Niels Terkildsen
-
Posts
432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Niels Terkildsen
-
-
And so, here's the new issue:
-
12
-
-
I'm contemplating putting together one or two new issues of this newspaper, seeing as things have picked up a bit again - which I wish to encourage by providing some fluff, so to speak.
To help me with this, I encourage anyone that is in possession of relevant news, information, opinions, &c that could be conveyed in this humble newspaper, to contact me. Other contributions could be in the form of poetry, as well as satire, &c. I'd also encourage business-men within the proximity of the Danish American Islands to submit advertisements of any sort, be it requests or offers.
All of this can be sent by private mail, or delivered personally to me, Niels Terkildsen, Queen-Street, Christiansted.
-
3
-
-
Something like this would be great in-game, I think:
It doesn't look more cluttered than the old compass, but it lets you use the 32-point system quite accurately even though it only shows 16.
-
On 15/8/2017 at 7:57 PM, Prater said:
The game data goes off speed for points of sail for every 15 degrees, so having a 32 point compass wouldn't match with what is in game. Also, our compass is pretty small. If we could hit a key to bring up a larger compass, it would probably be beneficial, but we would still need the ability to look at a 24 point compass for speed reasons.
I don't understand, what game data is this?
I kind of agree that there would be a bit too much clutter with a 32-point compass in-game if we keep the same size, but rather than having the 24-point compass then, I'd much prefer a simple 16-point, and you can approximate the additional points in between. However, then it would be nice to have all the 16 points marked clearly (with a marking at the exact points also for W, SW, S, SE, etc.).
Perhaps a larger compass could be accessed through pressing M and selecting it in there - it could show all 32 points, but also your current heading with an increased accuracy.
-
I took the Pickle out for testing now. By no means completely accurate, and I'm not sure whether this can help solve my question:
It seems clear though, that the benefit to upwind performance is significantly greater with Extra Staysails than the benefit to downwind performance is with Studding Sails.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, EliteDelta said:
Yes, you are correct. The jib sails help you sailing up wind, and the main sails help while sailing with the wind.
You can test this in battle pretty easily. Point your ship at a certain course (maybe start with 45 degrees off the wind) and depower (press T). You will see the speed from only the mainsails. Then, bring the jibs back up, and turn your main sails so the wind is passing through them without providing any force. You will then see the speed from only the jib sails.
When you are going directly with the wind, you can depower and see almost no speed change. Also, when you are going up wind (something like 30 degrees off the wind) you will notice that the wind is passing through your main sails without providing much force, while your jibs are doing all the work.
There is a balance between the two, so choosing when you want to use the force bonus mods takes some thought.
I'm aware what T does, and also what the strengths and weaknesses of jibs and staysails are. It's all quite plain for square rigged ships (except perhaps the question of the spanker).
But if you consider a fore-and-aft rigged ship, the amount of sail aside from jibs that could act positively in terms of upwind speed begs the question whether these (gaff sails especially) are included in one category or the other.
For example, the Pickle:
It has two small jibs, a forecourse and fore topsail, and two gaff sails (with a mizzen gaff topsail). The jibs should obviously be counted as JIB_SAIL, and the forecourse and fore topsail should be MAIN_SAIL, but what about the gaff sails? These are also useful for sailing upwind, and the combined force on them might outweigh the force on the two small jibs, so it's quite important to know whether they're counted as MAIN or JIB. I'm suspecting they're counted as MAIN, and that would mean using Studding Sails might actually increase speed at all points of sailing (except perhaps extremely close hauled).
-
1
-
-
How do you know which sails are included in "JIB_SAIL" and "MAIN_SAIL", when using Extra Staysails or Studding Sails for example?
I know what a jib is, but the question is whether spankers and gaff sails (especially relevant for fore-and-aft-riggers) are included in this, or whether these are considered "main sails".
What decides the status of sails?
For example, are only the sails affected by T considered "jib sails", or does that not apply for fore-and-aft-riggers, or is there some other rule to know which sails are affected? Etc. etc.
-
4
-
-
Oh wow. How did you get a hold of the original Wasa? I'm surprised you made it so far from your home port!
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Vllad said:
Well said Niels.
The answer to your question is no there isn't any quality MMO's anymore that offer PVP or more to the point RvR PVP. So many of them are fatally flawed. NA is moving in the right direction but the question is who is driving the bus?
The players like yourself who justifiably just want a beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox or players like myself who want quality RvR PVP game. They at times seem mutually exclusive which is why we have the debate on so many player driven issues.
I guess only the developers know that and they aren't the most talkative bunch.
Well, currently it seems they want to cut away a part of the community by offering them a battle simulator, I assume a bit like Sea Trials. So, that will suck up a good quantity of PvP-players that would otherwise populate the OW.
For the main game with an OW, that I assume will still be the focus, we have only received such hints from admin as: "those are not revenge fleets, but actually home defence fleets", which perhaps indicates what has been pointed out by some here, that the developers are at this moment catering for the big RvR groups - possibly because they are more numerous (though less outspoken on the forums).
I wonder how fun the RvR players will think the game is when the game is only populated by their own kind. No sailing out to take revenge on those pesky OW PvP-ers (or "gankers"). It'll only be hauling goods in an empty OW [irony]hey, why not just do away with sailing as well? Bring back teleporting with goods![/irony] and then sailing out to do pre-arranged port battles. Excepting of course the very few players like yourself who will revel in the possibility to lure the unsuspecting non-PvP oriented RvR-players into "counter-revenge-gank-ganks".
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Vllad said:
I don't give a two hoots about realism and Age of Sail crap. My boat is no different than driving an Ogre in EQ, a Centaur Barbarian in Shadowbane or manually towing a 10 ton AT gun in WWII on-line. Having realism in a computer game is living in the land of unicorns and lollypops. It just doesn't exist and it is absolutely moronic to expect it.
I play games based on the set of rules the developers give us and learn to beat my enemy with the rules I am given.
Vllad, isn't there another MMO out there that has more engaging gameplay for you, where you can discover the meta and find loop holes in the mechanics that you can exploit? Because, honestly, please let those of us with an interest in this niche have our little "hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history"...There are surely games out there that cater to your needs. Don't want realism? Hey, perhaps look into that new Ubisoft game...
-
3
-
-
At least this is a plea to give us the proper 32-point compass when the UI gets overhauled.
On 24/6/2017 at 5:36 PM, Captiva said:I'm all for the 32 point compass. I'd also like to have the ability to take a noon position; similar to that in the excellent TDA map....ok, back to the compass.
Sure. Noon position, but only at noon.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, ObiQuiet said:
While I am a traditionalist, there is a compromise that could work.
To call out headings for the in-between tickmarks, first name the nearest labeled mark: "South", "Northwest", etc.
Then, name the direction in which the heading lies from there: "by Southwest", "by North", etc.
So, the two unlabled tickmarks between N and NE would be called, in clockwise order: "North by Nor' East" and "Northeast by North".
Between SW and W, they would be "Southwest by West" and "West by Southwest":
Except that will only cause more confusion. You can't use the traditional terms wrong; there's already a SWbW, so if you give that heading, someone following the real 32-point system would be on another heading from the ones following your proposal.
-
I'm just bumping this since it's annoying me every time I play in a group. Can we please get a 32-point compass instead of the 24-point one? Also, in the battles as well, why can't we simply have the cardinal directions instead of the degrees?
When I communicate with my group I use proper terms when possible. When spotting an enemy I report in the direction of e.g. "starboard bow", "starboard quarter", "larboard beam", "astern" etc. (if I wanted to use the point system here, e.g "1 point on the starboard bow", it'd be based on the 32-point system as well).
When I give a course I use the 32-point compass directions, e.g. "North-by-East", "South-South-West", etc. but people tend to look at the points that are present on the current 24-point compass (and thus we end up on different headings). even though those in between N, E, S, and W don't have any proper terms, only if you use degrees and that's silly when we're already using the cardinal directions (and it's anachronistic).
The current in-game compass uses a 15 degree system, and as you can see on the compass rose below, that is incompatible with the traditional points:
-
8
-
-
Like I suggested in the patch thread, I think this could work if it was linked to the surrender mechanic: if you surrender you won't lose ship knowledge (because you keep your veteran crew, etc.)
This would be a bit like having officer lives, resulting in surrender being used more instead of fighting until you sink (or get your whole crew killed).
PS.
Besides, when your ship sinks, now you won't get a carbon copy (no durability) of it but rather you'll have to acquire a new one, and by extension, you should have to learn the individual characteristics of the new ship. Imagine having ship knowledge tied to a unique ship and being able to name it - I know this will only make it harder to entice people to go out and risk their ships, but it would bring some immersion to the game and another appreciation of each individual ship. As I said though, this may be counter-acting taking active part in PvP etc., I'm just making this up as I go along.
-
1 hour ago, Vllad said:
Since they advertised realism and what NA has provided isn't enough you must be disappointed that we have:
Instanced combat, a lack of prevailing winds, no currents, no disease, the ability to sail a day in just a couple of minutes, ship of the Lines, Pirates/Privateers having access to ships larger than 6th rates, Port Battles, RvR map in general, Clans, the entire mission system, crafting, ship building, a chat window, the entire trade system, consumables, marks and just about everything else in the game that doesn't represent how it realistically worked?
Hey, mate. You're not far off. If this was a single player game, I'd have to agree with all the above (that would be a dream). In order for the game to work as a big multiplayer game, I realise that we can't have a 100% instanced world (read: no OW) that is a near-faithful representation of the West Indies in the late 18th century, but I don't want my immersion broken by exploits of the inevitable time-discrepancies, etc. No, I would like the game to at least make an effort to give me the illusion that I am in a coherent and semi-realistic representation of the time and place that the game is set in - otherwise, what would be the purpose of having this setting in the first place? You could just as well play a game set in an imaginary galaxy with space ships, faster-than-light speed, and time travel.
Hey, make a super hardcore server with removal/changes to what you mentioned above in the direction of a realistic representation; I'd play it, but I'm afraid it would be pretty empty. Then again, it would be enjoyable to me even as a single player game, so the chance of bumping into someone like-minded once in a while would just enhance it.
(This is when admin should balance gameplay and realism in order to not only sell games to lunatics like me).
By the way, here's my first post on this forum:
On 23/2/2015 at 9:05 PM, Niels Terkildsen said:For reference you could check how the old Build Mod (now New Horizons) has done it in the PotC game from 2003. It is obviously strictly single player, but I really enjoy the way "DirectSail" works. In that mod there are various settings - ranging from Arcade (where you travel on a world map between the islands) to the Iron Man mode (where you are forced to travel in "real time" 3D sailing between the islands - called "DirectSail" - although time is compressed and you can change the time compression between x10 , x30, x50, x100 - that is, approximately 5-6 seconds to a minute, 2 seconds to a minute, 1-1,5 seconds to a minute, etc.)
About the modes in New Horizons: Link.
-
1
-
-
Excuse my frankness, but why are you even playing Naval Action? The setting doesn't seem to interest you. Find something that's all about gameplay and isn't weighed down by any connection to reality, historical periods, physics, etc.
-
1
-
-
Quote
Naval Action is a hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas.
- http://store.steampowered.com/app/311310/
Sorry about contributing to the "noise".
-
2
-
-
In line with what admin said about our "great ideas" being lost in the noise, I'm just going to add myself to the list of hijackers of this thread and post my own humble suggestion that I've argued for here and here, as well as other places probably. It basically boils down to this (adjusted to address constructive critique by Neptune etc.):
1. An increased speed for about a minute, or during invisibility, when coming out of a battle, and possibly without wind direction having an effect on speed during that time.
2. A slightly longer invisibility timer.
3. A long restriction on attacking, joining, and being attacked - has to last for at least half a minute more than the invisibility timer
So, the scenario when exiting a battle instance would be, for example (exact timers debatable):
- 1-2 min. invisibility and speed boost, during which the escapee(s) will be able to cover a fair distance from the instance location (virtually mimicking being able to pick a spot in a circle around the point of escape).
- 3 min. restriction on attacking, joining battles, and being attacked. This will make it impossible for escapees to join a battle that started before they exited their own battle instance. It also helps to prevent the very real possibility of abuse of invisibility and speed on passers-by when exiting (they will have a one minute's chance to change course when seeing the escapee(s) coming out of invisibility), and allow for the relative speed differences of ships to take effect: that is, faster ships will less likely be griefed by repeated tags from slower ships.
-
1
-
-
I had a similar issue yesterday.
Captured an enemy trader, and sailed to the closest free port. I could sell all the goods from the hold, but I couldn't get anything for the actual ship. My only option was to either sail through enemy territory towards national ports with an empty trader that would give me only a small reward for the long journey, or I could dismiss the ship and get nothing.
I would like to have a third option: to sell the captured prize in the free port (or any friendly port w/o an outpost).
-
Having received his Letter of Marque, signed by the right honourable Governor-General Thomas de Malleville, Captain Bleddyn ap Eynon has set about arming and provisioning his Command, the impressive 28-gun Ship, Sorte Hund. His intention, that is also hereby made plain, being to find able bodied Seamen that may help in his endeavour to form a well-run and orderly Ship for the benefit of Commerce in the Danish West Indies and to further the Interests of all of His Majesty's subjects in the Americas.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, except it concerns NPC ships rather than player ships (see also my post in your thread).
-
I've always had an ambivalent feeling about combat rewards. On the one hand, I can follow your logic if we're talking reward scaled in relation to risk (and I agree entirely if we're only talking XP gain), but on the other hand I find it peculiar that you should earn gold by firing cannon ball into a hull. To me it makes more sense that you earn the gold from captures and the XP from combat actions (damage calculation or kill/assist). Then again, combat rewards could be seen as representing a navy captain's pay or the like, but it still doesn't make entirely sense (that would have been a steady low pay rather than anything depending on performance) - though I admit it may make sense gameplay-wise.
But, I think we're moving away from the topic which was the imbalance in PvE rewards rather than combat rewards in general.
-
1
-
-
Oh, PvP is a whole other matter. I don't do that for profit, I do that for the thrill.
EDIT: Finding a plump player trader once in a while is just a nice bonus!
-
A while ago I decided that I won't take missions anymore; they simply drained all the fun out of the game for me. As a consequence I now only attack NPCs that sail in the OW, and preferably traders (with or without an escort). Doing so, I earn a lot less XP and gold than my colleagues who do partake in missions, since, firstly I don't get the mission reward, secondly I have to spend time finding a suitable target, and thirdly, the potential value of trader cargo is now lower than non-trader cargo. Add to that issue that you now can't take the traders back with you in order to get all the contents of the hold: you can only take what your warship's hold can manage.
Your suggestions are sound, except they won't help in regards to the hold-space issue. I think, in order to solve that, we should implement NPC capture again; but not full capture - rather a form of capture where you can add the NPC ship to your fleet, but upon reaching port you will have it taken from you and instead be given a suitable gold reward for the ship and cargo by the admiralty.
Ideally, I think, taking traders should be beneficial in terms of gold-gain while sinking non-traders should be advantageous in terms of XP-gain.
-
1
-
Farm with friends - marks confiscation
in Tribunal - Трибунал
Posted
A good reason to only have cosmetic items redeemable for PvP-marks (and make them convertible into Combat-marks with a favourable conversion rate).