Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Red Acted

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Red Acted

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. My reasons for asking the question are mine and not for public consumption. That should not be taken to imply anything good, bad or indifferent about the game or the company or an intention to leave or stay.
  2. ...in effect how does one resign from the forum.....(not the game!)?
  3. It would just be nice to be given some clue as to what is happening with the patch/wipe - even if it just to say "It's taking longer than we thought chaps, bear with us, Don't expect it any time soon - it's at least a month away. In the meantime get on and enjoy the game."
  4. Hmmmm - not exactly an unequivocal statement but I'd agree it's a good clue My point about keeping players in the loop still stands for the future.
  5. OK so we all know a patch is being worked on. We all know a wipe is also due. Many players have stopped logging in as they 'see no point' in playing if all their 'gains' are going to be wiped. The patch has been delayed or least there is no news of it. We don't really know when it is actually going to land, despite rumours or assumptions (prayers?) that it would be yesterday or today. Player numbers online are even lower today it seems. So my request to the developers is....if you cant deliver the patch today/tomorrow (and if it is not ready then it is not ready) can you still go ahead with the wipe? It would encourage the players to start playing again. I do understand that there could be issues with data structures which would prevent this .....but at least consider it please. Finally, whatever is going to happen, please do give us a view where things stand.....at least at a high level. Is the patch and/or wipe likely to be this week, next week, this month, next month. We'd prefer it to be sooner than later but even if it is next year just tell us.....not knowing is worse than knowing. Sure things can change, so just keep us in the loop. Cheers
  6. No one is saying that this should not be a game or fun. Just "for the love of god" make sure it's not an arcade game with no relation to historical reality or that requires the reflexes [begin Humour] of a 16 yr old pimply faced youth ('PFY') who never leaves his bedroom. [End Humour] The players you denigrate as the "make it a sim crowd" do actually care about the game, a lot, and they do care that it has success with lots of players and has great longevity. They want a great game with 'legs' and that appeals to a wide audience and challenges players......and seems to 'capture' the spirit of the historical reality but not slavishly so. If the game only caters for the PFY then it is going to last about 5 minutes. So....go easy on those who want a bit of a sim this game CAN and must cater for a wide range of player types and play styles to be successful;. There IS a happy medium that can be achieved. One might almost say that if the 'simmers' want a bit more 'reality' and the PFYs want less then we are probably at the 'sweet spot' already!
  7. My 2p worth Surgeon - no or very very slow in 'repairing' crew and also no more than a small percentage can be repaired.....no returning the crew to full numbers or anything close. There have been some good suggestions in this thread. Repairs to be slow and in survival mode. Hull repairs - must be limited to stopping leaks, it is the only historically acceptable option. Any structural repairs inc to the so called 'armour' would not repairable in battle....heck maybe not even repairable at sea at all. Repairs to be slow and survival mode. Sails - slow repairs, in survival mode, are ok. Also with a speed hit during the repairs. Masts - if the mast or even part of it is down then it cant be fully replaced in battle, end of, forget it. Maybe restore one section of a mast max, if in survival mode and out of the battle (far enough away from enemy ships) and very slowly. Dismasting should be a bit more possible than now but repairs should very limited in scope and speed....think of it as being able to limp away as the best you can get.
  8. I could agree with that. Chatting online and looking at the postings on here I get the impression that we are rather liking the changes overall despite the Devs saying we would hate them. I wonder if they had these changes planned all along and but were not sure we would like them, so used 'reverse psychology on us'? Dev 1 "We should get rid of repairs and make ships slower to turn and harder to sink. We should be building a game based on what actually happened historically." Dev 2 "The players will hate that! They want sailing ships to behave like jet skis with rockets strapped on and laser guided cannon that sink anything instantly." Dev 1 "Hmmm, how about we tell the players we are just going to try some wacky ideas and that we know they will hate them? They never agree with anything we say, so if we tell them they will hate the changes they are bound to love them." Dev 2 "Pure genius!" OK players and Devs - don't shoot me for the above jest!
  9. Yup.... only I'd add that if out of the line of fire for long enough a crew would be able to jury rig spars and mast(s) to take a little sail in order to get some way on her, even if they had been completely dismasted...but only to get her out of danger and heading for a port. If stuck in the middle of a fight, then repairs are going to be limited to the ship's carpenter and his mates plugging shot holes as best they can, whilst most everyone else is firing guns or manning the pumps etc. As to the crew being repaired....akd has said it all.
  10. Ummmmm....is there a formal feedback thread for the latest experimental patch? I was running a Santi last night and this morning and boy does she turn slowly! She's like a brick 'sh1t house' and gives and takes huge punishment. Getting anything in the firing arcs is a real challenge but when you do..... . Gunnery becomes so much more important...need to hit hard and fast whilst you can; need to be able to take hits too. The changes seem to emphasise the differences between the 'slow and heavies' and the 'light and flighties'.....in a way, to me, that feels right. The Santissima Trinidad in real life was known as being slow and unhandy....and that's what she is in the game now, well and truly and I don't have a problem with that Admin feel free to move this post to the correct thread.
  11. In the case of L'Orient the initial fire happened 'by luck' but the crew of HMS Bellerophon are recorded as deliberately aiming into the area of the fire to hamper any attempts to control the fire. The result was that the fire grew out of control until it reached the magazine when, indeed, there was a BOOM! My point is that it was not a 'critical hit' like a shell penetrating into a turret (or through the decks) causing a magazine fire and explosion such as experienced at Jutland by the RN battlecruisers or in the loss of the Hood against Bismark. In a way there was some 'skill' involved from the Billy Ruffians in turning the 'luck' to their advantage. Replicating that fine point in game is probably not possible! Having said all that, fires do seem to happen too often and likewise explosions....or at least the AI does not seem to go into survival mode to fight fires. I'd tone down the chances for fires occurring and/or do something about crews automatically prioritising fire fighting. My 2p worth
  12. Re: raking. Don't forget that a single deck ship is going to find it hard to rake all three gun decks in a first rate. There is a bit of a height difference . To me, raking a ship of the line by another SoL should be a very bad thing for the receiver - close to fatal. Being raked by a 5th rate should hurt but not be fatal whilst anything smaller is just a pain in the arse!!!!
  13. Will the number of slots for 'user fitted upgrades' increase from the current number of 2?
  • Create New...