Karvala
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Karvala
-
-
Once again, we see a stated intention from the devs followed by a policy which achieves exactly the opposite.
Stated intention: reduce the price of dubs.
Policy: make quality and popular woods (LO, WO) much more expensive to harvest.
Effect: everyone buys them from the Admiralty at 3 dubs per log (much cheaper than farming), creating more demand for dubs.
Evidence: The price of dubs today is twice what is was a week ago.
-
3
-
-
How are people supposed to invest in ships if their ships keep changing stats, week after week? This is completely ridiculous. If you want to change the meta, which btw is a completely pointless activity since it will just replace it with a new meta, then at least introduce something new and stronger in order to do so. You're killing the game with all of this constant meddling with the numbers. People need some stability.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Teutonic said:
It is true.
you actually make more cash killing elite and selling the loot than doing cargo missions, fancy that - fighting in a battle gives more!
Now....if only we could loot cannons off player ships too...
it's certainly not true on the PvE server, categorically. You make practically nothing killing Elites for the reasons given above.
-
5 hours ago, Hethwill said:
No special guns ?! Each one of those 12pdr/18pdr is selling in the free market, 200k a piece or more last WTB I saw. Given the usual drop is 6 to 9 pieces, i'd say that earns more than a million ( almost two ) at present rate.
Cargo and Passengers missions are a essential mechanic for any captain that is new or for any captain that lost a ship and needs a fairly fast influx of cash to buy a ship from the admiralty and equip it with guns ( and possibly repairs ).
Trade of goods still earns good amount and rely on long trade routes. Try being a trader of good linking ports in the Gulf to Windward Islands or even Trinidad isle.
The only special guns from those five, plus another one this morning (so now six in a row) were Obusiers or Congreves, and neither of those sell for anything on the PvE server because players recognise that they're actually weaker in combat than standard guns. Obusiers are useful for capping, but not many people are doing that, not least because the Elite AI cheats to the extent that you need at least a 4-to-1 crew ratio to stand any chance even with perfect action selection. Obusiers and Congreves don't sell for more than 5k a piece if you can sell them at all.
I don't mind cargo or passenger missions existing and I appreciate their role in helping new or poor captains; what I object to is them being essentially the *only* way to earn any significant money (reals or dubs), so players are forced to do them rather than what you might say are the core actions of the game, i.e. combat. Standard trade also earns relatively little on the PvE server; you only have to look at Felix's map to see that the most profitable trade routes - assuming that the goods are still there when you get there - can take an hour or more of sailing for a single trip and still earn less than one cargo mission in reals, and of course no dubs. So if you want dubs for ship crafting, you HAVE to do cargo missions. You simply can't get them any other way in sufficient quantity. That's a major flaw in my view. There seems to be a deliberate design to force players into cargo missions, but it's not clear why or who benefits, at least on PvE.
-
Given that the game is called Naval Action, not Naval Fedex, how about increasing reals and doubloons rewards for sinking AI ships instead of further encouraging the boring Fedex stuff? I sank five Elite AIs of 1st-3rd rank yesterday, and didn't receive a single doubloon, a single ship note or any worthwhile upgrade and a total of around 70,000 reals for all that work. A single Fedex mission with no risk on PvE and less risk on PvP would have netted me more than that. There should be an increase in doubloons especially, but for combat, not for Fedex.
-
On 9/8/2019 at 1:33 AM, Gregory Rainsborough said:
You know them, you loathe them, you've been one, and so has everyone.
I suggest putting a timer on ships re-entering port once they've left, and which is longer than the attack timer.
Yes, definitely; gankers need a bit of assistance, as I understand there are one or two new players still afloat somewhere. Why don't you also propose that any player with less than 6 months longevity or sailing a ship below 5th rate should not be allowed to purchase any guns and should receive constant damage while in the Capital Zone?
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Yah I don't think the fire was his real problem, but also when your on fire and same with AI and they hit your Mag a second time (first sparks starts the fire) it can put you into shock. It's rare but happens.
I agree; I think this is the most likely explanation. Hitting a magazine a second time is a cheap exploit that you can easily use against the AI; literally the majority of AI fires I cause these days spread and end in fire shock, and in every case it's just because I keep targeting the fire area with cannonballs. The AI doesn't intentionally do it against players to the best of my knowledge, but it can happen by misfortune.
-
Fantastic, thanks Felix; all seems to be working again now.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Felix Victor said:
v8.13.2 2019-09-07
- hotfix: ship compare (modifiers with percentage values without a base value such as fire resistance)
Thanks Felix. Unfortunately, I think the acceleration values with different woods in the ship compare are incorrect now (they're certainly different to how they were, and acceleration is now close to zero with some of the heavier woods, which doesn't seem likely). Perhaps worth a quick look?
-
1
-
5 minutes ago, Raekur said:
You forgot torpedoes.
I think the AI already have those. 😉
-
Excellent, we now have magic and radar in the game. We just need aircraft carriers and flying carpets and the game will be complete.
-
5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
What does killing AI have to do with PvP? This game is a majoriity PvE element game so why shouldn't the AI be more agressive to those in the wrong waters and fight back? The reason they seem so dumb down to most is cause they don't act like players. Just about every MMO I been on the AI will attack you unless your far to high level than they are. They would have an agro zone that you can avoid if you don't want to be attacked. Maybe the devs will do something like that to let folks avoid them, but I think it's more going to effect the AFK saliers and I'm sure PvE has tons of them since it's a safe place, well guess what, it's not going to be any more in certain waters so no more AFK randomly sailing all over.
You obviously didn't bother to read the quote from the dev, who mentioned PvP as a reason for the changes and whose point I was directly addressing. If you think PvP is irrelevant here, I suggest you go and tell them, since they raised it, not me.
Why shouldn't the AI be more aggressive? You also obviously didn't bother to read the four or five reasons I gave above either then. Maybe you should spend a bit more time reading and thinking about the substantive arguments and a bit less time just attacking people for daring to voice an opinion different to yours.
How is it going to affect only AFK sailors? They sail in the same water as everyone else and I'm quite sure the AI will make no such distinction. More to the point, while I've never done any AFK sailing myself, if other people want to do that and it doesn't harm anyone, why shouldn't they? What is that offends you so much about people playing the game differently to you that you want to celebrate any attempt to stop them? The player base is low enough as it is, I'd have thought we should be trying to cater for as many different types of players as possible at this time, not deciding that it's now time to purge AFKers and reduce the numbers even more.
5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:I think it's just a few of the grumpy old time PvE vets that don't like change. I love hearing this and kinda wish I had more time to set things up more on that server cause I don't always want to deal with players and RvR/PvP. glad to hear folks are excited about these changes.
Yes, definitely attack the individuals rather than address their actual points, that will really convince people.
-
2 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
PVE players complaining about PVE!
Peace server players complaining of lack of peace. 😉
2 hours ago, McPoyle said:As a PvE only player, I am VERY excited for these updates. I think most PvE players feel like I do too. I know some worry because of rumors of what will happen when in reality nobody knows until we test. I do agree with you it is funny some are worried about PvE in PvE. Kid's these day's
I'll remind you of that when you need to logout but you can't because you were just tagged by the AI. Or you want to do that trade run, but you can't because the AI will sink you. Or you've just bought a new ship and need to take it to the port with your Forge to fit decent guns, but were sunk by the AI on the way. Or you were out hunting in your Wasa looking for a nice 3rd rate to fight and were ganked by a Bellona + 10.
Honestly, the number of scenarios in which this is a potential disaster are countless. At the moment, we have PvE, but at a time of *our* choosing to fit in with real life schedules etc.. If this comes to the PvE server, the only difference is that now the AI will choose when and what you fight, and that choice is taken away from the player. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that reducing player choice is a good thing.
If you want to fight, great. Go and do it now. You don't need to wait for the AI to attack you.
-
4
-
-
Fantastic, thanks Felix; all working great again.
-
4 hours ago, admin said:
We had a lot of thoughts about it.
The problem is that static passive NPCs turn the world into static wax figure museum. Yes they interfere with some plans, but also they liven up the world, creating danger zones or changing the balance of forces on the OW. Even most casual games force the pvp player to carefully chose the routes to attack or require them to clear up zones before camping them.Sure, but people on the peace server (PvE) are not PvP players by definition, so presumably they will not be subjected to this? It would completely change the nature of the PvE server if they were.
-
Yes, another vote here.
-
Great work, Felix, but is it just me or is the ship configuration tool no longer working properly? It doesn't seem to update the stats based on different woods, trims etc.., which worked fine in the previous version.
-
1
-
-
Is the game too difficult for beginners:
On PvP: Yes.
On PvE: No.
On PvP, the endless ganking, griefing and general crappy behaviour that goes on from a small minority of players, kills the game stone dead for new solo players, and even new players in clans have to watch their back far too much.
On PvE, it is entirely possible to learn the game and the mechanics without losing too much. There is still too much grind involving cargo and passenger missions, which for a period of time become a necessity when levelling up, but after a certain point you can move beyond it. I joined after the official release, I'm a solo player who has never taken anything from another player or received any real help, and I'm an Admiral now with a top level Shipyard, all the ships I need and plenty of resources. I play to a limited extent in the evenings and weekends, and sometimes afk during the day while working. I'm an experienced gamer and game designer, however, so that might be an advantage.
Beginners are not put off by difficulty. Beginners are put off by lack of accessibility. The difference between those two is the steepness of the learning curve and the extent of the help available. The learning curve in NA is not too bad. The official help is fairly lackluster but player help is generally quite good.
What causes players to leave NA is not difficulty, it is frustration, which comes from two sources. First, on PvP, is the rife abuse from a minority of veteran players who view new players as "care bears" or food to be farmed, and then come here and pretend to be surprised that the new players have left. Second, there are countless small irritations in the game due to poor design decisions, incomplete implementation and inattention to feedback, which collectively contribute to the grind and the sense that the game is "work" rather than fun (as it was actually described by a new player recently). Many of these have been elucidated by players in the forums, but there is unfortunately almost no action to make these improvements or fix these problems, even though 90% of them could be done in maybe two weeks of development time. There is a sense that the devs are making the game for themselves, plus there seems to be a degree of tunnel vision and "focus" to the exclusion of external input. Up to a point that is understandable, but I think they should schedule a period of time where they do nothing but make recommended, reasoned improvements instead of adding new features. That would help a lot.
-
4
-
-
The NPC fleet numbers are based purely on your numbers, nothing else. Is it currently intended to work that way? Yes. Should it work that way? Clearly not; it's one of a number of crude calculations in the game (another example: weight calculation for collecting wreck loot that totally ignores fleet ships) that could be improved with a bare minimum of effort (literally ten minutes coding?) if the devs were so inclined but it seems their focus is elsewhere.
-
Just to offer a different perspective: I'm sure this is all well and good for the PvP server to nerf the speed demons. But this game has another server - PvE - and on that server practically every ship is already Live Oak/White Oak because that strength is needed against the buffed AI and speed doesn't matter nearly so much. This proposal would mean you might as well take the other woods - already underused - out of the game entirely as far as PvE is concerned. The only other solution would be to give speed an actual purpose in PvE, i.e. speed up AI ships, but that might be frustrating for some players.
-
2 hours ago, toblerone said:
Uhm, let's go further then: will NPC raider attack first Vera Cruz or New Orleans?
At least there are ports worth attacking on PvP. On PvE there are literally about a dozen moderately active ports (and one really active port) and the others are just window dressing that are never even visited by players. The AI could capture three hundred ports on PvE and nobody would even notice.
-
5 minutes ago, Raf Van Boom said:
You, as a player, ensure a fair fight (and sometimes you cannot and get ganked). I mean that's part of OW appeal, the fact that it's unpredictable?
And again: I haven't proposed any rate or BR limits. Only a mechanism to enforce the current RoE.
-
7 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:
Completely disagree with 1 & 2. Solo PVP zone is where you go for fair fights. The rest is the chaos of war. Any military planner worth his salt does his best to ensure that his side wins in the most UNFAIR fight possible. The idea might be interesting on PVP to stop "friends" from inflating the BR and certainly should be mandatory on the Peace server.
We need a "swear" jar for people who use the word "fair".
The peace server is certainly more what I had in mind, though I think it would work on either.
To be clear to all three of you, though; notwithstanding my comment about a fair fight, nothing in the proposal requires BR limitations, the same number or type of ships etc.. You can still have a massively unbalanced fight by letting your friends in on your side if you want. You just can't now cheat by sending them in under false flags on the other side.
-
11 minutes ago, Wraith said:
Why? When in real life is a fair fight a smart thing to do when there are real world costs (time in this instance, if not pride) in losing it in a 50/50 battle?
If you have numbers and skill in planning/organizing on your side, then asymmetric warfare should always be part of the RoE. Period. If you're treating the OW only as a shitty matchmaking engine you're playing the wrong game.
1 minute ago, Macjimm said:I disagree with this. In an OW style of game there must be unbalanced battles, or the game would be too restrictive to allow the larger scale strategy. Allowing only fair fights would be arena style battle simulator.
Because asymmetric warfare requires a weak side to nevertheless come out to fight. As you say yourself, why do so if there are real world costs? In a PvP situation, not everyone can be on the strongest side by definition. The weaker side aren't going to turn up to a fight they can't win. You only have to look at the recent PB fiasco to see that.
Server is down 01.08.2020
in Support
Posted · Edited by Karvala
Same here. Was fighting an enemy fleet in a LO/WO Vic with various upgrades and was kicked out. Finally got back in 10 minutes later and of course the ship is gone. Would like compensation - F11 report sent (and crash report and connection reports during the outage sent as well).