Old Crusty
-
Posts
409 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Old Crusty
-
-
23 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:
And what are YOU afraid of and why do you need alliances in first place?
A whole bunch of non-clan individuals and alts will have a power to affect alliances. Strong clans knows what to do and know what they are after, but "people" want to kill this and that.
Not sure if you even know whom you should be worried about nova days in global politics.
Of course you did not answer my question to how your game will be ruined
-
7 minutes ago, Wraith said:
I don't know what you read in my comment that set you off but I said nothing that's fantastical. You must be new here because you clearly don't remember the Alliance system of old, which is very much what you seem to be focused on recreating. Voting is a non-feature that resulted in two blocks with very limited opportunities for individuals and small clans to operate. It was boring and made RvR mostly a matter of coin flips. Voting was meaningless and it actually created less engagement, not more. And with the influence of alts plus the ability to move at will with Forged Papers it just creates bad behavior.
Clan-based systems and alliances are the only way to make it work.
How so? If casual players advance to the level of being able to start up their one-man clan, then they can negotiate with port-owners on a per-port basis to be added to the Friendly list. Then boom, they have a relationship that allows for them to trade, craft, etc. at will, and as casually as they like?
You simply refuse to read or acknowledge anything said about limiting the number of Allies a Nation can have. How can you have a reasonable conversation if you refuse to see or hear what others are saying
-
I could be wrong but aren’t there a bunch of MMO games that are Clan based and in alternate Fantasy or Science Fiction worlds? Lots of MMO games where you and your buddies can try to carve out a small part of the world for yourself and keep a stronghold? Plenty of games out there that have nothing to do with reality that you can go and make your own really?
Naval Action is not and never should be made to be, World of Warcraft, Everquest, Eve, Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other Fantasy made up world or Universe.
This game has great potential in a fairly realistic world struggle between actual Nations that exist now or existed in the past and failed. Compare Clans to the smaller City States, and smaller Kingdoms from our history. The only ones to have survived are subjugated to larger Nations.
The power houses of today, Great Britain, Russia, France, Spain, United States, Germany, and many more that I will not take time to list were all carved out in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. They failed and succeeded because of National unity and leadership or the lack there off. The biggest and most prominent reason for this was DIPLOMACY!!!! When Diplomacy failed then there was war. Two sides, sometimes three or more struggled for there own Nations best interest. In a lot of cases wars were a stalemate and Diplomacy decided the outcome. In other cases One Nation took what it wanted from another. But can anybody tell me how the different Italian States faired trying to stay independent like your Clans?
Instead of everybody just wanting to make this another version of other MMO games, let’s stop fighting against having a National Diplomatic stance with other Nations and start figuring out how we can make it work the best for the game and the people that play it. There are some very good suggestions all over the forums here if we can just bring them together, Diplomacy can and will work. It will ad a deep meaning to the game that can enrich your game experience and NOT ruin it.
This game has the opportunity to be the first of its kind in an MMO computer world.
-
4
-
-
28 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:
Well.. I bought the game too... but you saying that people who don't know how to RvR can ruin my gaming experience because they want a Voting ability? What would be next? You would like me to buy them ships maybe?
What exactly are you worried about that they would ruin your game????? You could lose a vote to be allied with another Country? Deal with it and focus your energies on the National concensive. If the Nation decides to War with another, do the best you can to contribute and become the voice the Nation wants to listen to.
Again what are you afraid of???
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
We tested that Crusty. It ended in 2 blocks, reds vs blues type of game. Was the most dull period, aka. dark ages. IMO
But yeah, if too many people want it, why not... have fun.
How many times do we need to say that the game mechanics can be made to only allow alliances of small sizes so that there cannot be a forced 1v1 in the world.
honestly as it stands now there is a huge alliance against a couple other Countries.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Wraith said:
Diplomacy should be completely opt-in. But in order for that to work we need full clan control of ports. Clans should be able to set the port accessibility as part of their ownership: 1) Open to all (which would include tows, etc.); 2) Open to nation only; 3) Open to friendly clans only (which should include other nation's clans); 4) Closed to all except owners.
All other diplomacy then could take place outside of game mechanics using the various tools that players already have (Discord, Teamspeak, forum, etc.). This would be the most dynamic of the solutions proposed, especially if clans could essentially make friendly clans of opposing nations (allowing a much more fluid RvR situation).
No no and no!!! Can everyone forget about other Fantasy MMO games where you are an Orc, Elf, or sexy female Halfling???? This is a realistic model for an actual historical period from our own history.
1. Diplomacy MUST happen and cannot be an opt in or out system. Whatever Diplomatic stance is with a Nation the game must show it on the other player in the OW so if two countries have a trade agreement there is no option to attack there traders.
2. EVERYONE CAN BE INVOLVED BY VOTING.
3. The number of treaties a Bation can have can be limited by the game to prevent huge Alliances.
4 Your Clans responsibly is to influence your Nation in its Diplomacy with other Nations.
REALISM THAT IS FUN!!!!!!
-
1 hour join window would simulate that a bit. Probably wont see the same amount of screeners we got now, as the attacking fleet wont be on a silver plate anymore with an inbuilt cooking timer to know the exact al dente pointto go at them.
The USA had 3 port battles against the Prussians over the weekend and we faced screeners from 4 different Nations ouch!
2 port battles against the French with multi National screeners. I’m getting the feeling that the rest of the game has something against the USA
-
As it stands now the attacker does not get to choose when he attacks. The time and day is set 24 hours in advance on a ridged schedule. Very unrealistic. I think that an hour window is reasonable.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Thonys said:
Boarding issue:
many times i see that a losing vessel with almost no crew can manage to disengage when all the men are fighting .
Remove the disengage button from the default action menu ...
>> to the perk (section) with a crew that cut the ropes on standby.
if you dont have the disengage perk you can not disengage from a fight .
No
-
1
-
-
Portugal should have been a Nation in game before Poland and Prussia. In the future I would love to see the Ottomans in game and different areas like the Baltic, North Sea, Mediterranean, and Indian Ocean.
-
3
-
-
56 minutes ago, Busterbloodvessel said:
When afk sailing I tend to potter around doing other stuff, it would be good if I could get my crew to furiously ring the bell if I am targeted in open world so that, with volume turned up, I can hear the call to General Quarters in another room. An ON/OFF option would be nice, but for me not essential.
Any chance?
Buster (AFK DSM)
I am currently on a two+ hour sail bringing repairs to a far off port. This is the part of the game I just don’t like. I have to watch my ship sail, boring!!!!! I know that the first and last 10 minutes of this sail is dangerous, the two hours in between is a total waste of my time and a less motivated player would quit the game after a couple of these sails.
-
1
-
-
The biggest common thread in all the problems with boarding and hugging ships to death is the LE REQUIN. These players either want to take advantage of the super OP 6th rate by being able to rage board other ships ( and don’t you dare to do anything to take that away) or with there huge amount of crew and determined defender, hug a bigger ship to death while preventing them from being boarded by that bigger ship ( and don’t you dare do anything to take that away ).
Well how about we get a ship knowledge for 5th rates and better to nullify determined defender? That would certainly take care of the hugging issue.
-
11 hours ago, admin said:
fixed rotation
Could I enquirer to what that fixed rotation is??
-
So what I am hearing so far is “hugging a bigger ship to death is part of the game. Deal with it”. Here I thought we were testers and we were supposed to find ways to improve the game.
-
29 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
There is a reason aircraft carriers have escort ships
Um, aircraft carriers do not have their own offensive ship to ship firepower to defend themselves. That is s large part of the reason to have an escort.
-
I think that a smaller ship hugging a larger ship to death is about the most unrealistic part of this game and hurts the game badly. Here is what I think could be the solution. All thoughts about this, positive and negative would be appreciated.
When one ship comes in contact with another a timer is started. As the timer continues, the requirement of ships speed for grappling start to slowly go up. It of course starts at 3 knots but after 90 seconds it might be at 4 knots and at 2 minutes at 5 knots. At the same time, determined defender becomes less effective because the other ship is doing whatever they can to overcome it. So after 90 seconds being in contact determined defender is only at a 20% difference in crew and at some point it would be completely nullified.
I know that this can be exploited but the system now without collision damage is being exploited by smaller ships so badly that realism in battle has been thrown completely out the window.
Thoughts please.
-
How many clans are there in game that can totally fill a port battle with a BR of over 8000? I have no idea myself.
In the US I belong to one of the biggest Clans with about 60 People on the roster. We might have 15 that are active and it would take an act of God to get ten of us on at the same time.
In order for us to do RvR we MUST cooperate with other clans. There is no way at all for us to take a port, or defend a port by ourselves. That then means that we MUST have common interests and goals with other clans. IE: Nation
In order for us to do RvR we must piss someone off. We have to take what they have. We have to go to WAR with them.
if we do not have a port that sells a resource that we desperately need then there are only two ways to get it. Take it in WAR or NEGOTIATE WITH A NATION THAT HAS IT. That is called diplomacy.
If, as a group of clans in a nation we negotiate a trade agreement to get the resources without war but with a trade agreement, it becomes necessary to not allow Mister Solo, PvP, you can’t tell me what to do, player to attack the traders of that nation we have the agreement with. If it is allowed, Mister Solo PvP player is then the one that is telling the rest of us that we cannot have this trade agreement. Mister Solo doesn’t care because when he needs a new ship he just buys it with PvP marks with any wood build he wants. So Mister Solo PvP, you cant tell me how to play, has absolutely no need for this trade agreement. Mister Solo PvP player is the one player telling the rest of us what we can or cannot have.
In my not so humble opinion we need a system that can make a player from a different nation not an enemy player. So if there is a trade agreement with Russia, and we see a Russian trader in the OW his label is not ENEMY PLAYER. It is RUSSIAN TRADER and there is no option to attack it. In this way Mister Solo PVP, you can’t tell me how to play, player has no choice to screw up the game for the rest of the people. Mister Solo will now have to find a different target.
I really do not think this is to much to ask and to difficult to accomplish. As NATIONS not CLANS we now do RvR. In order to do that RvR we MUST cooperate.
-
On 6/9/2018 at 5:21 AM, Shrez said:
It's a combat game not whale hunting.
Very shortsighted
-
1
-
-
I am very saddened when I read all the responses about coming together as Nations and working together as teams.
I have never seen so many selfish, hateful, egotistical, and just general shit attitudes in a single thread than I do with Diplomacy and getting people to play as a team.
-
3 hours ago, vazco said:
We already had alliances modeled in game and it didn't work.
It's next to impossible to create a system which would work with all diplomatic interactions between nations, as they're very complex, dynamic and non - trivial. There are situations when a nation is allied with half of another nation and in war with the second half.
Nations already inform about their status on the forum. Building tools to simplify this would be ok. Building some artificial diplomacy limitations will never work.
You obviously didn’t read my suggestion at limiting the amount of Nations a nation could ally with.
-
Is there a fixed rotation or pattern to when and where the patrol zone show up?
-
28 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:
The cycle of life.
IMO there are some solutions to capitols camping.
1. Pvp ranking system: the more you kills, the higher your (permanent not daily) ranking.
1b. Chess like ranking reward bonus malus: the greater ranking difference, the higher reward for the winning underdog and the smaller for the winning alphadog.
Point 1+1b could make less worthy (time/risk/reward wise) for vets killing noobs and more worthy the revenge fleet kills.
2. Rework pvp mark reward per ship: ATM it's completely broken: an LGV is worth more than a Requin or an Hercules and a trader brig the same of a Requin.
The aim should be to favour warship v. warship battle over the merchant preying if the raider has no plan to get trader stuff too (that's usually not worth the time and especially the risk of being slowed down).
3. Nerf hard economic/pve gains operating inside Capitol areas and buff the same out: make the people spread out.
At the moment the sheer concentration of potential target in Capitol areas counterweights totally the higher risk of reinforcement zone. So raiders raid there... And casuals are so shocked being easily camped in safe zones to not to dare to leave. So they stay there and more raiders come. Recursive situation.
Spread out and also raiders will so reducing 'pressure' on a single area.
You have some very good points
-
This is well thought out and has some good points and features.
It avoids the complaints about having players making decisions for other players but I still prefer a voting system for the different diplomatic relations with other countries.
The one thing I learned from the last Diplomacy thread started is that people do not want to break out into two big alliances or to have peace break out all over the Caribbean. I understand these points completely. So here would be my simple solution to that.
I believe there are ten Nations in the game. I think that if each Nation was limited to the number of allies or trade partners that would fix the problem by allowing Diplomacy in the game to being enforced by the game itself without limiting PvP to much.
-
20 minutes ago, Wyy said:
Thats when the xp gain system from World of Tanks and World of Warships comes in, when a ship is fully unlocked you can use the xp from that ship in further battles and send them over to your first rate. would of course be lower amount of xp needed further encouraging people to unlock levels with pvp instead of pve
Your facts and knowledge of WoT and WoW falls short.
1.in those games your experience does continue to accumulate on your tank/ship after it is maxed out. That is the end of your facts.
2. There is no system in those games that you can take that stored experience from your tank/ship and give it directly to another.
3. The system you are referring to is the “Free Experience “ system. Every battle you play about 5% of experience earned goes to free experience. That experience can be used on any other tank or ship you own.
4. If you PAY REAL MONEY by purchasing in game currency, you can use that to convert accumulated experience on Tanks/ships that are fully upgraded to free experience that can then be used on other tanks/ships. That is very expensive and is only used by people with more money than time.
5. NA is not WoT or WoW and I would love to keep it that way. If Wargaming.net made a game like WoT/WoW I am sure it would be successful but for me, I want more content than just grind ships in battle and that is all there is.
-
1
-
No Orcs, Elves, Dwarfes, or Trolls
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
It still must sell as a game