Nalyd
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Nalyd
-
-
uh, I actually make a good 130K+ per mission against 2 3rd rate in my Pavel because I capture them.
If I only blast them I would only earn some around 60-70K per mission.
Haven't tried since the new patch but if the admiralty take your ship for the same amount of money as before (around 35-40K per 3rd rate) then I'll still earn the same. Actually, I won't have to move into every one of my port just to sell them.
-
One of the 2nd rate in development is the Bucentaure which was the flagship of the french fleet at Trafalgar.
-
1
-
-
Well I think, that those are the two points which will hurt the players most of all.
Sure I want to know if we are able to keep 1 or 5 ships (maybe just the ships at the Capital?) and/or if it is possible to keep the upgrades / outposts.(Maybe just the permission to build those)
Actually where did you got those informations from? Is there already something anounced by the officials concerning that?
Check the admin's posts via his profile. You can find most of the important announcements there.
He tend to repeat this "no xp rank/craft wipe" from time to time so it should be easy to find it.
Edit : well funnily enough, I found one of those post by browsing the forum : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12572-time-for-a-wipe/page-2#entry226198
Edit² : And by the way, why is this topic in the tavern section ? It anything but off-topic.
-
~ I'm curios cause there are a few player, which don't want to start all over again at zero and might not play the game anymore when they have to.
Like crafting lv. 0 or have to get to full rang again ~
Thank you in advance!
Yours faithfully,
Twig
Funny that you mentioned those 2 points because that's exactly what you're gonna keep if a reset happens.
The craft level and rank won't be lost but the rest will.
-
Having a BR cap would solve a lot of issue with the current power-creeping happening in port battle.
This could then be phased out in the future with the introduction of the land in battle, forts, specially designed map for port battle etc. which can change the meta of a port battle.
But for now, even if this solution has flows, it still remains the best "bandaid" fix for the time being.
-
You know, there's a pretty simple solution to when one of the AI ships (not traders, but warships) chooses to run: turn the other way. You don't have to run, but sail perpendicular to him or away from him, and you'll force him to bring the fight to you. If you won't go on offence, then he has to. When he closes within range again, nail him. If he breaks off again, rinse and repeat.
Just deactivate the stern guns of the AI bot and that will solve most of the issue.
The reason why they "run away" from you is because after a broadside, they try to hit you with their stern gun. In order to do so they obviously have to show you their rear and therefore they head in another direction.
You'll often witness that they tend to ram you or get very close if you're slightly in front of them or run away if you're slightly behind them after their first broadside.
-
As many said above :
1. No ship lost
2. No reward
3. Leaderboard
-
When there's no escape, certain death is guaranteed, only someone with unquestionably high morals wouldn't turn that ticking time bomb towards the enemy. Are you that fellow Hans the Hawk?
Please, tell me more about how there is no escape when all it takes is ~15 guys out of 650+ to put down that fire.
-
I must admit this whole trend about being politically correct is pissing me off to no avail.
Just like when the ISIS organisation in the archer's TV serie had to be removed despite being there way before some terrorist use it.
Most of you guys make it seem that they are displaying racist behaviors in the chat on a daily basis. Is it that hard to snatch a screenshot of this said behavior so we actually have some material to debate here ?
-
For anyone not Aware, there allready is a new vote up:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12471-development-priorities-2/
You should probably lock this one so people don't get confuse.
-
Peace/war mechanics is the first priority for me.
In close second comes the PvE because we seriously lack content there.
Then an Overhaul of the craft in third place.
In fourth, the crew/officer. Since we already have a first iteration of the crew, this can wait a bit.
And finally, the PvP tournament and stuff. Heck, this could even wait until the game is released in my opinion, it's far far behind in my priority list.
-
1
-
-
I'd also like each nation to only be able to craft their own vessels. It would be more realistic and actually make each faction have its own identity.
If you wanted a ship from another faction, well, you'd have to board one and capture it, like they did in the past.
But yeah. It"s still too early for that with the current number of ships we have.
We would need to have at least 1 ship for each rate per faction or close to that.
So nice idea, but as for now, technical issues get in the way.
-
There are PvE servers for that. If people want to just grind missions and not fight other players, they have a place. The problem with the PvP servers is that PvE players are outleveling PvP players, allowing them to take ports with 3rd and 1st rates when they don't even know how to use manual sails. Doing PvP on a PvP server in a PvP game should be rewarded, but currently it isn't.
Because obviously, people who are more into PvE but still want to have access to PvP mechanics every now and then doesn't exist. Apparently you are either 100% hardcore PvP or 100% PvE.
About the PvP reward, you earn a shitload more doing that than in PvE. It's just a high risk, high reward thing.
And really, if your concern is the PvP, you should ask for the dev to add PvP missions instead of trying to force your playstyle on others
-
2
-
-
Because, perhaps, they realized that their whole strategy needs to be re-directed and they wish to start fresh. That is impossible to do at he moment, and it should be possible. And, as z4ys says, it's hard, if not impossible, to do missions in a basic cutter when you're above 1st Lieutenant (or equivalent).
Switching from a server/faction to another indeed brings the issue of having inadequate missions for a starting ship. But the real solution in this case would be to allow players from taking whatever mission they want and not just the 3 highest.
I also don't understand why someone would want to reset their xp except for the sake of starting all over again with no reason since there is no "binding choices" to make in this game. but meh, if that's really what they want, whatever.
-
Do a mix of both like people above said.
put a BR rating limit so we are finally done with the army of Man'o war, but still limit the max number of players to 25vs25.
First of all because the server (and most players's PC) won't be able to render more than that. And also because I don't want the swarm of basic cutter to become a viable tactic.
-
They (the marines) actually help you to board the enemy ship.
Unless you haven't noticed, when you switch to boarding, you already have a set amount of preparation right off the bat instead of starting from 0 when you're equipped with marines, with my fine marines I start at around 40 preps and only need a few seconds to reach 50 before I can board the enemy.
And they also get killed when the enemy shoot at your vessel.
-
3
-
-
Which server ? (I guess PVP1 but I might be wrong)
-
1
-
-
Ok, let me get this straight...
Denmark/Norge is allied to France
France is allied to Sweden
Verenigde Provinciën is allied to Denmark
Sweden and VP are currently fighting port battles.
France is at war with the british
Denmark/Norge is at war with the british
Sweden is allied with the british
This is like playing chess with 5 colors of pieces!
It's only complicated if you consider that there is only 1 type of alliance possible.
There is 3 kinds of alliance possible :
-A full military alliance -> they are allies in both offensive and defensive operations
-An offensive alliance -> Both have a common enemy and join their forces against it but won't get involved if one of them is dealing with another enemy. (ex : Danes and French fight against the Brits but Danes are also at war with the US, French don't get involved in the Dano-american war)
-A defensive alliance -> Both nation are defending each other but won't support the other nation if they are the one starting a new war without a Casus Belli (ex : Sweden gets attacked by Danes, French help Sweden, then Sweden start a war against VP without a Casus beli ; France won't help Sweden)
Those are just example for illustration and might or not be representative of the reality
So I suggest you guys should rename this alliance into "military alliance" instead of "offensive alliance" since :
"they join the war if their ally is attacked, they also start wars together" -
Someone told me that brits can loose and run something like this:
Welcome France to take their part in zerg-burn
-
7
-
-
Thats a fair enough critique. The admin didn't quite call it an exploit but implies that he believes it to be so since hes asking our opinion on punishment. And good for him. I to believe it is an exploit. Essentially, I am not disagreeing with the communities judgment that this was an exploit. I am disagreeing with the communities knee-jerk reaction to ban a player for doing something the game allows and no prior judgment has been passed on. The examples I used were to simply highlight how certain exploits have been allowed and players not punished. I argued the same then as I do now. No rule, No ban!
I partially agree with that.
But still what this/those person(s) did can't be tolerated and while banning is too harsh, a slap on the wrist is way too gentle.
It reminds me of GW2 which had a merchant selling very high quality stuff at a very high price. The problem was that they forgot a digit which made the object dirt cheap for a while at the release of the game.
Of course people bought those and and the devs dished out punishment.
-People who bought one or two of those item were free to go with those since there is a good likely hood they didn't knew it was an exploit.
-Those who bought a dozen of them were given a warning, since these guys might have bought it for their friends and didn't mean harm.
-However, those who bought more than 50 or even hundreds of them got flat out banned from the game, Would you genuinely purchase the same item hundreds of time despite the fact that you could only equip one of them ? I don't believe so, nor did the devs.
And we have the same situation here.
If it was a genuine mistake, the guy who did that would just get an explanation on how the PB work.
But in this case, the guy fully knew what he did was wrong since he created an account just to do that. And even then I would think that a warning should be enough.
However what he did was far worse than that, he actually used 2 alt accounts to transfert his funds like via a proxy. 1 alt account would have been enough to prevent any player from knowing its true account, so what was the point of using 2 ? This was obviously an action aimed toward the devs and not us other players. This guy thought that the devs were too dumb to be able to track him down if he was doing something like that.
And by doing so, this exploiter showed that he didn't had any bit of respect for the devs who created this game.
Someone like that doesn't deserve any kind treatment and yet, I still believe in second chance.
Therefore I would advocate for a ban of every alt accounts used to do this exploit and also a complete wipe of the culprit's account. So he can start freshly again and think about his behavior.
However, I don't believe in a third chance and after this case is done any person found guilty of using this exploit with the mean to harm other players experience should get an instant ban.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse or defense".
-
1
-
-
Why turn off boarding?
Because if you don't, the boarding will suck dry all your crew from both sailing and gunnery
-
The current crew management added in the last patch made the game more realistic which is a good leap in the right direction.
However this system still remains quite basic, mainly because of its rigidity, like the fact that you can't divide precisely your crew for each task as you wish since the game is doing that for you instead.
I've read many post about how to fix this issue, like adding a slider, allowing the use of the num pad etc...
The issue with those ideas is that they are weighing down the UI further more or add more key binds, which will make the game even more complicated.
So here are the different cases we currently have with the crew management system :
Case 1 : Every toggles are ON
In this case, the game will just automatically spread your crew across every task, you have no power over how many sailors you want to put for X or Y task.
Case 2 : Some toggles are ON and others are OFF
In this scenario you can actually force sailors to switch from one task to another. If you toggle off the gunnery, your sailors will switch toward the sailing task. However, if you do that, you are forced to fill completely the task that are still toggled on even if it means crippling entirely your ability to sail or use guns.
ex : you have 100/200 guys sailing, and 200/400 guys on the guns.You want more guys manning guns, the only thing you can do in this case is to switch all your crew from sailing to gunnery, and you'll end up with 0/200 sailing and 300/400 manning guns so you basically lose your ability to sail.
Case 3 : Every toggles are OFF
Just like in the first case, the game will just spread your crew across every task with or without your consent.
So we have 2 different cases doing the same thing, therefore here's my suggestion :
Solution : make it so that when every toggles are OFF like in the third case, your crew don't move around.
By doing that, you'd be able to manage your crew as you wish, and all that without adding more stuff on the screen nor adding more keybinds.
Just so everybody understand correctly :
Example :
Your ship have 500 crew every toggles are ON except for boarding, and the game distributed them as follow :
200/300 sailing ; 300/500 gunnery ; 0/500 boarding.
You are planing on boarding a vessel and start to toggle on the boarding option, however if you do so, you won't have any men left sailing nor manning the guns. You believe that 200 men on boarding should suffice, but you still need your 200 men or so on sailing to maneuver but don't mind switching most of your guys from gunnery to boarding.
So this is what you do in that order :
Step 1 - turn ON the boarding's toggle -> Your men from both sailing and gunnery will start draining toward the boarding task.
Step 2 - turn OFF the gunnery's toggle. -> The game will only drain your men from gunnery to boarding, leaving the guys sailing to their task until there is no more men left in gunnery.
Step 3 - wait for the boarding to reach 200/500, which will take about 40s (5 men per second)
Step 4 - boarding just reached 200/500, turn OFF both sailing and boarding so none of your sailors move.
And voilà, all of your toggles are off and you have now 200/300 sailing ; 100/500 gunnery ; 200/500 boarding.
If you have any question (I kind of suck at explaining stuff) or suggestion, disagree or agree with me, feel free to leave your comments below
. -
Urge to comment "that's what she said" intensifies.
-
2
-
-
ppl worry about FPS way to much...your TV works on a 25-30 fps basis as do most films. You don't see people complaining about frame rates then. If its 30 or above with a large number of players being in the area....don't worry
Lol.
Most films and TV series indeed run at 25-30 FPS, but the thing you have to realize is that the human eye can easily catch variation. In the case of movies doing 25 FPS, you know that during the whole movie, the frame rate will stay constantly at 25FPS from the beginning to the end no matter what, this will fool your eyes. Which is why almost nobody complain about it.
In the case of a game however, FPS change constantly depending on what's happening on your screen and never stays constantly at a set FPS, which is why even when you have let's say, in average 50fps ingame, your still feel this "stuttering" and discomfort happening.
The only time you won't feel that is if your ingame FPS are above the refreshing rate of your screen, which is on most monitor still 60 hertz. And this is why most people wants to play above 60fps, because it's smooth just like a movie.
-
1
-
.
Remove 1.5BR anti-gank programming
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
One thing that could lighten some of the issues of this new BR system would be to allow players to join the fight after it started during the "preparation phase" (which is around 30s I believe) where nobody can move. After the preparation phase, the BR would then be locked.
At least you wouldn't be forced to pack a fleet of players within the same pixel but it would still forces you to stay somewhat close from each other to engage a fight.
That would also reduce the fleet splitting issue where a small fleet of players engage one SoL of your group that was left a little bit behind with impunity.