Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Wraith last won the day on June 19

Wraith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,750 Excellent


About Wraith

  • Rank
    Post Captain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Credit to Little Gamers for my ninja icon (come back soon):

Recent Profile Visitors

2,991 profile views
  1. Agreed, even a general note concerning what was changed would be better than nothing.
  2. I think delivery and passenger missions are fine, but as others have noted they do make all other trade items almost completely redundant. I'd like to keep the missions as they are, but potentially consider a reputation system that varies the value and difficulty of the delivery missions as you amass successful deliveries? Something a bit more dynamic would be nice. I'd probably agree to remove trade goods completely from the game and make all "trade" dependent on player produced items, with passive delivery missions taking the place of moving meaningless trade goods around.
  3. Well, technically, it was the red headed step children of Russia.. kind of the meaningless unorganized ones. But yes, our screeners won, technically, to take nothing from their effort.
  4. Exactly. And the current repair rates with fully Crew 4 port bonus. I agree partially but in fact the tack is still risky even if takes less time to do so, and if you aren't anticipating it and thinking farther ahead then it feels more reactive. This is I think at the core of the dichotomy represented here and is somewhat reflected in the nature of ship choice preferences that we all exhibit. I love to sail 6th and 7th rates exactly because it allows me to be thinking potentially five turns and broadsides ahead instead of just one.. while if you're sailing a line ship, two turns and a tack might be equivalent to another whole repair cycle plus a wind change, while you get far, far more sailing and decision-making in per repair cycle in a smaller ship. By increasing acceleration you're making those decisions more frequently and thus, making the skill in making those decisions compound, even for larger ships. And in a world where we're forced by a f-ucked up damage model to sail the biggest gun platform we can, I can stomach sailing frigates and line ships only because the decision making is faster due to the current acceleration. And when you can reprint 2/3 of a ship after that repair cycle then it becomes even more important to get your damage done and stay on task. Current acceleration makes it far, far more important that you're not just watching and reacting. Now... all that said. I still do believe there's room to nerf acceleration on line 4th-1st rates. I think that it would bring back into play some of the more realistic line and focus strategy that's missing from larger ship fights now, while also increasing the danger to poor decision making around stern protection, etc. that you can currently get away with. But I don't see a need to make frigate play any slower.
  5. Thanks to the US for a nice fight outside of Jobe last night. We had a mixed fleet that was out to raid and grind, and ended up kicking up a good US response after capping a very salty Trader Brig captain (really, don't sail what you can't afford to lose my friends, we're pyrates after all). But the US were game for a fight and to their credit didn't run after they lost a couple of ships, sticking around to grind out a good battle even though we maintained wind control the entire fight. Much fun was had and few tears were shed. Kudos!
  6. Raids is the only thing that should be on that list until it's done. ... Oh and nerf the damn AI cheating, it just looks ridiculous. ... And kill the rate mismatch buff/nerf for PvE, you can keep it for PvP. Let people grind fleets in their big ships if they want. Players should be able to feel the awesome power of their broadside smash little ships to splinters if they want to and still get rewarded for it, it's just not a big deal if it gets people excited to be on the open water and into ships that are PvP/RvR-ready.
  7. You are, which is fine. We are all allowed. But I think most players who buy the game are looking for some kind of progression and not to feel that their time is being abused, and under current risk vs. rewards scenarios that time investment has disproportionately bad payoffs.
  8. I can appreciate all of the time and thought that you've put into thinking about the model and how sailing and combat interact. But I think at its core what you're wrestling with is a matter of preference for a lot of players. What I would like to see isn't what you'd like to see, in terms of simple game play, primarily because I value having players in the game. And what I think you're pushing for (and the developer's have made missteps towards in the past and currently) is for a more hard core, slow and frankly ultra-niche kind of game play style. In my ideal world I would like to see a stretching of the spectrum across ship speeds and roles. Where first rates are even have even less acceleration, and smaller ships have more utility in battle because of their agility and speed. At it's core the sailing hasn't changed, it's just gotten faster. And people who are faster with their decision making and ability to react, combined with having the best ships and builds will have more success. I know this runs antithetical to the old fart mentality of having the best captain be the determinant of battle, but let's face it: In a game where players are the only content, you must be focused on what keeps the most content in the game. Because the old farts who value a slow, methodical, strategic game 1) aren't going to keep the game afloat financially and 2) aren't going to keep the game afloat with content (PvP and RvR), we need to make some concessions to a game play style that is more attractive to the more casual, less "sim" oriented players where gear and group matters as much as individual skill and strategy.
  9. Do you think repairing 2/3 of a ship in 2 minutes is okay? Because of time compresssion, and the way that the current sailing model interacts with the damage model and all of the various mods and port bonuses (particularly these) if you reduce the ability to maintain guns on an opponent by nerfing acceleration or turn rate you are basically eliminating sinking in many cases. I think you have to think far beyond the simple case of acceleration if you want the system to be anywhere near balanced (and I'm not claiming it is) but you can't just twiddle one knob here.
  10. Grind is shitty content. PvP/RvR is really the only content we have in Naval Action and when success in PvP is guaranteed by access to bigger guns (because of a broken combat model) then you might as well give a pass to people for ships that allow some kind of success in my opinion, otherwise they'll just quit the game.
  11. I like faster fights to be honest, so appreciate new acceleration curves. But I agree with Slim on the relative curves should be quite different, and so I vote new but if they're broken relative to other ships and their masses then it should be fixed and revisited. I can definitely say that ships feel different (the Ratt for example is a piece of garbage) and so I'm inclined to say that relative performance is reasonable.
  12. That data isn't in any of the API files that I can tell, do you mind sharing how you compiled it?
  13. But that's why we wiped right? To give the #NoLifer life meaning?
  • Create New...