Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Stilgar

Members2
  • Posts

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,088 profile views

Stilgar's Achievements

Junior Lieutenant

Junior Lieutenant (6/13)

559

Reputation

  1. Map reset is clearly not compatible with the current game design (grind, high cost of the building / port investment, etc.), but it better be part of the next game. Importantly, the total map conquest makes no sense to me at all. IMHO, at least half of the ports (or maybe more) have to belong to the historically present powers and immune for capturing (not to raiding though), with RvR focused on conquest of the capturable ports, ownership of which should offer some advantages. With fewer ports to fight for, (i) there will be a higher local player concentration in RvR, (ii) lost wars will be bearable and nations / clans will be able to pull out, regroup, and then continue fighting, (iii) new players will have safe base to learn the game and build up their infra. Players up for a challenge would go minor nations, but will have to rebuild after each wipe. Again, this would require significant changes in the infra investments, removal/rethinking of the port bonuses etc. Next game, I hope.
  2. That must the fleet led by the ghost of the certain Adm. Sveno ...
  3. What a waste of speed mods lol (even before the new woods patch). Still a decent trader hunter :))
  4. I am all for more accessible woods, but your proposal will beat the purpose of these woods to be rare and would favor (larger) clans leaving casual/sole player or small groups in the dust.
  5. Or acting boldly and having a good fight ... I am for no names in OW and no in-battle chat (breaks the immersion). As for the topic of this thread, I guess it would not hurt to reveal names after 10 mins or so in battle.
  6. Уважаемые разработчики, в связи с текущими массивными изменениями, позволю спросить есть ли новости / планы по поводу battle sail механики? А то вот всё с ног на голову меняют, а о самом главном "тишина и мёртвые с косами".
  7. Реверс, не передёргивай: фрегаты всегда можно было строгать в больших количествах. А даблы и потом с дерево действительно тормозили крафт для среднестатистического игрока.
  8. ха-ха, кооператив "Триньки и сурпы" нарашивает производство ...
  9. Please correct me if I am wrong, the whole point of dubs in crafting was slow down crafting of SOL's and make frigates ubiquitous. However, more recently devs changed mantra from "frigates must rule the waves" to "3rd rate were back bone of the navy" , and things have changed ... Namely, with 3rd rate and 1st rate DLC as well as ability to capture any AI ship, dubs in crafting make no sense. So, the move makes perfect sense to me. Furthermore, as far as I can see players prefer to sail throw-away ships, DLC ships, whereas properly crafted and fitted ships are fewer in between, mainly sailed by veteran players in organized groups. With dubs removed we might see more decent quality and affordable crafted ships for sail, but more importantly players might be less hesitant to sail those. On a more general note, let's not pretend economy or crafting was ever a strong point of this game. Most endure the grind, imperfect roe rules, very basic rvr, and peculiar DLC strategy for the sake of experiencing the combat. All those secondary aspects need to be accessible, be a bit fun, give players to do smth between battles and create opportunities for battles. That's it. As for dominance of SOL's in OW and rvr, this clearly remains a problem regardless this change and it should become devs priority to give to all ship types / rates some place and role in the game. P.S. Btw, removal of dubs form crafting might result in some depreciation of dubs, but now players can divert them to the infrastructure investments, which still require considerable amounts, certainly for casual players. If infrastructure investment for individual players will be become more accessible, loss of those will be less painful and rebuilding easier.
  10. Good change indeed. Ships crafted from regular woods in combi with port bonuses (and rng) will be quite decent. So, crafters can engage into a bit more active rng crafting and the market will receive a decent flow of relatively inexpensive ships. Ships with good rng and S woods will be more expensive, thus allowing crafters to run a successful business. As for additional cost in reals, is that really needed? Do not forget that any ship would require modules and to getting good ones require some effort and money.
  11. Chrome most likely not. Edge - yes. Will try on another PC.
  12. On a related note, I remember reading a great book on the Dutch-English war of 1666, and particularly on the 4-days battle. At the time, the English tended to maximize fire power (they also produced superior quality cannons) and at times would load their own and also the lighter captured Dutch ships with heavier cannons than ship is designed for, making them sit quite low. This would also result in reduced weight of other supplies ship can take, thus resulting in the English ships being able to spend less time at sea as compared to the Dutch. The Dutch always missed high-quality (heavy) cannons and therefore relied more on the mobility and made boarding a more prominent part of their naval tactics. Maybe in a long term (or in NA 2.0) such aspects can be better reflected, so the player have to face a more complex task of the choosing weight of cannons, ammunition, reps etc. I might be wrong, but i thought cannon weight was more significant back in the early beta days. I remember putting lighter guns on some frigates to gain that little extra speed, but that was back in the days of the old damage model.
×
×
  • Create New...