18 hours ago, Macjimm said:

    Contracts should be variable.  Allow players to place their own conditions, but do not impose conditions.  Be flexible.  Some contracts could include the ship and cargo and payment will be a portion up front, and the remainder on delivery.  Others could provide no payment unless successfully delivered.  Some could require the contractor to provide a specific ship.  Others could involve delivery guarantee and compensation to the payee for loss(es).    

    The reason that I put in the pretty strict contract rules is to prevent abuse and scamming. Of course, you can just fill in a trivial compensation amount at your own risk; hopefully the players will figure out where the risk/reward balance is, and how much people are willing to sell their time for, etc. One thing I would like to see though is personal contracts, so you can bypass the public contracting; in that instance it could be a lot more flexible. Likewise within clans.


    18 hours ago, Macjimm said:

    Outposts should not be managed at sea.  Outposts could be remotely managed, from ports,  but then a delay should be imposed to reflect mail delivery.  Outpost details, such as warehouse contents, crafting, should be accessible at the outpost only.   The teleport Doubloon charge should be viewed as wages paid to an Outpost Agent. The cost is insignificant.  If we were hardcore then teleporting to outposts would not allow sailing out of port, but only allow us to manage business within the port.   Hardcore would involve a different Passenger teleport to enable sailing from the outpost after the teleport - with both a;  higher Doubloon (or Real) charge, and time delay, increasing with the distance.  The cost charged could be provided to the clan owning the port.

    I did consider the postal service and similar things, but I concluded that it would just artificially increase the time everything takes; and everything already takes a lot of time, so it didn't really appeal to me in the end even though the concept is nice from a realism and immersion point of view.

    What I could envision though is some sort of maintenance cost for outposts reflecting the administration expenses (rather than the use of dubloons for Player teleport). If you can't pay the maintenance, your outpost will become dormant so you can't access it from afar (though perhaps it should still be functional if you go there personally).


    One thing that has bothered me for a long time is the lack of immersive life and meaningful activity in the OW. What I'm going to propose is something that will hopefully make even those "dead" NPC traders interesting to OW hunters, and at the same time something that may appeal to the aspiring merchant mogul.


    Traders all know the bore of sailing for a long time in the admittedly rather dull OW of Naval Action, and OW hunters all know how unsatisfactory it is to capture NPC traders even if they carry valuables, simply because it has no impact on enemy players, therefore I propose hauling contracts in three different variants:

    • Internal hauling contract: The Player will use own ship(s) and crew. The ship(s) will be fully controlled by NPC on the OW from point A to point B as well as in potential instances.
    • External hauling contract: The Player puts up a contract for goods to be transported to a specific port. Time limit as well as class range of ship(s) required specified by the Player. Ship(s) provided and controlled by the taker of the contract. Contracts can only be taken by same nation players having the specified ship class (and fleet) ready; you can't leave port without the right configuration. Payment on delivery. Upon failure, the contract taker will pay a compensation specified in the contract - the contract can't be taken if this amount is not owned.
    • Escort hauling contract: The Player provides the hauling ship(s) from his own dock with his own crew. Time limit as well as escort class range of ship(s) required specified by the Player. Escort ship(s) provided and controlled by the contract taker who is to lead the hauler(s) to the destination. Contracts can only be taken by same nation players having the specified ship class (and fleet) ready; you can't leave port without the right configuration. Payment on delivery. Upon failure, the contract taker will pay a compensation specified in the contract - the contract can't be taken if this amount is not owned.


    Now, all of this will be very handy for the traders and crafters, but it will be a boon for the OW hunters as well. Instead of players being limited to one trade run at a time they can now delegate to NPC and other players willing to do the hauling/escorting. This will mean more traffic in the OW, and meaningful traffic at that. No longer will the hunters pass by those boring AI traders without a second thought - perhaps they're carrying a precious load sent out by an enemy player!


    Furthermore, this addition would benefit from some changes to outpost management - these have already been partially requested - but I shall briefly outline how I envision it:

    All outpost warehouses, docks, and production buildings can be managed from anywhere - even at sea.

    This may sound unrealistic or immersion-breaking etc. but if you consider it for a while: does production stop when the owner is away? Is there no staff at hand that can see to it that it is kept up? We must imagine that the Player doesn't only control his navy officer (or equivalent) but also his estate and dock managers etc.

    It should also allow you to make hauling contracts anywhere, so you can get produced goods hauled from far away outposts without personally going there.


    Another thing that is connected to this is the "tow ship" mechanic. I think this has to be rethought. Either it should be the hardcore way, meaning it has to be sailed, if not by you or another player, then by NPC (similar to the hauling contracts with the possibility of a strong escort, while not having to do it yourself). The moderate version may be to make it take a very long time to reach its destination, though the more mechanics we have that bypass the OW, the more dead it will be.


    A hurdle to get past is of course the NPC pathfinding on the OW, but I have every confidence that this can be solved by the developers, and even that it is something that they intend to improve in any case.


    I'd love to hear your opinions on these suggestions.



    • Like 8

  10. I'm amazed nobody mentioned the PiratesAhoy! so called "Build Mod" or "New Horizons" for the 2003 game, Pirates of the Caribbean (a.k.a. Sea Dogs II). I'm sure quite a few of you must have heard of it or played at least once upon a time.

    It's still being developed here, and is, I dare say, the best single player AoS game out there, with tons and tons of content - and you can play it however you like: arcade-ish or realistic.

    I'm currently trying my luck as a smuggler which is high risk high reward (got my favourite officer killed, and almost died myself, last time I tried selling on Puerto Rico, getting caught in a four-way fight between bandits, smugglers, natives, and soldiers!).

    I play using the DirectSail mode, which means I sail directly between the islands instead of using the World Map. It's great. The only thing I'm missing is the sailing mechanics and combat of NA.



  11. 6 hours ago, Batman said:

    I would recommend to pour a bottle of salt water over your head every thirty minutes while staring at the screen for hours for total immersion.

    That deals with the "immersion", Great! But what about the entertainment? I mean, for me immersion is part of the entertainment, but I know that is not true for everyone.

  12. One of the least immersive parts of the game is the OW travelling. Unfortunately it's also one of the things you have to spend most time doing.

    I've been dreaming of a non-instance game where everything takes place in the current battle sailing mode - but perhaps I'm just a dreamer and it won't work (unless perhaps for a single player game)...

    • Like 5

  13. It may be a bit rude to say, but I believe NA:L will be the only way the NA developers can release a successful game in the end. NA:OW has been limping along for so long, it seems unlikely that it'll ever succeed in retaining enough players for a big OW/MMO to function properly - and in turn bring in new players (which in turn is a vicious circle that only leads to abandonment); not to mention the financial aspects...

    Ship combat is what NA is good at, and that really shines through in NA:L. I did not take pause from NA:L because I suddenly found the combat boring, but rather because there wasn't enough players to populate matches, and because I was waiting for three major things: wipe, new sailing model implementation, and F2P release.

    With those things, I can't see why NA:L couldn't be a low maintenance side act alongside the OW-game that could even provide a steady income from microtransactions (paints, premium ships, XP-boosts, etc.) and perhaps a portal for some players to move on to the OW (until its inevitable expiry date).

    I'm sad that I can't drop in and have an hour or two's fun in NA:L when I feel like a break from all my everyday menial tasks. No other game has succeed in making sailing and cannon shooting such good fun. It would be a pity if it drowns in misdirected (though well intentioned and admirable) ambitions.


    I'm only speaking for myself. I know that some people don't like the ship combat without a context (OW), but I'm sure there's a market for a good AoS F2P combat game if it's allowed to spread its wings, which NA:L clearly hasn't been yet.

    • Like 4

  14. 3 hours ago, fox2run said:

    1) easy access to join battles (battles where open for long durations) 

    2) Medium expensive ships made a loss somewhat easy to bear and didnt cripple your efforts. (multiple duras)

    Please... I just have to call BS here. 

    1) Going back to battles that were always open would be like having a big lobby where you could just pile in and have a big scrap, completely ignoring the logics of positioning etc. Sure It may be fun as a big, jolly practise arena in NAL, but it has no place in OW.

    2) Durabilites make no difference at all in terms of solving the issue you're complaining about. Ships themselves are cheap cheap cheap, what costs money (time and sweat) is getting upgrades and books. Those need to be seriously looked at, not hello kittying durabilites again.

    • Like 5

  15. 1 hour ago, Archaos said:

    Do you really think they will be able to get rid of bots? To tell the truth I am surprised the numbers of players is so low considering the game is free to owners of NA. I was in the queue a couple of times today with 5 to 8 people listed in the queue and I found myself in a battle as the only human player.

    The matchmaking system really sucks, there is not enough info in the queue to see if you are likely to be matched against mainly bots. Saw one queue today with 8 people in it with 4 unrated and 4 frigates and I end up in battle with one human on each team. I think the nation you select may be the issue.

    But as it currently stands unless there is a huge increase in the number of players there will be a need for bots or the wait times will get too long.

    Nation chosen doesn't affect anything, it's only you who see the flag you've chosen - everyone else has the flag of their own choice.

    I think what may have happened to you is that you were in a frigate and were paired with a frigate of a similar size rather than together with the smaller ships.

    At least that's what I've found: when I go out in my Cerberus and there's a decent number of unrated, but only two frigates, you risk getting into a separate battle with only the other frigate player. That happened twice to BoomBox and myself - I think because I was the only viable player to match him with while he was in an Indefatigable. (Btw, BoomBox, I'm sorry for ending the battles with circle cap, but I just find it too tedious to play against - and with - so many bots).

  16. 6 minutes ago, admin said:

    i remember the first posts on this forum were people were commenting on

    • flags waving in the wrong direction - most games were ponting flags and banners just to the stern of the ship
    • backing speed - some people said we are crazy and sailing ships never could sail back (because all other games did not have it

    Well, those are not my words. I have only praise for what you've done up until now; that is also why I passionately hope that we won't take a step back - and I do hope that the "arcadey" things we're seeing now is the result of the fact that many variables (like basic speed and turn rates) haven't been adjusted.


    5 minutes ago, admin said:

    Current behavior is realistic and is finally comparative and is purely based on ship profile, not some feel. 
    We just have make it feel right now


  • Create New...