Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Wraith

Members
  • Content Count

    3,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Wraith last won the day on June 19

Wraith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,898 Excellent

5 Followers

About Wraith

  • Rank
    Post Captain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Credit to Little Gamers for my ninja icon (come back soon):
    http://www.little-gamers.com/

Recent Profile Visitors

3,119 profile views
  1. The old wiki got hopelessly out of date because new users who were motivated couldn't sign in and fix things. The https://naction.info wiki shouldn't have that problem so if you want to help maintain or update information please feel free to do so, and also join the Unofficial Naval Action discord's Wiki channel to be kept up to date on efforts, etc. https://discord.gg/pXyNjF2
  2. I'd say the majority of players use alts for econ and labor hours, dock space, tows, spying (gasp), or just having multiple characters to roleplay with across different nations. Running them in sandboxes allows you to do all that on a single computer at once. With multiple monitors people can comfortably run four or five game instances without any issues, and since this is a game with so much downtime while sailing it just gives you something to do.
  3. Because fighting against a zerg is quite a lot of fun isn't it? 🙄 Have fun trying to convince opposing, undermanned nations during your time zone of that, it worked well during the night flipping years. Enjoy your AI port battles for all those night timers. lolz
  4. Welcome to the game and good luck finding your sea legs. The learning curve is incredibly steep but there's plenty to sink your teeth into along the way. Let us know if you need any help or have any questions, as there are many players in the game and outside it who are happy to help new players along.
  5. I'd agree with most of the above in that BR should be dialed back significantly for almost all ports. What I would argue is that there should be upgrade-dependent BR adjustments for the port involved. As more is invested in a port the BR limit goes up. So that only a 55 point port, fully max invested would result in a 25 vs. 25 1st rate port battle. Scale all others accordingly so that an average county capital port with few investments (think towers only) would be in that sweet spot of 10-15k that results in interesting fleet compositions and choices. And for ports that are captured and investments knocked down the BR goes down so that the losing nation has a better opportunity with a smaller port battle to re-take it, absent investment from the new owners, etc. I don't have a problem with large, 1st and 2nd rate screening fleets.. there's no way around the effect that numbers and OW BR will have on screening, but that can at least be countered with good tactics, collaboration, and planning.
  6. Some things are just too obvious..
  7. You were patronizing. You could have pointed out my mistake without the snide comment, and that would have been fine, I'd have acknowledged it. But that guilt creeping in must be clouding your ability to be objective about things, and so you felt you had to poke a bit. That's fine too, but do realize that what you think of me isn't causing me to lose any sleep.
  8. Methinks you're now sounding a bit defensive? Let the record show that while I wasn't there, and am not mad in the slightest (do I sound mad, I don't think so), @Christendom can't speak for himself on the forum so you can consider me his agent in the matter. If you could so easily kill him then why didn't you just join on the U.S. side and do it? I mean, honestly, to believe you misread the flags on the 'Join' button stretches all credibility because it literally couldn't be more clear. You've failed to give any other reasonable explanation beyond the obvious: that you intended to bring more AI into the battle and you got caught by someone who's not shy about calling out said shady actions. You might as well have just committed to it and gone green on green because this was a foregone conclusion... Unless, another plausible explanation that I've already offered up is more likely: that you didn't want to get stuck in a battle against a Requin that you couldn't sink.
  9. Wraith

    Stuck in battle

    Call it an investment in contemplating your mistakes.
  10. Don't patronize me. Why would he join the mission at all if it was truly a bonehead move on your part, and you weren't actually trying to make his life difficult? I don't believe for a second you weren't all on comms given that you're all out there screening together. FFS, we're not children here. If you had joined on the U.S. side, even with prepared you and I both know that a Requin is not that easy to kill, and you likely just didn't want to be held in battle while he plinked at you from distance, so you decided to join green, spawn some AI on him in the hopes it would delay his hostility, and get out with a b.s. mea culpa to rejoin the hunt for bigger prey?
  11. Wraith

    Crafting

    Hit escape or rescale your GUI elements you newb. (and before any of you jump down my throat for calling him a newb, he's in our clan, though we frequently think about disowning him)
  12. Chat logs are meaningless in this context, since anyone can say anything. It's up to @Ink to verify the intent, however, and it makes very little sense that one of you joined first: ... and then the second joined to try to get positional advantage for AI to complicate Chris' efforts: If it were an "honest" mistake, wouldn't the second have joined on the U.S. side? And come on.. is it really that hard to tell the pirate and U.S. flag apart? Masking it with a bit of thin chat dissembling is pretty bush league stuff. 🙄 And @z4ys , do you really think after all this time we are unaware that the hostility ticks up based on the ships sunk regardless of whether the mission was completed or not? That isn't germane to the Tribunal at all. Whether Chris got the hostility or not from the mission is irrelevant to whether we should allow non-friendly players to join hostility missions, spawning AI directly for the purpose of trying to sink a player they can't sink themselves by joining on the opposing side. This is simply a case of WO/CABAL trying to game hostility in yet one more interesting way, to counter a legitimate grind (and failing). Again, being has he wasn't involved in the case, @King of Crowns posting here is irrelevant as well. Him whinging about his storm troubles and asking for them to be removed just because it was an inconvenience, or piddling on about hostility mission stacking when it's a technique that sounds right out of the WO playbook and is an accusation he makes, and then conveniently edits out of his post... I mean.. who's trying to start stuff with who here? 😗 I think a warning for being continually off topic and violating Tribunal rules would be warranted here?
  13. Since @Christendom is still restricted from posting, he asked me to post the following for him. Earlier today while grinding the last bit of hostility at Rio Seco, Chris started a hostility mission in his Requin (as pirate nation against a U.S.-held port) but was observed by Dutch players doing so. The Dutch players, being neither Pirate or U.S., could join either side, but who are now allied with the U.S., joined the hostility mission on the pirate side to intentionally spawn large NPC ships to complicate and hinder the hostility grind that Chris was hoping to complete. We were wondering whether this instance of joining a battle without the intention of fighting constitutes a breach of the rule specified in prior tribunals, and whether the players should be punished accordingly:
×
×
  • Create New...