Farrago
-
Posts
1,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Farrago
-
-
1 hour ago, Wolfram Harms said:
Now, before the emotionally unstable will stone me again with awful language, I want to ask you all for a fair, constructive debate,
with your ideas on all this:
could and shouldn't NAVAL ACTION be changed back to realism here?Lol. I think you're fairly safe. The vast majority of the opinions I've seen in the forums agree with you regarding the ridiculous level of repairs currently available in game.
Fair sails.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Rigs said:
This is a new approach!
Then lets nerf Indefatigable because of 5th rate missions.
Um, please take a moment to read what I wrote. I'll assume you're not just a troll contrarian despite how it appears. I'll also assume you're not an idiot despite how it appears.
i did not say to nerf anything. In fact, I voted NOT to nerf the Wasa
But since XP, gold, tagging rules, and soon port battle entry are based on BR then it only makes sense to get it right. If in all ways the Wasa outperforms a Connie on paper, then it should have a higher BR (and perhaps a higher cost).
You do realize the fact -- and the reasoning behind it -- that a Rattlesnake has a lower BR than a Victory despite the fact that there are some in this game that can kill your First Rate with their Heavy Rattler.
-
1
-
-
It actually has very little to do with PVP or players "adapting". What percentage of combat in this game is vs other players? I'd be surprised if it was as high as 10%.
But the Wasa as is makes 4th rate missions even easier -- more of a mindless grind -- and by having a lower BR than it should, the rewards for damaging or sinking 3rd rates and bigger are not in balance with the same accomplishment in a Connie or Aggie.
This discussion is not about you being able to kill a Wasa with a different ship. It's about the Wasa being rated accurately according to its capabilities.
-
Sounds good except without some sort of reputation or feedback system, I'm not sure how well it would work. For example, I play Dutch on Global. We're a small nation. But I don't think we'd ever hire someone to help in battles. But even if we did, we certainly wouldn't give them ships that could be later used against us if the mercs were hired by our enemies the next week.
-
Interesting.
Naval Action just posted pictures of the real USS Constitution on its Facebook page and said..
"Newly refitted USS Constitution !
Coming soon to Naval Action too."Maybe the Wasa will be getting some competition.
-
I don't want a server merge right now but wonder how we could do it and still keep night flips at a minimum or not at all.
Would it be too complicated to have a clan set the port battle window for their port when they capture it? After one week, that window expands by 6 hours. After another week, if expands again by 6 hours. Another week and 6 more making it a 24-7 port (minus maintenance). That way, if you want to hold a port forever, you'll eventually have to defend at all hours.
-
I'd like to rename PVP Global "Ralph" and PVP Euro "Rupert". Should I start a poll?
-
5
-
-
7 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:
That would be fine, but I thought after the last wipe the devs said no more asset wipes. I thought?
I will post it if I can find it. I think it was in that patch thread with hundreds of posts in it.
I think you're referring to this statement made while discussing clan wars:
Admin:
"another statement on the wipe
There will be no wipe. only map reset. In fact there might be no wipes any more even on release. But its not a promise. "I wouldn't hold my breath but would guess the Devs would prefer not to have to do a wipe. But it could happen. Most of us have expected it before release.
-
1
-
-
I'd prefer no tow, but at least keep it a little less arcade by not allowing hold items including repairs. It's fairly clear in game where you need to have a port with prepositioned repairs if you want PVP or your nation is making an RVR push. Get ready. Set up that remote outpost using a traders brig with repairs instead of a basic cutter.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Teutonic said:
A nation may have both EU and NA players but currently a port is owned by the clan that takes it.
So i'll expand
Nation A has Clan 1 from EU.
Nation B has Clan 2 and 3 from EU and NA respectively.
I can see two possible solutions that could possibly be worked on or discussed
1. When a clan in a nation takes a port they decide on the time window. If a clan in nation B takes the port, the port keeps the same time window unless the new owner pays a large sum to change it, lets say....50 million just to be crazy. The port must keep previous time window for a week.
Under this option 2 things happen. The first is that the group taking the port must be on at the defenders time. The second is that if the aggressor is successful in taking the port they must be able to hold it for a week before changing it to their slotted time (if they so wish to do so).
This allows the previous owner to wait the 3 day downtime and launch an attack to retake the port in the same primetime, allowing redemption. If the new owner is EU then they stay EU time, if the new owner is NA then they can change the window after having defended it a 2nd and 3rd time.
Or
2. Each individual port is allowed to pick a time window. If the owner wishes to change the window they must pay a large fee to change it. (Immediately afyer taking it as opposed to #1)
So again, defender stays in primetime, new owner can change the timer but must pay large fee.
The price to change the timer is completely up to debate and we can make it insane if we need to so that if a clan does change it, the previous owner realizes "ok they just spent x amount to secure it."
One of the better ideas I've seen IF a server merge were to happen.
But then, my belief is no server merge will save the game, only finishing it and it being a good game will. If that happens, I foresee a no timer server far outgrowing one with limits.
-
2
-
-
There are numerous reasons why we're struggling to get and keep a playable population but lack of ships is not one of them.
-
1
-
-
Folks are always posting screenshots of the combatants chart from a battle. You know, where it lists the players names, ships, ranks, and whether the were sunk, live, escaped, captured.
It sure would be nice if at the top of each of those columns it had the nation name. Especially since so many countries seem to have kontradmiral or some variation.
No biggie, but it would be nice.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Jarlath Morrow said:
As I recall, you hover your mouse cursor over the name of the ship in the "x" menu (the menu that lets you exchange crew and items). Then, a tooltip with the ship-card should pop up.
Hmm. Not working for me.
-
4 minutes ago, Jarlath Morrow said:
As I recall, you hover your mouse cursor over the name of the ship in the "x" menu (the menu that lets you exchange crew and items). Then, a tooltip with the ship-card should pop up.
Thanks. I'll give it a try.
-
I thought this had been implemented but can't figure out how to do it. Maybe I'm wrong. If I win a boarding action, is it possible to see what build and refits a ship has before I decide whether to sink it or not?
-
1
-
-
On 10/16/2017 at 3:00 PM, Viper2 said:
One last thing. is there somewhere that says what counties are allies with other counties, or is it just attacking ANY nation ships are ok as long as it is not your nation?
P.S. I am on the PVE server. Thanks for your time everyone.
On the PVE server it doesn't matter. Every AI target that is not in your nation is fair game: there are no alliances with robots.
Should you ever move over to the PVP servers (please do) then you may want to check with other members of your nation regarding any current alliances between your nation (or clan) and others.
Fair sails.
-
I like the current system and rate the ship sinks. You get some, you miss some. But I doubt many of us are so short of repairs and random drops that we need a guarantee loot button.
-
5 hours ago, Fletch67 said:
I left because I felt every rule change was skewed more and more against the casual player. The odds were being stacked in favour of people that simply wanted to cull new players around capitals. Port battles by the very nature of allowing only 25 ships in became very elitist, port battle could of been an open battle lasting many hours with anyone able to enter but restricting numbers means of course only the 25 best ships can take part. In short it lost a lot of the fun out of it.
It's your lucky day. The game is very friendly to casual players right now. Come on back.
As for not being able to get in port battles, perhaps it is time for a nation change. Or check in again with your current nation. Port battles I see reported on both servers are often not full.
-
4 hours ago, Rigs said:
Not sure about removing guns on a trader, it's the weight of the cargo adjustment that has more impact. On a traders Lynx removing the guns only adds up a 0.04 kn.
Also, I have to say this, unless its a very bad tag, in a traders lynx you have almost no chance getting away from the Prince.
Agreed. Although I don't know about the Indiaman since oddly enough I've never owned one, the speed cost to put guns on the other traders is negligible. I like guns on a trader. Yes, they are useless against a skilled hunter but against a lesser captain they can counter the speed advantage.
And not everyone who tags you is skilled.
-
12 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
If some one honestly takes the time to exploit the system they honestly don't have a life. You can game more xp faster just killing Ai than doing the alt thing. You still make more xp with assist and kills. If your killing the alt to damage farm them than they will be posted all over combat news and well they should have a report system on that in case we see suspected farming. Cause you can only kill your alt once an hour, if some one is getting kills every hour but no one has ever seen them out PvPing than it's a little noticeable they are alt farming.
Seriously. Yes.
Ive always thought that if one wanted to invest their time killing their alt then who cares? There are far more effective ways to earn xp, gold, and generate hostility than doing this.
Also, wealthy Rear Admirals who got there by committing alt suicide are not dangerous to anyone.
-
2 hours ago, Intrepido said:
I really hope we realize the consequences of the patch 12 regarding the balance of nations.
Several nations have lost players, even entire clans, to the new nations. Nations that really needed those players (like VP or DN), while others as Sweden still keeps enough players to fill PBs.
Please @admin, any word about this?
Shouldn't we wait a few weeks and see how this plays out? Presumably if we allow foreign clan alliances then these new "impossible" nations can also ally and you'll end up with a different zerg.
At some point we have to force nations to clean their own houses and either step up or be whittled down to their base ports. (And this comes from a guy who plays from a small nation.)
Most of us have had periods of boredom in the game but it rarely stagnates. It's too difficult for large nations to hold together.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Comeonche said:
It's normal that a player could switch nation I agree!
But it's clearly dangerous if a player could change 4 times of nation in the same week! That's my problem!
I doubt that is happening.
What about if forged papers remain untradeable BUT are purchasable from admiralty. HOWEVER the price is based on rank. It would be less expensive for a lower ranking player to change than higher.
-
2
-
-
BR numbers are going to become far more important than they have ever been if BR limits for PB gets implemented. I don't know how BR were calculated in past but there should be some sort of formula. If not, develop one and relook at all BR calculations based on the that formula. Only then adjust BR or nerf/buff ships as necessary.
Another idea -- not sure that it's a good one -- is remove some of the customability from ships redeemable for CM. For example, combat marks will only get you a Teak/Teak Wasa but crafters can build a customized version. Or, redeemed ships have less mod/refit slots.
-
1 minute ago, Rickard said:
I see your point. but what about limiting the BR for every ship's class would that help?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean saying that a port battle can have X BR worth of 1st rates, X BR of 3rd, etc?
Nerf or Re-balance the Wasa
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Thanks for the reminder to reread my posts. Now I can say unequivocally that I did not advocate nerfing your (or my) Wasa. However, if I complete a 4th rate mission in my Wasa, it should yield less reward than if I was sailing my Connie because despite the game currently (incorrectly IMO) rating those two ships equal BR, they are not currently equal ships.
And now, I'm dropping this on my end. I just hope we can continue improving the game and one way I think the game can improve is with consistency in how BR is assigned to ships. You disagree because I guess that idea threatens -- you think -- your Wasa. [shrug]