Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Lord Robert Calder

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lord Robert Calder last won the day on February 22 2017

Lord Robert Calder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

443 Excellent

About Lord Robert Calder

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday 08/02/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,330 profile views
  1. Not even going to bother reading the replies. Yes, too many (and might I add COMPLETELY unhistorical nations). I love the irony that the developers consider it the epitome of history to require a sextant perk to know where you are, but also think it's perfectly acceptable to have the Caribbean flooded with Russians, Poles, and Prussians - to say nothing of pirates just being another country with a flag.
  2. Very good and well researched argument. I have been pointing out for months (years?) that early 19th century ship captains had a very thorough understanding of practical and celestial navigation. To suggest that anyone sailed "blind" in the time period is absolutely ludicrous.
  3. Perhaps I am misunderstanding here, but I definitely do not agree that the strength of the solo player has been increased. I belong to a small clan, and going back to the days of two PVP servers I often was not in a clan and simply helped others in fights, etc. I was assiduously courted to join several of the large and significant clans, but I wanted to be "freelance". I was proud that I developed a very good reputation in game as someone who put the nation first ahead of everything else and was the very definition of "a team player" despite not being in a clan. Now, it's basically not possible to do that. You cannot be at all self-sufficient and have anything but the crappiest of ships unless you have the economic power of a large group behind you. I am not saying it should be easy for every single captain to be a super-power unto themselves, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it is, either. Every change in the economy, in transport, in RVR, and in how you have your ships has hurt the small groups. Ultimately, numbers always win: you are right. But right now numbers are not the only advantage that large has vs small. The very mechanics are such that small groups are at a disadvantage. And by doing so, you make it far harder for new or semi-casual people to get into the game. No one wants to play a game like this that makes it so difficult to advance. This does not mean every person needs to be in 1st rates - but with the return of quality to ships, the fact that they are one durability, and the difficulty in getting mods that give them so much power, it makes it far harder for a newish or a player who can't put in 8 hours a day to be successful. (As a side note, ship construction is one of the areas that I think rather than tweak a bit at a time they change many things with too much rashness.)
  4. I routinely come back, but I would echo a lot that's been said on here. In no particular order: 1) Too low of a relationship between time spent in game vs ability to progress. The crafting mechanics at this point are perhaps the best example. This ties directly to : 2) Poor service to solo players or small clans. Everything over the last year or more has been punishing for those who don't belong to a large clan and don't have the luxury to specialize in one thing. Prior to all that, I could be a largely one man operation and craft whatever ship I wanted. Sure, it might take a while, but it was doable. Now, not so much. 3) Also along with the previous, the elimination of AI fleet missions. I found them to be one of the most enjoyable and quick ways to have a decent sized battle without getting a dozen or more people together. Getting rid of those was a slap in the face to people like me who don't have the time to get together to hunt a PVP fleet with others. 4) I would also agree that it frequently seems like the developers change their minds on which way to take the game. Often, rather than a gentle nudge to a particular mechanic to tweak it if it seems it needs attention, something is completely scrapped or invented altogether. There has been way too much "chaos" for lack of a better word in the implementation or removal of various features, details, and characteristics. This includes marks, ship mods, ship handling characteristics, and things like that. 5) Selective enforcement of realism. I have a hard time believing protests from the developers that the driving force is realism (such as why even the protractor tool on the map was taken away for a while, or why certain other features work the way they do) when they decide to make every nation in Europe playable in the game. I know that they are Russian, but I'm sorry: not even in the wildest dreams of the Russian Empire did they have so much as a raft in the Caribbean. If this included the Pacific Northwest, then maybe. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? If we use the US flag in game as a way to tell the time period, then Naval Action encompasses anytime between 1795 and 1818 (which conveniently covers the French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, and War of 1812). The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist in 1795. A bit of a stretch. And Prussia? Well, I'm as much a fanboy for the Prussians as anyway, but they never had any Navy to speak of. I have always liked Naval Action. But various decisions in its design since it went public have made it increasingly difficult to enjoy. I have a full time job, I have various hobbies, and I play other PC games. Therefore I don't really have the ability to play "19th Century Naval Career Simulator" that often. And because I can't devote 8 hours a day to the game, it makes it much harder to play when I can devote 1-2 hours.
  5. The problem is that to be successful in this game you need to put in kind of time that @Anolytic has done. Most of us don't have that kind of time available, and the way that the game has been taken in the last 12 months or so is very punishing to the sort of "middle of the road" players who want to participate in big battles, epic patrols, etc but can't devote the time. PVP has become a function of having to have the right people and right ships, and the very casual PVE has gotten a few bones to pick in finding lone ships to fight, etc. There's not so much in between.
  6. I don't know enough about the Bayern class design history to weigh in specifically, but like everything else on these ships some had excellent sea-keeping qualities anyway.
  7. Gents, It is indeed a weather stop as has been indicated here. Many ships have them to help protect hydraulics and other interfaces which are prone to significant weather in rough seas; you can also see similar barriers in front of some anchor windlasses and mooring winches. While it does stop direct water flow from a rough wave, it just as importantly helps direct the water that drains away from the deck.
  8. Hello all, I have a suggestion that I think would meet the concerns that many have about doubloons while still keeping with the spirit and intent that @admin and the other developers have with them. While "reals" would remain as is, a different form of currency would be used in place of doubloons, which I call "Fame". Rather than be a tangible resource to be plundered (and at the mercy of RNG and thieves), fame would be automatically applied to your account/character as you accomplish actions that give fame. It would not involve looting ships, but would be automatically awarded in the same way that in previous patches of the game gold and XP was based on doing damage, sinking ships, etc. All actions that a player takes, whether sinking, capturing, etc would generate an amount of fame. This would simulate the way captains historically made a name for themselves. It would also accurately and historically allow very noble defeats or close battles to give rewards to players. The application of fame can be weighted in any way that the developers choose, and this would perhaps go a long way to restoring the balance that many players feel the game should have: that PVP should be more (monetarily) rewarding than PVE. Thus, sinking a player Victory earns you more fame than sinking an NPC Victory. It also would accurately reflect how many captains historically made a name for themselves: you can become famous by outstanding performance in battle, or by capturing/sinking fleets worth of merchant ships. So, no matter what you do you gain fame, but again - it can be weighted in whatever direction the developers want to steer players. Finally, from another historical perspective, it makes much more sense when you consider things like permits and other items from the Admiralty shop. Under a system that utilizes "fame", once you reach a certain point, you are now "famous" enough to receive a permit to build a line ship, instead of just purchasing one like a corrupt shipbuilding agent! And by weighting, you can eliminate all other forms of currency (marks, etc). I like having two forms of currency to differentiate between normal expenses and more important ones, but I agree with others that the randomness and necessity to loot to pad doubloon income (apart from accomplishing missions - which could just as easily award additional fame much like the old missions awarded gold and xp) is unfair to more casual players. I would submit that my suggestion is a balanced compromise that would seem to give everyone what they want. Thank you for your consideration.
  9. This is a good question and is relevant to what I think was a mistake in design evolution. The old system tracked the damage you did to enemies in battle and you received gold and XP for it. Then, there was only credit for ships sunk. Now, I think we're back to some combination which I believe is you only get credit for ships sunk or assisted in sinking. I agree with many others that the RNG nature of doubloon dropping, which you then have to loot from a hold, is a poor decision. It's too similar to loot boxes. I think that while doubloons could still be retained as is for some purchases and some items, another form of "currency" that could be used for a lot of the same things should be introduced and it would be called "Fame". Fame would be awarded similar to the old system: you automatically get it based on damage you inflict. This would 1) adequately historically model the ability of captains of the era to make a name for themselves in an action that they don't necessarily win, 2) Give a mechanism where you will get something even if you are not able to loot a hold, and 3) provide a more historical justification and "currency" which is spent on larger ships, better perks, etc. The respective admiralties didn't reward captains who were wealthy, they rewarded ones who were famous and skilled (though those traits often threaded together). You didn't go from a frigate to a lineship because you "bought" it, you did it because you achieved sufficient fame and seniority.
  10. I also agree that fleets should be of mixed composition. There should not be fleets of 25 1st rates, but rather balanced fleets made up of lineships, frigates, etc. And, there should be fleets of light ships as well for players at that level. This is one of the many reasons I also think it was a mistake to remove AI fleet missions, as their presence ensured there was always a way to participate in a large battle no matter how many real players you had, and what rank you were at.
  11. A mix of fleet sizes from single ships all the way up to 25 ship fleet should be on both servers.
  12. I often put classical music on in the background, or the soundtrack to a movie like Master and Commander or Wrath of Khan to put me in the Naval Action mood.
  13. Somewhere in the forums are the pictures I took of the Lynx one day when she was anchored in Casco Bay off Portland, Maine. I had taken my little 19' Grady White sport fisher out for the afternoon with my (now) wife and was pleasantly surprised at what I saw! In my professional career I've been on carriers, destroyers, tankers, freighters, and am now staff chief engineer on a cruise ship.
  • Create New...