Prater
-
Posts
5,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Prater
-
-
35 minutes ago, George Washington said:
Look at World of Warships and what they are doing now with ships. They started this 'all goes' campaign and they sell well, very well.
World of Warships is a completely different type of game.
-
1
-
-
The game data goes off speed for points of sail for every 15 degrees, so having a 32 point compass wouldn't match with what is in game. Also, our compass is pretty small. If we could hit a key to bring up a larger compass, it would probably be beneficial, but we would still need the ability to look at a 24 point compass for speed reasons.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Peter Goldman said:
Easier:
1. Grab mission with main and join
2. Sail away in mission
3. Wait 3 minutes
4. Do mission after
That's what I do.
-
2 hours ago, Ser_Slack said:
Been saying it for months - devs said it was going to be their focus. Haven't seen ANYTHING to address it. Seen plenty that'll only make the problem worse.
This is also Slamz que to berate these people for not having enough gumption or something. Which I guess includes about 99% of the people who've purchased the game.
Admin said they will look at blue print reduction in the Testers forum, so it is on their list of things to do.
-
Doesn't look fixed to me. 1 durability cost 10667 plus labor hours then, now 1 durability costs 50618 plus labor hours. Let's also mention over 1 mil worth of modules.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Slamz said:
I keep hearing this argument but still don't believe it.
Is there any veteran who is not doing PvP because he can't afford to? He has lost too much and no longer has the time to build more ships?
How many people quit playing and still had 3-4 perfectly good ships sitting in dock? I don't think affordability has ever been the problem, at least not for OW PvP.
What does this have to do with veterans? New players are the ones who are losing ships. You make their entry into pvp impossible. To get good at pvp you need hundreds of ships. When the replacement of one takes several hours, that is an issue. Before we had 5 durabilites, now we have one. Blue print requirements should have been divided by 5 when this happened. That did not happen, and so the cost of 1 durability has skyrocketed. This hurts new players.
-
6
-
-
Kind of like this:
-
2 hours ago, jodgi said:
(not directed towards shae:)
I think this is the most common reason we bleed players.
Many of you here love the economy, the depth, the meaning of it all, the thrill of risking loss. I know and respect that it is your raison d'être.
It puzzles me, though, that you expect OW PvP to PvE ratios to be better than in EVE.
It's not the economy, its the cost of things. There wasn't enough reduction in blue print required resources when durabilities were reduced to 1. And, on top of it, we now have million dollar modules. 2 hours to replace a 5 durability ship...that might be acceptable. 2 hours to replace a 1 durability Surprise, that is unacceptable.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, fox2run said:
As an old time veteran gamer, I can say that the only thing that will help is making it easy to get into a fight and to loose without too much loss. I will not play a game where it takes too long to have all the fun stuff. Port Battles, pvp, trading etc. It all takes too long time in preparations compared to other games. MMO does not have to be boring MMO. Naval Action is just that now, but that has not always been the case. Go back to basic. Forget about all the RvR and concentrate on the single player MMO experience. Is this part fun? Is that part fun? RvR will always organize themselves so to speak. Clans will come and go. The single player online should be your main focus. If he is bored, you can forget about everything else.
Then play Naval Action Legends. How many times does someone have to tell you that?
22 minutes ago, Quineloe said:Sounds like you played on the same map, but you only used 20% of that map.
Who is this directed at? If me, no, we used the whole map. The US coast wasn't finished yet, but we fought from the Lesser Antilles to the Yucatan, the Bahamas down to South America.
-
54 minutes ago, Bach said:
Yes and just today one of your clan mates was using his French alt to entice newbie French to escort his cargo ship into his pirate main character and trap. Players don't find this sort of thing sporting. Some consider it cheating and the refuse to play. Player choices and actions have as much or more to do with player retention as any rules or more.
The RvR game isn't forcing anyone to one port nations. That is a player choice. If you left each nation one port near the center of the map you would essentially have your shrunken Carribean.
This should be a reportable and banable offense. Alts aren't supposed to talk in nation.
If you are caught funneling players to be ganged up on by using their nation chat, a rule should be made that you get a severe punishment.
-
1
-
-
In those early days, we still had the same world. Maybe the solution is simple as changing capital locations, but the world itself doesn't need to be touched. Also, fitting 500 people in the area you describe will be way, way, way, way, way too crowded.
-
8 hours ago, Christendom said:
@admin The size and scope of this game is too large for it's current population levels. These numbers are very similar to what you had before the wipe, this is the size of your testing base. It's not gonna get better until drastic changes to the game take place.
What needs to be done in the meantime:
- merge the servers. more players = more content.
- Map is too large for so few players. Merge in PVE and make a "Neutral area" as you discussed months ago.
- Too many nations. this player base, split between 2 servers....cannot field enough players in all 8 of the nations to make them viable. Some need to be cut or removed until launch.
- Raids OR something new. We need something new to do that isn't a rehash of the same old stuff. Desperately.The world is not too large. We played just fine with 50 people, same world, slower speeds. We didn't have a map then and we had less knowledge of the world. Granted, the English were at St John's and English Harbor, the Dutch at Oranjestad, and I think the Spanish at Santo Domingo (or was it Havana?). The Pirates were still at Mort. We didn't even have port battles. The only content we had was pve and pvp. Since the world wasn't mapped and the secret island was still a secret, we had exploration and mapping as well. But even though all the capitals were relatively close, clan locations frequently changed, and that changed were the wars took place. A lot of fighting took place around Jamaica (British Capital was at Antigua remember) and Road Town. Some fighting took place in the Yucatan and Venezuela when SLRN would move locations.
Taking nations out
If we take nations out, what is to insure that the nations are balanced? Nothing. We might end up with the same unbalanced state. We originally started with British, French, Swedish, Spanish, Dutch, Pirates, can't remember about Denmark, US was added later. But, maybe taking nations out is the way to go, but see below.
I can agree to a system that essentially forces the playerbase into 3 or 4 nations but keep all of the current nations (and maybe allow others to be added) by making two types of nations: npc and port battle nations (kind of like Eve has npc corps and player corps).
The system I dream of is like this:
- There are npc nations whose ports are unconquerable and which don't take part in Port Battles. Players can join these nations and take part in pvp but not port battles.
- This will force players to join port battle nations if they want port battles and funnel the playerbase into a few nations. Npc nations will still require resources from port battle areas. They will need to keep their relations good with port battle nations so they can enter their ports and build outposts there (and do econ, for a tax of course) or buy from their market (higher taxed though, this is where smuggling comes in, getting around paying the tax).
- 3 or 4 nations will vie for control of the map.
- PB nations would be Britain, France, Spain, and pirates (not a nation though).
- Non pb nations would be Sweden, Denmark, US, and Dutch.
- Pirates can't build above 5th rates, so their ports will mainly be shallow ports.
- Pirates don't conquer ports in the same way as normal nations, but force the port into a lawless state to take it over (pvp, smuggling, raiding).
- Raiding is an attack on the port's fort. The port won't change to a lawless state until the fort is defeated.
- Nationals can attack pirate ports like normal and a normal pb will take place to take it back. But pirates can't build 1-4th rates, so should have a hard time holding deep water ports.
- Trading 1-4th rates to a pirate is a crime that makes that player a pirate.
- Each player has a reputation with each nation that allows the player to join that nation if their relation gets high enough.
- You can enter all ports unless you have negative relations with the port nation or your nation is at war with the nation of that port.
- In another nation's port you can do missions for its admiralty to raise your relations with that nation.
- Attacking players of another nation causes a severe decrease in relation to that nation, enough of a decrease to mean you can't enter that nation's ports anymore.
- Attacking ai of a nation causes a minor relation penalty
- Attacking anyone with a smuggler flag does not decrease relation with the smuggler's nation. They are essentially temporarily an outlaw/pirate.
- pirates have negative relations with every nation
- pirates don't start off pirate.
- smuggler flag still allows you to enter any port as long as you are in a trader.
So, the non pb nations are still in the game and you can sail under that flag, just not take part in port battles. I think most people will join the pb nations.
-
4
-
10 hours ago, admin said:
we will just send reinforcement AI captains to the future to get some tips and training from CONCORD
Yes, make Concord/Coast Guard godlike. Essentially unkillable, inescapable, unbeatable.
I suggest looking into ways that limit when Concord/Coast Guard joins a battle. Base it on location and player rank. If the player getting attacked is above Master and Commander, Concord/Coast Guard doesn't join. If the attacking player is equal to or lower than the defending player, Concord/Coast Guard doesn't join. Please have the distance not be that far. The max it should be is a 50,000 unit radius around the capital (I.e. Mortimer to Baracoa).
Also, maybe have it be a button, so the player gets the choice to call in Concord/Coast Guard. Maybe the player wants to fight it out?
-
Point of no return? I remember a time in mid 2015 when Open World got down to 10 people on at US prime time. New update, population came back.
-
7 hours ago, koltes said:
No you don't understand man. They sailed TOGETHER. Yes they got tagged outside the view range, but the actual distance is in the OW is still the same.
Let me use a Real Life hypothetical example.
Chase is going. Fast ships got away outside visibility and were able to engage in the fight. Fights of that era could easily last hours. There is a fleet following behind. They KNOW where the fight is. They can hear the cannonades. They can see the smoke. Boom.. there is an invisible wall that stops them from joining. HmmOutside view range is typically a lot longer than a 3 hour sail. It's about 30km. Between 1780-1829, looking at the average speed of ships in moderate breeze, it will take about 6 hours to get there (based on average speeds from the logbooks of 38,000 Royal Navy and EIC ships - 280,000 daily log entries). In 1830 this would take 5 hours. 1750 6.6 hours. Battles can last fewer than 15 minutes. Chesapeake vs Shannon being one of them. Or they can last significantly longer like you mention. This is why I say a we need a system for joining based on distance and time. You join this late, you spawn this far away.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
fill the off time slots for the CCCP (SEA Players) that couldn't fill US prime time.
You weren't filling entire battle fleets with alts though. You couldn't conquer the world with your alt fleets. So can you take on a war clan with your alt fleet? And even if you can, does it matter? How is it any different in the proposed system if you are on your main accounts or alt accounts? What is the difference? It is your choice who you play as. Nations don't matter anymore. You aren't disrupting an entire nation now, and you can do as you please with your war clans. Alt clan or main clan, doesn't matter, its still gameplay. But the fact remains your alt clan won't be as powerful as your main, unless all your clan has a high level alt.
3 hours ago, Captain Lust said:Hear all the fanbois shouting how they always get pvp... they just forget to mention how long it takes them to find it... and without teleports ( teleport to freeport should be possible with player numbers being so low but with 4 - 8 hour cooldown imo or the actual teleport taking 20-30 min on or offline ) you can't just check all "hotzones" that usually have 2-3 people or 1-2 ganksquads roaming about.
Actually, no, I've posted in the past how long it takes me. A hotzone doesn't have 2-3 people roaming. That isn't a hotzone. You can find pvp within 15 minutes if you know where to look. And you can keep fighting for 3-4 hours of almost constant pvp with short 15 minute max breaks between if you please. That is a hotzone.
-
Invisibility lasts 45 seconds from when my game loads open world. Max speed I've seen is about 45 knots if I remember right. I don't know if you can get faster.
-
There isn't anything. There used to be, but not anymore. Now you get invisibility + speed buff to hopefully get back to port or out of sight where you can then initiate a log off at open sea.
-
2 hours ago, JobaSet said:
lol wow if that is all you use it for you wasted your money. But if you did do it for this reason you are actually hurting the game because you are not producing anything or results.
How is it hurting the game? Pvp is pvp. Pvp is content. Pvp is the content of Naval Action. Me creating one account to hunt vco or sorry guys at times we were in the same nation in no way hurts the game. Now what does hurt the game is when people use alts to supplement their economy, because then people are using alts for labour hours and alts for more buildings instead of other players. Or they use it to steal resources from other nations, that too hurts the game. Or they use them with port battle, which is one of the main points of this thread. Those things are what hurt the game. As for spying, by that time vicious and sorry had already had 10 spy accounts in US chat (and every other nation) and it didn't matter if TDA had one in pirate chat. Our spy account wasn't going to break the game. Every nation has spies, so why can't I utilize the same knowledge others are utilizing? I certainly wasn't the first, nor was I the last, considering I don't even do politics anymore and haven't spied on a nation in about a year. And admin has clarified several times alts can be used for spying. As for a waste of money. I have 300 hours on my alt, which means 10 cents an hour for a $30 steam sale game over a year ago. More money goes to Game Labs and I can play on a character that is in no way connected to my main account, which has provided entertainment at a rate of 10 cents an hour, combined with my main account which is 1 cent an hour. Going to some movies costs $20 for 2 hours (not counting gas, popcorn, pop). Compare that to Naval Action. There are a lot of things I could tell people are sources of significant waste of their money. $70 for Naval Action for going on 3 years of entertainment for me? Nope. Plus, what is a waste to me is really no business of anyone else. It was my choice, and in no way hurt the game, but added to the amount of copies Game Labs has sold, has provided a decent value of entertainment for me at 10 cents an hour, and provided Open World content in areas there wasn't much pvp content. Producing or results has nothing to do with it. For both of my accounts combined, I have spent 2 cents an hour playing naval action over the course of 3 years, and that only counts what steam sees on the two accounts. It doesn't count out of game entertainment in the forums or developing web tools or maps.
7 minutes ago, Archaos said:To put in in figures a 25 man War Company from Denmark wants to attack a 25 man British War Company port, if other members of the British nation can screen then they have little chance of making it into the battle, but if the 25 Danes had British alt War Company they could attack the same port without being screened and get a 25v25 battle, where the skill of the original 25 Danes would be what counts.
Curious here, which clan has 25 max level alts that each alt is played by a separate person? Point one out. I am generally interested in which clan has that many alts in one enemy nation and can disrupt the system admin has proposed. Granted, this clan can only disrupt one nation's system, it would have to have another alt clan for a different nation. And if we ever figure out a clan is doing this, several war clans can just plop down several port battles at the same time against this clan and its alt clan and see how they handle several port battles at the same time.
-
By accusation alone? No, that's been proven multiple times in several tribunals. You have to have proof for someone to get into trouble for something. However, forum posts are view-able to all moderators, and can review the content themselves, so no proof is necessary beyond the post, and my guess is all moderators would agree with what was done. Also, in every interaction I've had with a moderator they provide useful and clear feedback.
-
6 hours ago, Armored_Sheep said:
IMHO Alts are in game because there is either
1) low content for a single player to entertain alone
or
2) the game is too hard for one to control
I don't agree with you, maybe because that's not why I first got an alt.
Alts are for spying or pvping against anyone, i.e. even those your main has an agreement to not attack.
-
6 hours ago, Michael Corvinus said:
Then Vernon starts off giving me grief saying that I was ranting. He has no right just to come on and start gobbing offf. Some people trawl forums just for an excuse to gob off without giving any value to the issue. "Go lose some more ships to AI, champ" This is a really unhelpful and inaccurate statement, which shows he does not even read what the issue is.
You were ranting because you were attacking the devs for not helping you within 30 minutes on a weekend when it is 11pm their time. You need to change your expectations. No one is around 24/7.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Captain Lust said:
Why not give them Kidd's Island anyways? Thought you wanted the center to be conquest? Also making Nassau the pirate capital takes away a great shallow conquest combat zone and we need more of those not less... Since Captain Kidd was a pirate / privateer and the island in game named after him seems like a homage to Treasure Island it should always be in pirate hands anyways... anything else just seems wrong. All nations should have only 3-5 uncapturable ports maximum with greenzone around them anyways.
Cant capture bermuda by flag without kidds
-
1 hour ago, Fastidius said:
way things have gone has simply turned the game into a gank fest
When has it ever been anything other than a gank fest? The first war (2015) in Open World was a gank fest.
-
1
-
New ships
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted · Edited by Prater
I agree, but the OP ships need to be fixed. The Agamemnon is an aged Ardant class 64 gunner. The Indy is a razeed Ardant. They wouldn't have razeed it if it was "OP." The Agamemnon should be on par with the Constitution, but certainly not OP. United States class Superfrigate (Constitution) carried a max broadside weight of 888 lbs vs the Ardant's 566 lbs.
P.s. Agree with the galleon, we don't need them, they are too old. Game takes place at the turn of the 19th century, the vast majority of the ships are around that time and the map starts out after the American Revolution but before 1805.