Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anolytic last won the day on June 8

Anolytic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,622 Excellent

About Anolytic

  • Rank
    Master and Commander
  • Birthday 10/26/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,871 profile views
  1. You should not dig the hole deeper by changing the story or reinterpreting the facts. You should admit the mistake - that you thought you were within your right to dictate the participants in the battle if you started it, and that you apparently thought that green-on-green was justified in this case - and apologise. It can happen, and mistakes can be forgiven. Even though the alts seem so sure of themselves in referring to the rules of green-on-green and of engagement. And yet they are so utterly wrong about the rules, which in this case are quite clear. A little oversimplified, but: Of course, if Cpt Salladin had been allowed to tag Lord Hartz on his own, then the other Russian players nearby would have been under no obligation to join the fight and help him. But instead alts were used to tag the main account and try to block Cpt Salladin from getting the engagement. This alone in itself is an instance of alt abuse which is not permitted. This is by no means evident from the screenshot. The screenshot does not show wether or to what degree green-on-green contributed to Cpt Salladin's demise. But after the engagement this was posted in Russian Nation chat in the ensuing argument: There are more actions than actual cannon fire that constitutes green-on-green. Blocking, ramming and, yes, pushing, also counts as green-on-green when it is intentional. Perhaps - as he should be. They were in the battle after all. They even instigated it. He should expect help from them. Of course - you are not actually allowed to be shooting at your own alts, which could be construed as alt-farming, but that little loose-loose situation is entirely self-created. Report it. Give us examples. I didn't see any tribunals by you recently. Don't copy what is bad. Don't use it as an excuse. Who? Tribunal that shit please. So it's this kind of whataboutism... Your recordings of others doing it to each other will do you nothing. But yes, somebody shoots at you repeatedly in a port-battle on purpose, then you as the victim can accuse that somebody of green-on-green. If it's a new forum user and he's therefore on pre-mod, don't worry. Somebody will be along in time and approve the comment. Moreover the tribunal can surely see hidden posts that are here, but may have been not approved by a moderator yet.
  2. I'm sorry to say Raxius, but you're just wrong here. You can ask him all you want not to, but he has every right to attack anyone who in the Open World is labelled "Enemy Player". You may not like it, but that is the price you pay for sailing together players from different nations. You may end up in a situation where your friend gets attacked and you can do nothing to help because the attackers are from your own nation. This dilemma we've faced countless times in REDS and whenever someone sails out on their non-Russian accounts they have to accept and be aware that they may be attacked by other Russians right from under the nose of their clanmates. You cannot do green-on-green to protect your friends in other nations, and there have been numerous tribunals demonstrating this. Of course he can. Have you not been paying attention the last few years? The only alternative is hardcoded diplomacy, where the game-mechanics enforce diplomacy, like we had some years ago when we got the western and eastern alliances. As it is, you have to take rogue players and clans into consideration when making diplomacy. How is Wasa vs Redoubtable a "fast kill"? He was maybe looking for a challenge, and it was right there. So he went for it. Diplomacy in this game is based on trust and mutual understanding, but it cannot be enforced on those who are not within that circle of trust. However, I'm not sure you can call it "diplomacy" when it is between yourself and your alt. I may ask someone in Russia to let my Danish trader accounts go when they encounter them - and they may or may not acquiesce to my request based on how good a relationship we have and my reputation. But it would be pretty brazen of me to use, say a pirate account I could have, to ask pirate players to let my main Russian account alone. Imagine then if I put an alt into every nation in-game and sailed them on trading missions all 12 together... I would be diplomatically invulnerable to PvP! This is trust you may well have between yourself and your Russian alt, or that someone might have with a friend they sail with who is in another nation. But the RUBLI player is under no obligation to share this trust of a, to him, random British player he encounters in OW. And not either should he accept that trust on the word of some Russian players whom he has never before interacted with or seen in the nation, and who in fact turn out to be alts. There is "player driven diplomacy" in the game today. But there is no "system". We have an open world with sandbox rules. It seems we may get a system with admin's longterm vision for the new Karma-mechanic. But as of now you need to dispel the idea that the player driven diplomacy constitutes a "system" which is recognised by the game or the game rules. We have no enforceable diplomacy in this game, which has been shown countless times by so-called "rogue" players and clans. I think the players in question should offer Cpt Salladin to replace his lost Wasa and an apology for the mistake that was made. And note that formally it is the players on the Russian side, that are on trial here and who committed green-on-green and other inadvisable actions. But their admitted status as alts means that any punishment may fall on their main characters when the link can be sufficiently proven. Note also that the 2 involved players have been kicked from the clan RED29.
  3. I like it. But what about when everybody sits in port all day only, doing their defence duty. Who will populate the Open World. I'm not saying this would be the nail in the coffin for OW, but if we make it too convenient to just sit in port and get insta-PvP, then we might as well shut down OW and make PvP lobby based. I know you wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think OW has its charm, and Naval Action Legends didn't do so well (for a lot of different reasons that might not be only about the concept).
  4. I thought you planted more than 40 flags in the conquest flag test? Did you not once notice that the flag gets consumed once you take the hostility mission. Once you take a hostility mission, consuming the flag item, the flag is tied to your character. You can only trade flags before they are used. And that's not a problem. It's fine that for instance one trader can transport the flags of several players to the area of the map out of which it is to be used, because only the original acquirer of the flag can use it to launch a hostility mission and plant it to make a PB.
  5. Admirals, Tonight we had the Tampico Port raid which BF and REDS defended together. Right as the battle was about to be finished, the battle instance crashed, our ships spun out of control, we got a connection timeout error message on our screens and a few minutes later we were kicked to the login screen. On the map the port raid is still listed as not yet completed, although for some (not all) of us the battle over screen came up when the instance crashed. Moreover, because of the untimely battle instance crash there were multiple sunken ships that we did not get to loot because we were on our way to do so when the battle instance crashed. Here is the battle still listed on the in-game map at the time of writing: Here is everyone that was in the instance when it crashed, as well as the disconnect message we got: I also have a video recording of the minutes just before, around and after the crash if it is of any use. I will upload it on request. Here are some F11 reports that were filed about the crash: NAB-102653 (by @Yettie ) and NAB-102663 (by myself). Our ships spawned back in OW after relogging, and we got a battle report with some rounded amount of XP (5400 and 3300 as concrete examples). However I'm still inconclusive if this XP actually got added to ship XP (can't say for sure) or character XP. There is no record of the battle or XP in our battle-"History"-log. But this could be due to the XP being registered before we got kicked to login screen as opposed to after we logged back in. Most importantly for compensation however are the chests lost to the sea because the crash kicked us from battle before we could loot/sink the last few ships.
  6. I think this is a GREAT idea, removing conquest from freeports. /sarcasm
  7. The problem with that philosophy is that once again you're actively discouraging RvR. Anyone who has actually played the game, tried to create content - for themselves and others - and participated in RvR, is being punished according to how successful they are. And who wants to do RvR now, and take ports from their enemies, when all it means is they get punished more by the game, and have to do more PvE? This is supposed to be a war game, but the AI is trying to enforce peace. I admit, that for the moment these raids don't feel so bad, but only because they're a small break from the horrendously repetitive HDF-fleet grind that we've been doing for months now. But the game should encourage and reward active RvR and PvP, not punish it. NPC raids is essentially a tax on RvR. And the rule of taxation is to tax more what we want to discourage. NPC raids is a discouragement to RvR, which leaves the game stagnant and removes the end-game content. Btw: as @Nixolai said above, the Arcas port raid was bugged. According to previous patch notes Raiders are supposed to try and fill the BR with as many ships as possible (up to 25), but importantly they are still supposed to follow the BR limit. In Arcas the raider fleet was 20% over the BR limit. Now, that had nothing to do with why the raid was lost (wrong positioning of one of the fleets and a careless approach to the battle) but it's still a bug that needs to be fixed.
  8. This is way off topic, but since you bring it up: Spying is explicitly allowed by the game developers, even implicitly encouraged in the past. Moreover, at this point economic alts in other nations is practically a forced mechanic given that so many vital resources are available in some nations, but not obtainable at all in others.
  9. Ever since release I've been entertaining the idea of a large scale battle involving only gunboats. The theory being that a battle of 25 vs 25 gunboats would be the cause of significant hilarity and an interesting display. 50 gunboats going at each other would be a sight to behold. However the planned introduction of a karma-mechanic could put any ability to arrange such an event in jeopardy in the future, thus I have decided to try to put this idea into the world sooner rather than later. So how to do this? First I want to see if there is enough interest in this proposition. So leave a comment here or let me know if you’d like to show up for such an event. I’ve already broached this subject, with generally positive feedback, with some British captains, but I think that to truly make this the magnificent encounter it could be, we will need captains from all nations to join. A battle would be started between two nations and then captains from other nations jump in on each side till they are filled. To make this somewhat manageable at least a core of captains should be on Teamspeak or Discord together to make sure everything is orderly to begin with. After we hit go in the battle though, all bets are off as far as order goes. For communication before and during the event we can use the REDS Teamspeak, which I manage: fleet.red I’ve been contemplating making it a free-for-all event where we all agree to ignore green/red and everybody fires on everybody. But for now, let’s make it two teams fighting each other, and if it’s a success we can try it the other way next time. How do we find ships? By now every clan and player on the server should be sitting on a stockpile of Gunboat Notes, but if somebody doesn’t and they still want to join, I know that at least my REDS-clan has collected hundreds of Gunboat Notes since release, so getting hold of a ship should not be an issue. When do we do this? Monday 6th of July. Let’s say approximately 20.00 server time, but I can be convinced to change the time. I wanted to do this on a date with some significance, and July 6th is the date in 1812 of the Battle of Lyngør which is considered to mark the end of what is called the «Gunboat War» or «Kanonbåtkrigen» between Denmark-Norway and Great Britain. A war that got its name from the cheap and easy to construct and man gunboats that the Danish-Norwegian Navy used to protect its coastline after the destruction of the Danish fleet of Warships in the Second Battle of Copenhagen. Where to do this? July 6th also happens to be a day that will have Nassau Shallow Patrol Zone. So I’d say we do the battle in the Patrol Zone. We all meet at Shroud Cay and then go to find a suitable spot near the edge of the zone where the battle can be initiated.
  10. In the course of the past two days, rumours have spread in the Caribbean of sightings of a large treasure fleet or convoy journeying from one edge of the map to another. Here's some footage of the huge fleet along its journey:
  11. This is not a proposal for a new mechanic, but an adaptation of an already existing one. In short, my proposal is this: Scrap the current clan-missions for woods as they are in-game right now. By now everybody has build farms for Live Oak, White Oak, Teak, and if they have use of it also Bermuda Cedar, Mahogany, Locust (Cauguiran Wood) and Sabicu. The old Clan Mission forests like this one is no longer in use, if they ever were: Keep the core mechanic however. -Woods for doubloons exchange. -24h waiting time. -Clan & Clan friendlist (optional) -Depletable forests. How it should be changed: -The amount of wood in each forest should be lowered. My suggestion would be rather than 1kk logs per forest, the total amount should top out at 25k logs. Some types of logs could have even smaller stocks. -Change the price. Instead of 2 doubloons per log, make it 5, maybe 10 doubloons per log. Rarer/more exclusive logs could cost more thanothers. So riga fir could cost a quarter of what Malabar Teak costs per log. -Have forests despawn and change location every week. Either by making the supply so low that they will be depleted as soon as they are discovered, or by forcing respawn every X days no matter if the forest is depleted or not. If the forest is depleted early, then there would be no supply until it respawns in another port, another nation. -Optionally, the randomization of spawn location could account for nation ownership, making the spawn each week equal chance for each of the nations in-game - thus giving an advantage to smaller nations with more concentrated territories. This is how an example clan-mission could look for Malabar Teak: What this mechanic would achieve: -exploration gameplay. Players would sail around their nation's ports, looking for forests every week. Players that found the location of a forest could try and empty it themselves/with their clan, or sell information about the location to a bigger clan. -PvP-players would get currency for their looted and rewarded doubloons. -A fairer distribution system for logs. With the current system I know almost all of the handful of players on the server with the resources, alts, patience and time to camp each of the current resource spawns and collect usable amounts of the new woods, while normal players without alts, time or reals enough have no chance of ever seeing a ship made of the special new woods. REDS has already started to craft our first ships from the new woods. The current distribution system hugely benefits certain players - players like myself. The system I propose would make it impossible to monopolise the new woods the way they currently are. Distribute them more fairly between nations. And the parameters could still be adjusted to keep the woods as rare as intended. My rationale for suggestion this is explained in further detail here:
  12. Any reward for whoever ( 🙄 ) tested the most conquest flags? (300+ flags successfully planted, didn't get sunk once)
  13. This is not a suggestion for a new mechanic, but rather an argument to revive and improve an existing one. The mood in my circles about the freshest changes to the game is generally positive. The new woods introduced seem to have an idea behind them. They need further adjustment and balancing, but that’s already been promised is coming. And the decrease to acceleration is something the game experience may really profit from when it is further adjusted as indicated. The thing that isn’t really working however, is the distribution of the new woods. The way they are distributed serves only to advantage those few players who have alts in all other nations, and are rich enough to be able to buy the best woods at any cost. Some spawn locations are captureable, but they are also extremely close to the home waters and Home Defence Fleets of a nation, and also happen to be in ports that are already developed crafting ports. Meaning they are either practically uncaptureable and therefore may as well have been placed in a capital, or they serve as a rag placed in front of a nation’s crafting port making it more likely some other nation will attack the port, something they might not have been willing to before, effectively destroying the target nation and driving droves of players away from the game. Now...we have a mechanic for distributing rare woods already in the game, which has been effectively unused and neglected since release. The Clan Missions mechanic, whereby you extract X amount of logs from a forest for typically 2X amount of doubloons out of a forest that starts at 1 000 000 logs was an interesting idea meant to incite fighting over the ports where the resource would spawn. Before release it was effectively replaced as the system to distribute woods by farms that we could invest and plant ourselves and with unlimited resources. Which had the advantage of shortening hauling distances, give players back control of the supply and also avoid the situation where some nations would be randomly gifted access to woods with more favourable RvR-characteristics than others, while risking some nations might have to live with oak/oak warships. However clan-missions were never removed from the game. They spawned around the map at release. There are white oak forests, live oak, bermuda cedar, etc. as clan missions in various locations on the map. Yet no wars have been fought over access to these forests. And to my knowledge none of these forests have been depleted and respawned since release. Some forests were almost halfway depleted at the beginning right after release, when labour hours for resource extraction were sparse and doubloons were plenty. Since then they have not been touched, and I’ve come across forests where only one clan mission has been completed. Some of these forests have changed hands since release, yet I doubt the conquering nation paid any mind to it. My proposal: Is to remove the clan missions we have on the map today, slightly adjust the numbers in terms of output, cost and total amount, and reimplement the mechanic, but for distribution of the new woods. Remove the current clanmissions for Live oak, White oak, Bermuda Cedar, etc. Make new clan missions for Malabar Teak, African Teak, Riga Fir, Greenheart etc. These clan missions should see some changes from previoulsy. The size of the forest should no longer be 1 000 000 logs. Make it perhaps 25 000 logs per forest. Enough that more than just a couple of people can extract some, but a small enough forest that it will be quickly depleted and respawn in another location. Make it so that each extraction is 2500 logs at a time, about almost enough for 2 lineships. The total forest size should be small enough that the forests are depleted and respawn in a different location at least about every week, provided that the woods are actually desirable for players to acquire. Yet large enough that it is not just the first player who comes across the forest that gets to extract some. There could even be a mechanic that these forests are redistributed on the map once every week, regardless of if they are depleted by then or not. The forests could be distributed one out of two ways across the map. Either they have an equal chance each time to spawn in any of the almost 400 captureable ports on the map. The consequence of this is that the more ports a nation, clan or clan-alliance owns, the greater the chance each time that a forest will spawn in one of their ports. If you own half the map, you have a pretty good chance at any given time to have each and every one of the desireable woods spawn in one of your nation’s ports. Smaller nations would see forests spawn in their ports maybe once for every 3-4 times it spawns in a particular larger nation. Alternatively there could be a two-step lottery. Where in the first step for each forest it is randomly decided which nation a forest will spawn in, and secondly after that there is a random decision which of that nation’s ports the forest would spawn in. Smaller nations would have just as good a chance to spawn a desireable forest as larger nations, and moreover, large nations would often find that although woods spawned in their ports, the location of where they spawned could be on the other side of the map in their far-away colonies, requiring a long haul to get it back to where it is needed after extraction. In some small way this could serve as a slight rebalancer of nation. I’m not sure how much it should cost to extract woods from a forest, but particularly rare and desireable woods could have an exorbitant price in doubloons. Requiring for instance 10 doubloons per log, costing us 25 000 doubloons to extract 2 500 logs. And each player being able to extract only one batch of logs per 24 hours. If the forests deplete often/weekly, then within just a few weeks each of the woods would have typically spawned at least once in each of the nations ports, distributing the woods somewhat evenly and fairly between the nations, without flooding the market with logs that are meant to be rare and expensive. The old, «normal» woods that we ourselves produce in our ports would still be the go-to for most builders, but once and again there would be a chance for each player to extract enough of a special wood that he seeks that he could build a ship out of it. Or two. This is how clan missions look today: This forest has been in place since release, not moved at all. Only 2 clan delivery missions have been completed, taking a total of 10 000 logs out of a forest of 1 000 000. This forest will never move, and no other nation will get access to this particular forest. Here's how it could look for the new woods: 25 000 logs in the forest. 2 500 logs delivery. The price in doubloons is adjustable. The forests could despawn every week forcibly, or just wait for the 25 000 logs to deplete, which should go quick as soon as the location of the forest is discovered. Apart from a viable distribution system for logs, this suggested system of distribution has two further advantages. It encourages exploration playstyles, as players sail around their nations ports looking for freshly spawned forests to be the first to get their hand on the new logs. And secondly, it gives immense added value to doubloons as a PvP-reward. PvP-players can exchange their doubloons for logs, and hand them to crafters who turn the logs of their choice into ships.
  14. Finally! Peace has been really boring! Lets not have a feature drop on a Friday (even if it's just reimplementing an old one) it increases the risk of having hotfixing through the weekend. Thursday is fine. I am sure they must drop directly from ship holds. IF they dropped from chests we would have rampant alt-abuse. Just trade a few wood chests to an alt, have the alt open the chests and the alt will have flags that can be placed to block PBs etc. My question is rather, do the flags bind to the player upon inspection of the loot, or upon placing it in your hold (or upon leaving the battle instance). Also @admin will the unused test Flags and unopened Conquest Test Chests be deleted from players holds and warehouses? I really hope so. They should at least be made useless starting tomorrow.
  • Create New...