Batman
-
Posts
1,360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Batman
-
-
12 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
We had ships there too. And we started grinding first. But yes, you beat us to capturing it, since you outnumber us by a lot. That was your war declaration.
We declared war by taking a NEUTRAL port?
-
2
-
-
Ah yes, Britain, the permanent threat.
I guess declarations of war by @Anolytic and @Lord_Drax will follow?
-
2
-
-
In dem Zusammenhang erwähne ich auch gerne nochmal admin, der sagte während des Summer Sales sind 10.000 Kopien des Spiels verkauft worden. Von diesen 10.000 Spielern ist allerdings kein einziger geblieben. Sicher hat auch der ein oder andere sich einen Alt Account zugelegt, aber 10.000 übersteigt die Summe der aktiven Spieler bei weitem. Wenn ich innerhalb von einigen Wochen 10.000 Spieler verliere, sollte mir das als Entwickler zu denken geben.
Meine persönliche Meinung: Man muss wegkommen von dem ewigen RvR-Gefummel und endlich neuen Content hinzufügen.
Es kann doch nicht sein das nach eineinhalb Jahren Steam-Präsenz Port Battles immernoch der einzige Endgame Content sind (Nichts gegen Port Battles allgemein).
Im Moment schnappt sich jeder soviele Ports wie nur irgend möglich geht. In der Zwischenzeit gab es zwei (?) richtige Portbattles.
Und was passiert dann? Mehr Port Battles - meine Quellen sagen dass sich gerade vier Nationen versammeln um den Briten gemeinsam in den Hintern zu treten.
Dabei sollte die Vergangenheit doch gezeigt haben, dass Nation-Steamrolling der Playerbase auch nicht gerade gut tut. Neue Spieler sehen da, dass "ihre" Nation an allen Ecken und Enden attackiert wird und ziemlich "Wehrlos" rüberkommt. Da verlieren sicher auch gerade neue Spieler die Lust am Spiel - selbst wenn sie kaum bis garnicht in RvR involviert sind.
-
Ich denke, Spielerschwund ist am eheseten auf die grässliche UI, keinerlei Tutorials und dem hohen Zeitaufwand bereits für Anfänger geschuldet.
Das sind die ersten Dinge, die man als Neuling sieht. Von RvR oder seltenen Upgrades kriegt man doch anfangs garnichts mit.
-
3
-
-
To clarify. All this fighting in Nation chat was about Cartagena Tar and people intentionally blocking any sell orders by putting up stupid high priced sell contracts. While I posted @Ink post related to this issue where he said that it will be fixed you guys just threw cancer at each other and by posting this "conversation" here all people that actively engaged in this conversation with insulting and attacking each other you make the british nation look like idiots because you can't sort out who gets the cartagena tar.
Our potential enemies will laugh at us soon as they see these pictures.
-
3
-
-
Looks like admin has a score to settle with wargaming
-
On 19.9.2017 at 1:29 AM, John Cavanaugh said:
3rd rates will never be a logical choice in a port battle so long as we have no incentive to mix fleet construction. You can argue maneuverability, but we can all see from streamed port battles that people who want the turning and speed will still just build 1sts, but with lighter woods. In order to see fleets with diverse and realistic compositions a BR cap/limit to number of each rate of ship for PB, and ideally OW battles as well, as suggested frequently in the past, is the only way to do that. Even with immediate post wipe QM limitations the rush was immediately on for the old mono fleet- nothing competes in this model
A Victory outturns Santi and L'Ocean, but it will never be able to outmaneuver a Bellona or a 3rd rate. I pushed the Bellona you build after the wipe to a turnrate of 2.8ish. Don't know the exact number right now because not ingame. Together with the better sailing profile a Bellona/3rd rate can easily sterncamp a 1st rate and angle itself to avoid most of its broadside. Yet there is no use for 3rd rate ships in Port Battles because 1st rates annihilate them in line sailing.
-
56 minutes ago, Skully said:
Fixed prices won't matter. AI needs to be a normal market participant.
Some sort of backup economy run by AI would be nice. If player numbers and thus trading activity drops, Ai should start to increase their production to keep economy running. at least to a certain level.
-
Ah yes. I see what you mean. This is indeed a problem.
-
I have sent several mails around SLRN (142 members in the list) and I can't confirm this bug. But then, I haven't sent a mail since yesterday.
-
OMG brilliant!
-
I already said in the past I would rather have the 42's removed - as all navies got rid of them over time. Heavy on gunpowder, heavy on weight, heavy on crew. On HMS Victory Website you can actually read that she was first equipped with 42pd guns but they were removed for given reasons. Give 36pd guns to 1st and 2nd rates, hell maybe even only 32's as well so 3rd rate ships can be a logical choice in port battle and don't get reload shocked every broadside they receive from a bigger ship.
-
omg France is this the nation that never sleeps? At the first sign of trouble you just run away?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, rediii said:
Also i made some money and we had a lot of fun placing bets and watching the portbattle! thanks for the livestream.
I just wished it would have lasted a little longer. I barely made it to the battle after capturing A
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:
We can also debate if the Mortar Brig bug had a huge impact on the final result.
-
21 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:
This is from Cartagena Port Battle.
Danes spawned NWish of B Circle.
First Danes formed two lines, then reformed into one line and took B circle.
Meanwhile Brits capped A and C, formed two lines and sailed down along the edges of the canal
First to be sunk was DreamMaker, who tried to cut the British line, but didnt work.
The far british line made a 180° turn to support the fightin line that was led by Raxius.
The Battle got carried back to the B circle, where the lines were somewhat disbanded.
DN was able to capture B circle for a short amount of time, but Brits could bring more ships back into B and managed to finish heavily damaged danish ships.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Lord_Drax said:
Frog are u back in Spain? Woot!
Well ... HYDRA now plays D-N and Spain again as VLTRA. So one clan in two nations.
-
33 minutes ago, monk33y said:
Didn't a small gb clan not loose against 6 AI with ten ships at Cayman?!?
I think it was captured, but they couldn't maintain it.
-
Bitte frag John Cavanaugh wann PLANB endlich die Briten vernichtet - wir hatten immerhin schon ein paar Monate darauf.
-
1
-
-
@Lord Vicious merely adopted the rvr; SLRN, RUS and DAS were born in it, moulded by it.
-
Well for my clan, the issue has just been sorted out. But I guess this is still a valid discussion?
-
But then you have the problem of contacting a creator who has not been seen for I-don't-know-how-long.
I simply don't think the solution for such a predicament (worst case only leader stops playing) should be that a whole clan has to reform. There have to be some sort of backup mechanics be implemented.
Like if a clan has X numbers of officers they can start a vote amongst the officers if creator has not been online for Y days to elect a new creator. If Z number of officers agree to elect a new leader - well done. This could be done by %. If clan has 10 officers you need X amount to agree, if you have 5 or 20 officers same rules apply with different % needed.
-
1
-
-
Simple question - right now only the Clan Leader ("Creator") is able to promote players into the rank of diplomat.
This causes trouble for clans whos leader has not been online for quite some time because they can be locked out of rvr.
So should officers be able to promote other players/officers into diplomat rank or not?
Thoughts, ideas, opinions?
-
Du meinst man kann ganz ohne Risiko in der Safezone PvE spielen.
Spielerschwund? Kein Wunder!
in Naval Action - German language
Posted
Ich sage es immer wieder gerne - wenn mein Spiel vier jahre im Early Access festhängt, sollte ich mir als Entwickler die Frage stellen was schief läuft. Und nicht anfangen Spieler wegen negativer Steam Reviews zu bannen.