Fellvred
-
Posts
316 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fellvred
-
-
6 hours ago, Ser_Slack said:
Have I missed a topic? Possibly. I seen the one for a smaller map which with the population I can understand. I haven't played much lately mostly because I've had a hard time with the RVR mechanics as of late. I'm wondering if the subject has come up for what release brings in terms of the map and nation hegemony. When will the map be reset? Is there goals for a nation that will trigger such? Will there be rewards? I'd love an inroad where we can get back to nightly instant action (flags) and people not getting ass hurt over months of work. Map reset brings a mix up of what ports hold which commodities that people want. Something that brings people back on the regular. PLEASE DISCUSS.
I do like the idea of regular resets but it could also see large numbers of players leaving at the same time. Perhaps post launch there could be an area (parts of the gulf/pacific coast?) which resets every few weeks, with the nations holding the most ports there gaining rewards not related to the regular RvR wars etc
-
5 hours ago, admin said:
Casual PVP? Naval action is not a casual game. In fact we always said IT IS NOT CASUAL.
Naval Action is a hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas.Bit sad to see the reply against a legitimate concern that a number of players have (spread across the player base). Personally making PvP more difficult for only newer players doesn't make it 'hardcore'.
Not exactly related to the thread but for me PvP needs to have real consequences for mistakes and failures to be hardcore. I'm all for new players having their world kicked in when they do something stupid but there needs to be that sort of risk for everyone in the food chain, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be that kind of danger for many of the big fish atm.
-
4 minutes ago, Sir William Hargood said:
If so, level the playing field...remove all mods and upgrades. Or reduce their impact drastically. I have seen ships repair to a level nothing short of miraculous...it simply reduces realism...sorry to say...you cannot deny the huge impact epic skill books or modules have on the game...and the top players know this...
couldn't agree more
The big danger with adding more rewards for players doing well is that the gear gap will continue to grow - also increasing the gear fear for players who aren't one of the top x%
The difficulty curve would probably also continue to get worse, there needs to be some sort of mechanic to make it harder for those doing well (in PvP) and easing newer players into PvP without them being target number one every single time.
- It's been suggested a few times by other people but how about a PvP 'score/infamy/level' system which would then affect how many PvP marks are given by sinking that person. A player with 0 PvP score might be worth 10/25/50% of normal while certain players who have been roaming solo for a couple of years would be worth much more and be more of a target rather than being avoided?
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:
It is griefing when they have no intention of fighting or killing you. They just want to hold you in battle. Working someones sails down or shooting at range is not the same as tagging someone, shooting ball at sails for 1 1/2 hours, then re-tagging them to do it again.
Probably, but op didn't mention anything about retagging etc. The tagged player can also put a call out for help to gank the other guy.
The way the open world is designed atm is player A can choose to keep player B in a battle for 90 mins, just like it's player B's choice to surrender and leave if he doesn't want to stay there. I'm not a fan of the design (way too much wasted/down time etc) but I can't see it changing any time soon.
-
11 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:
So your solution to griefing is to reward them?
I don't really consider it griefing, it's just how open world is designed atm. Is it griefing if a fir/fir Prince keeps a slow heavy rattle at range because he'd be creamed at close range? Is it griefing if a cannon frigate keeps a carro frigate at long range and spends an hour taking out sails and using up your stack of sail repairs?
-
1
-
-
Personally I don't have an issue with the tactic - he tagged me yesterday, we had a nice little tactical battle at range and then both left with a gg. Either use the next battle as practice for hiding your sails, don't sail a slow ship solo or just surrender next time - you always have an option to leave the battle.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, admin said:
Lets talk basics first, as you mentioned solo players in the topic
Regarding SOLO PVP vs Quality of life- To increase all solo pvp all quality of life features must be removed
- All quality of life features (outposts, fast travel, tows) remove player from the map
- All quality of life features allow you to increase the size of the group faster
-
Example
-
Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
- solo hunter happy, player maybe also happy
-
With quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga, player tows his ship from la navasse, teleports to outpost, 25 of them sail to a channel and sink a solo hunter.
- large group happy
-
Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
The dilemma is simple.
To increase solo pvp quality of life must be dumped and players should accept that they live in a region and it takes time to travel to another. Alternatively if quality of life is key then solo players should be explained that there is no solo pvp.
Solo hunter can easily be replaced by a small group, as quality of life allows fast creation of large fleets that will always win against a small group.Sorry I really don't agree that solo PvP can only work if the Quality of Life (QoL) improvements are removed. Forcing players to do something hardly ever works - we saw that before the QoL stuff was implemented, we didn't have loads of solo players sailing around long distance and solo pvp, people just didn't want to travel.
How about a carrot approach rather than the stick? Patrol areas are a good start but a couple ideas:
- 'Solo' friendly areas with 1.5BR limits etc - creating the atmosphere of a public event similar to other mmos.
- New hauling missions (similar to EvE) where the goods are provided by the port and need to be taken somewhere else - preferably through/to pvp areas.
-
3
-
With NAL being put on hold I'd love to see more chances for consistently 'even' fights in NA. Most new players coming in are going to be solo initially and it doesn't really help the population if the first pvp they encounter is being ganked a couple of times for 3 pvp marks
, perhaps players should only be able to join on the smaller BR side? Should battlegroups even be allowed in patrol zones?
-
6
-
-
I'm not a fan of current repair system but I'm not sure if complicating it with even more consumables and mechanics would be the way to go (although I would prefer the much slower repairs via crew). Would 'hard' dmg be done to a certain percentage or would shots cause differing amounts of hard and soft dmg? Surely the players with consumables would still win most of the time.
After playing Legends for a bit I really like the lack of armour repairs - you still have cooldown repairs for sails/pump/rudder etc but mistakes really matter now rather than running away for a few mins to repair and reset. Perhaps armour repairs should only be useable on the OW and ports?
-
18 minutes ago, TheHaney said:
Over 100,000 game owners.
roughly 800 concurrent players at peak (less than 1% of owners)
Highest peak of roughly 5,000 concurrent players (5% of owners) occurred two years ago.
That would certainly kill MY confidence, if it was my product. But that's just me.
Check through the rest of the Early Access titles and see how many regularly have less than 1% of their owners on at peak times, might be surprised. For a game available for two years 1% is near the top
A lot of top released games are also well below 1% (Rocket League/GTA5 etc) If the game was released now there would obviously be a surge in players but it's not ready and most of the people playing an alpha know that.
-
2
-
-
Just now, TheHaney said:
They've specifically stated in a thread of mine that they cannot afford additional programmers, as a justification for the pace of progress.
Maybe it's not finances and they simply don't have confidence in their own product. Either way, they pulled off of Naval Action: The MMO to create Naval Action: Legends rather than monetize the MMO itself and make it more appealing to a more casual audience. To me that's a massive red flag and a major reason I wouldn't recommend the game.
Not really: NA and Legends are being developed by two teams. NA was originally going to be a fully hardcore MMO but was redesigned somewhat to be more appealing to a wider (casual) audience. You would rather have microtransactions brought into the open world?
GL have released three(ish) games so far: NA has sold well in Early Access and personally the Ultimate General games have been more interesting than the last couple Total War versions. Obviously it's your own personal opinion but I can't see why think they don't have confidence in what they are putting out.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, TheHaney said:
. The devs only have 2 programmers and 2 artists and they just developed an entirely separate version of the game for monetization just to stay afloat.
A rather strange thing to say when you have no idea of their finances ^^ GL has several games (5+?) in different stages of development so I wouldn't say funding is a massive problem for them at the moment.
-
2
-
-
The number of reviews is tiny compared to the number of sales, especially recently. As usual it's a vocal minority which didn't get their way and is happy to write a negative review despite more than getting their money's worth. It shouldn't be up to the developers to beg for positive reviews - if you feel the game is good go and write a review, ask clan mates to write reviews, ask nation members, ask alliance members. Frankly the review score is out of the hands of the developer at this point, it's up to the community if the score is 50% and lots of players overlook it, or the recent score is 80% and we have 3 overflowing servers on release.
It shouldn't be left to the devs to firefight misinformation on steam - they're busy enough as it is
-
1
-
-
Ultimate General: Civil War is 33% off as well. If people want to support the devs but don't want another alt it's a really great game.
-
and people can also try out Legends if they fancy a quick change from vanilla NA
-
Sounds like you're playing it on a difficulty setting a bit too easy for your skill. Battles are much more challenging on higher levels and some of the scripted stuff will make a bit more sense as well
-
Congrats to the art guys yet again, looking really nice.
Is it going to be a fully open world (open ended etc) or more of a story driven style? Any news on early access eta?
-
If alts are as large a problem as they seem I think we need to first look at why people are creating alts: Extra labour hours, cheap storage, extra building/resource/ship slots, and long (boring) sailing hours.
Personally I don't think the current mechanic of gaining resources really adds anything to the game. A much more interesting way (for some people) would be some sort of active system similar to EvE online etc. e.g. if you wanted some oak you would sail to an oak node/zone/forest and start collecting the resource. This could be done via a simple minigame or just have respawning points along the coast which could be balanced to control the flow of resources much easier than it is at the moment.
Don't limit the number of storage or ship slots - it just irritates players and encourages alts.
Get rid of labour hours and limit crafting merely by gold and resources alone. Crafting small ships would stay very cheap in gold (and resources) while larger ships would have a much larger gold cost added to the list of resources - creating a much needed gold sink for the veteran players.
If people want to actively run two characters at the same time good luck to them - both characters would be in danger rather than having one 'passive' character in the background constantly.
-
"Current Problems
New player experience is uneven and heavily depends on the nation you join."Some really interesting ideas but it's seems like a lot of development time for adding another level of complexity to a fairly flawed port battle system. I'm just a little confused as to how this will help new players to experience decent battles and enjoy themselves in the weaker nations/clans. It looks like War Companies will still be limited to one nation?
Personally I can't see the new player issue being sorted until smaller ships have a useful purpose in port battles and future raids/large scale battles/missions. As we seem to be moving away from the shackles of historical accuracy maybe we could test out some different styles of port battles with different slots/BR limits? (with 3rd rates being the most common ship for SoL battles, and 5th rates and smaller the most common for frigate/hvy frigate battles etc).
I know a lot of people don't like the idea of 'magical' buffs but smaller ships (if in range) could give things like:
- increased scouting range/details on the enemy ships
- increased morale/reload bonuses
- boarding bonuses
- repair supplies
- increased supply of double charge/shot etc
Hopefully in the future a newer player taking a slot in a port battle/fleet action (with a small ship) would be greeted with cheers rather than the disgust and insults they might receive today
-
2
-
It'd be great if a new player could viable 'grind' through purely PvP. Perhaps bringing back xp (+ gold?) for damage done would help, even if the new player is losing their cutter in most fights?
I haven't played for a little but while the grind through PvE battles seemed pretty balanced there needs to be a much wider range of content to allow lvling through the ranks.
-
1
-
-
Personally I much prefer the one dura system but there certainly needs to be a few tweeks so that it's not so hard for new players to make money and progress, as well as trying to keep downtime to a minimum
At the moment it can take just as many battles for a basic cutter to move up to a 6th rate as it takes for a captain in a 5th rate to afford a 4th rate. If we take a look at (gets ready to duck) World of Tanks/Warships and the progression system over there. You know you can progress fairly quickly through the smaller tanks/ships but it can take much longer to move up a tier when you start getting to the more expensive vehicles.
One idea could be move a portion of the "cost" of the ships into a maintenance or 'use' cost such as paying for shot (gunpowder etc). Smaller calliber shot would be stupidly cheap, 12lbs and up would start to be expensive, while shot for SoL cannons would be prohibitively expensive to be used on a daily basis on the OW.
-
Said it a few times but get rid of pvp/conquest marks altogether and just give pvp points so you can give small amounts to players who fight well - actually incentivise exciting pvp action rather than "winning" being the only thing that matters all the time
The control/capture of a port should be enough without forcing players to farm them, just give regular pvp points/marks and massively increase the cost of buying SoLS with them.
-
5
-
-
11 hours ago, OneEyedSnake said:
If anyone goes and looks up age of sail battle photos. You'll notice that many ships are missing masts. In my opinions masts are not easy enough to tear apart yet. At full sail if they get hit at all they should fall over. Give battle sails a purpose..
One idea could be to turn battle sails into a toggle similar to the brace command, with a cooldown. This could be an abstract way of getting the ship ready for combat and making the rigging less vulnerable. Thickness and hp of the 'mast' (not including topsails?) would be increased but speed, turning and control would be greatly decreased. Any demasting would need to be a concerted effort rather than the one of two broadsides we're seeing at the moment.
It could create some interesting tactical choices and again increase the importance of the wind and positioning.
-
The PvP/Conquest mark system is pretty terrible is we're trying to encourage good/interesting play. Get rid of the marks and just implement a pvp points system - so large (but unsuccessful) pvp/port battles still give (smaller) rewards depending on how you did.
Won a boring port battle where only 1 enemy turned up? 500 pts + small pension
Won an interesting port battle where you wiped out the whole fleet? 1500 pts + small pension
Lost a very close port battle but personally sank 3 and assisted 10? 200 pts
Lost a port battle without sinking a ship? 0pts
, perhaps players should only be able to join on the smaller BR side? Should battlegroups even be allowed in patrol zones?
Gun Packages
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Why not just make guns a lot lighter when they're in the hold rather than being used on a ship - as well as showing the contents of a port on the map/trade screen. Quality of life for everyone would make more sense rather than advantages only for players who are willing to pay more?