Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir R. Calder of Southwick

Members
  • Content Count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Sir R. Calder of Southwick last won the day on February 22 2017

Sir R. Calder of Southwick had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

419 Excellent

About Sir R. Calder of Southwick

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday 08/02/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,259 profile views
  1. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts enters testing phase

    I would be interested as well.
  2. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Alternative to Doubloons

    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.
  3. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    PvE: Bring back NPC 25-ship-fleets for clans and their guests on the hunt

    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.
  4. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    PvE: Bring back NPC 25-ship-fleets for clans and their guests on the hunt

    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.
  5. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    PvE: Bring back NPC 25-ship-fleets for clans and their guests on the hunt

    A mix of fleet sizes from single ships all the way up to 25 ship fleet should be on both servers.
  6. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Music and sound

    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.
  7. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Real-Life Sailors, Muster!

    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.
  8. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    Did someone say Royal Navy monitors? (From my recent visit to Portsmouth, England)
  9. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Pictures from a visit to Portsmouth, England

    Here are some others from the Victory.
  10. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Pictures from a visit to Portsmouth, England

    Hello everyone, Last month I traveled to the Scottish Highlands to get married. As part of my honeymoon my wife and I went to Portsmouth, England. Here are a couple pictures I took while there. Once I finish sorting through them and resizing so they will fit I will post more.
  11. A lot of changes from the beginning of the game have been positive, I agree. I am not complaining at all about the pure combat mechanics, or the economic model which is much more vibrant and interesting/realistic than it originally was. I make the statement as someone who bought the game on day 1 on Steam when it became available, and while I didn't play it in the beta before that I was aware of the game and watched it with interest. One of the things that has frequently happened though is large and significant changes - very few things have been done as a marginal tweak to nudge the game in one direction or another. While in some cases this has worked out to push the game in a positive direction, I think that's more luck. Naval Action is definitely a game with a lot of "moving parts" and I would venture that it is unwise to frequently and drastically change core mechanics. Especially since many of these changes make the game further inaccessible for those of us who do not have the ability and/or desire to be glued to our PCs playing this game 20 hours a day. Consider one of the previous reward reworks: Initially you got credit for damage and sinkings. Then, only sinking. Now, you get a tiny bit if credit for an assist, but if you manage to damage three 1st rates while sailing a Cerberus but ultimately get sunk you get next to nothing. If we want to play the historical card, don't forget that what made battles like Trafalgar so significant was that decisive battles were so rare. Far, far more common were indecisive or inconclusive battles where both sides could claim victory, like my distant relative's battle at Cape Finisterre (and whose name I honor here and in game). Naval Action is, despite its niche maker, simply an MMO game at its core. We all know that. But in all the successful (and even some less successful) games there are ample things for solo or small group players to do to enjoy much of what the game has to offer. Naval Action has, since its inception, struggled in this area - or at the very least has an uneven record. I've said many times that the developers who have made this game should be incredibly proud of the beautiful game that they created and that it brings a facet and type of game to the market that has been overlooked until now, and those of us with interest in the time period, the subject matter, etc should be thankful for that. I show my thanks by having purchased the game and put over 1000 hours into it (less than many now, but that's because I seldom have time to play anymore). But for the first year I owned the game, I did play it constantly - and FAR more than "big budget" games that came out in the same time frame. But what Naval Action has failed to do, and these "big budget" games have done, is pick something and stick with it. Is Naval Action a game that simulates late 18th to early 19th century naval combat in the Caribbean? Is it a full blown career simulator of a frigate captain in a semi-fantasy world modeled on the Caribbean of the same time period? Because, frankly, if the rewards for playing are to be an exact historical simulacrum of the time, then I expect to be paid as a ship captain, given ships to sail instead of having to build or buy them myself and so on. As someone who paid just as much as the next person I am sick and tired of seeing the player base dwindle and become more and more the playground of hard core players while the rest of us are left out in the cold.
  12. While I completely disagree with the game going in this direction, it almost already is. We have: 1) Countries available for play that never in their wildest dreams had so much as a raft in the Caribbean in the time period. 2) A mechanic where large clans control all RVR and much PVP with a near impossibility for small clans or solo players to be economically viable or participate in port battles. 3) The discontinuation of a feature (some time ago) that allowed said small clans or solo players to participate in AI battles/fleet missions further removing them from larger rewards for sinking ships. Etc...the list goes on. So, we might as well just scrap the countries at all and go full on to control of clans, lord protectors, and the hard core players. It puzzles me that, in the name of historical realism, there will be a mechanic forcing you to "loot" a ship which takes time and resources which are often not available in a large battle, yet the game has become very ahistorical in other areas. If looting is to become the only reliable way of gaining rewards then I would propose we truly make it 100% historical: when you enter a battle against an NPC trader or AI ship and it is obvious that in any normal course of events that you would win the battle, they should immediately surrender - much like merchants really did when it was clear that opposition would only result in the deaths of their men. This would at least save us poor players who already work a full time job and can't play Naval Action 70 hours a week some time. Then, as has been indicated elsewhere, battles need to be open to more than just two sides: the only people you shouldn't be able to attack are your own nation/clan (depending on whatever way the game ultimately goes). Finally, I have to ask one more question (which I don't realistically expect an answer to): why does Naval Action try to reinvent the wheel every six months?
  13. This is an excellent point. If rewards are being tied to looting, then that seriously impacts the battle mechanic. Moving further in this direction is VERY questionable design practice, and continues to cement Naval Action as a game that can only be fully enjoyed for a select few.
  14. So will there, at any time, be a way for solo players to participate in fleet battles again like the old fleet combat missions? It really sucks when you are a member of a small clan and you are never able to do that. (Especially if you don't have five hours available to find other players and go look for a random AI fleet).
  15. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    No Orcs, Elves, Dwarfes, or Trolls

    Truer words were never spoken. The game should have launched "as is" in mid 2017. That was the peak of realism vs enjoyment. It's been all down hill since, with an occasional QOL improvement or nudge to sailing mechanics.
×