Rabid_Infidel
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Rabid_Infidel
-
-
A kickstarter??
For a game that in a year's time added very little in meaningful content that can be summed up in a few words.. Land in PB's, some forts along the coast, fishing and a prey button?
For a game that is still balls deep in alpha dev stage with a steep price tag of 37€..
For a game in which most of its patches consists of mainly balancing and mechanics changes..
This thing is nowhere near completion and by the looks of it it will be a long time before it seas the light of day. At this point one might as well call it "abandonware"!
Majority who played already left for the greener pastures with only the faithful few remaining, and now there is talk of a "kickstarter"?
The roadmap for 2017, more rebalances, cutting off what little content no matter how boring it may be (missions), and actually NO new content. This is a joke!
-
I would like to point out that Fractured space had max 200 people online during their early access.
https://steamdb.info/app/310380/graphs/
Online is not correlated with a quality of the game or a developer. Just like you said. Patches, content, everything was delivered by the devs - 200 online. Same with subnautica 1000 players most of EA.
Early access online player numbers do not matter if the quality does not go lower on release.
No - you are mistaken for multiple reasons. And we will always respond to such statements as online does not matter
First - every game has 0 percent long term retention . Nobody plays civilization 1. = 0 retention
Second lets use your fractured space example
https://steamdb.info/app/310380/graphs/
Number of users who tried FC. 1.8 mln
Peak online 6300 1 year ago
Current peak 1300 (5x drop)
We also have a 5x drop. Did you say FC was on crack and doing well or did you say they were dying because they had the same drop? They must be having abysmal retention rating - like No mans sky bad (compared to ours i mean). In addition to that more players stayed in NA than in FC in relation to those who tried (1000 of 1.8 mln vs ours 800-1000 out of 85000).
Does it mean that FC is losing 14x more users than NA? or what does it mean?
I will help you
It means nothing. FC is an awesome game which players try and move on.
a) player numbers do not show the game quality
b ) player numbers always drop unless the game is a true hit (wot, wow, etc)
GTA5 is bad according to your logic as their retention is like 5% or less (everybody left)
. But its not. It is just everybody gets bored eventually and goes to do something else. You are mixing apples and oranges aka single player and multiplayer!
Fractured space, World of..., War Thunder, Mechwarrior online, LOL, and Naval Action NEED players and player retention in order to live on.
Maybe not stellar or even good but somewhat stable at least. Or you would need bigger influx of players buying into NA then what is
leaving NA. But is this possible for a non F2P game?
On the other hand your GTAxx, civxx, fallouts, witchers, whatever else singleplayer game does not give a rats ass does player spends 2 hours or 600 hours
into their game after it has been bought.
One does not care nor depends on how much players are online, while the other is totally dependent on it and if player base drops too low it's light's out.
I will give you "Evolve" as a good example of this happening. They reverted to F2P in order to bring new blood to the game as their servers hang so empty months after
release that nobody was playing and those few that did could not find a match.
Concerning Fractured Space. I bought the game in EA and actually only installed it 2 weeks ago. I played 1 tutorial match and 1 vs AI as you must play 3 before being able to
play with players and haven't launched it again. I found it somewhat boring and uninteresting. If what you say about player numbers (in FC) is true then i consider it a failure yes!
And it's probably the reason why they went F2P so early. Same goes for Dreadnought. Played about 30 matches, lost interest. By long waiting matchmaking queues i perceive
they have same problem (not enough players).
However that was not the topic. Conversation was about development speed and not about player rating or the game quality.
-
I would like to point out that Fractured space had max 200 people online during their early access.
https://steamdb.info/app/310380/graphs/
Online is not correlated with a quality of the game or a developer. Just like you said. Patches, content, everything was delivered by the devs - 200 online. Same with subnautica 1000 players most of EA.
Early access online player numbers do not matter if the quality does not go lower on release.
Player base numbers are not maybe so important per se, it's the conclusion that i hiding behind that number. Player retention.
This rating is showing do players want to play your game. As NA has bad retention and mostly daily player consists of your regular fan base and a few of
new guys+random drop in casuals i find this to be a problem. Maybe it's not a big deal now in EA state but if you do not find a more stable formula it will become a death sentence.
Reasons being:
1. MMO sandbox game that in order to have fun you are reliant on other players = the more the merrier!
2. Future monetization of the game and your studio. You gotta keep the lights on somehow?
We are talking about the future of NA here so i am looking 2 steps ahead. If you think you can keep this game with 500 fiercely loyal players and a few random drop ins
then this conversation is kinda pointless. NA not having a bright future would be a hard blow for me personally as i waited the game of this type for half of my adult life.
In most cases when i take a dislike to a game i just leave. I dislike being all doom and gloom here but if i see a problem i will try to express it as a fan of this game.
You guys made a great achievement with this game already and if somebody asked me now i would say i got my money back threefold by now in playing NA.
It's just that these 2 months have been very hard for us players and at least for me personally it seems that you as the dev team lost focus or are confused in what
direction you should go. I may be way off the mark and wrong but that is how it's looks from my perspective.
-
1
-
-
Both teams have are 5x bigger than ours + both are good. Both games are session based shooters. Open worlds are harder.
If we cut open world we could patch more often.
Edge Case has about 25 devs. (http://www.edgecasegames.net/careers/)
If i understand correctly you guys have about 10?
So no 5 times bigger..
Doesn't really matter. What it does matter is player count. Every game has its lifecycle and if left half baked too long you will lose potential customers.
There are already topics on your steam page of people asking is this game worth buying and how populated it is! You can play the early access card only so far..
NA is having abysmal player retention rating. Meaning that most people who bought it already left it never to return again. This is bad. No Man's sky bad!
Getting more guys in your dev team would mean more content on a faster pace, which would mean more satisfied player base = more guys playing the game= better game statistics = more new players = more money for you company!
After your planned "release", i think you will need to resurrect this game a new. Your big steam EA release has been and gone. What i suggest (after what you think this game is in a released state) you hop on the steam discount/event bandwagon and try to hook new players relying on very positive steam rating that it will attract more new guys on a steady rate after. Also, some advertising the game on whatever media you find most efficient would help as well.
-
1
-
-
Edge Case Games.
3 patches, two weeks. I do not recall any content added though. and I don't recall any patch notes. i'd have to assume they were bug fixes mostly.
Piranha Games.
they kinda do you like you do. Small content patch every month or so. then they do a big content patch every 4-6 months.
Indeed, those guys from Fractured space and Mechwarrior online are like on crack! Fractured space get's a patch every few days. MWO is putting it out at a fast steady pace as well.
Fractured Space went from early alpha pre EA version to release in a year's time and looking good so far!
On the other hand you have guys who are making Dreadnought (Greybox) and they are still in closed beta after promising open beta at the first quarter 2016!
Reportedly they are working on a major overhaul of the game, being the reason for the massive delay..
However devs spin this NA is having slow development progress. Is this good or bad, do we like/dislike it, everybody will have differing opinion.
But while we here are arguing amongst each other NA has hit a new low in player numbers playing. Sure, some of it can be attributed to waiting for new patch
but that has been said every time again and again but every time it happens fewer players return to the game!
As NA is a sandbox mmo type rather than theme park mmo where a player can count on having his fun in content by himself, fun in NA is very dependent on other players.
Low player numbers is the worst thing that can happen to this game. I guess you will always have your die hards who will stay online no matter what but slowly and surely
rest will leave, leaving NA a vacant and empty game.
So a honest suggesting from a player of NA who has this game success at his hearth i suggest you start asking this questions:
1. What will keep new players to play this game?
2. What will keep veteran and more casual players to play this game?
Or? Or keep pandering and tailoring the game to the liking of only one type of players (we all know who they are and what type of game they want this to be) just be aware that this
strategy left you with a game that is struggling to keep it's most populated server over 600-700 players at prime times..
-
1
-
-
Thank you... it is a language thing. I feel if you use the wrong word you can draw a completely different picture than what you are intending.
Now I have the PERFECT solution for everyone on the timer thing.
Get rid of the timers and the open world sailing. Everyone will sail everywhere in the battle scale, it will take days to actually sail from Jamaica to Charleston US. If you see someone in this world you can either try and sail away or deal with them. If you can deal with them before they have friends show up great, if not oh well.
Pretty close to how it actually works in REAL LIFE!!! They don't get a cool battle screen to drop into from the real world to fight a ship. They have to fight in the world they are actually in. If the nearest friendly ship is 2 days sail away at best speed... well you better hope you can fight for 2 days and not sink.
I would actually like they gone this route instead of time compression mode+battle instance we have now.
When it was debated how they gonna do this time comp+instance was a solution to curb long sailing times. All well and good but we still have very long sailing times as the world is large.
So in trying to fix one problem they made two problems, still long sailing and battle instance RoE that everybody has different opinion of.
Why not just downsize OW to size that will match sailing time in OW now but now to sailing mode like in battle instance. All problems solved i guess..
No battle timers, no exit timers, no battle result screen waiting, no enemy vanishing up in air if you do not hit it with cannon ball in under 60/120 secs...
Many here stated about breaking immersion, well for me everything about this battle instance breaks immersion nor is in any way, shape or form realistic or even maybe needed.
We could still have instanced combat for missions as to enable player to have a chance to do it in peace and not spawning large amount of ships in the world that could interfere with
other players passing by.
Only issue i can see in this proposition is that it will be harder for smaller nations to survive as they would not be able to compartmentalize and break big fleets into few
smaller easily manageable ones getting ROFLstomped in the process by nation with larger player base. But then again i can see a rough time coming to
lesser nations as the next conquest patch will make it harder for them to take ports as they need to create conditions for capture. No more false flagging and keep enemy
guessing where the attack will land..
-
So no, you dont understand the concept then.
If you wish to refute something i stated about sandbox and how it is connected to Naval Action battle timer then please feel free to
do so. Playing a vague smartass will not get you nowhere (except in the kindergarten, that tactics is still valid there)
As for your situation about ppl being mugged and nobody caring... I'm happy that does not happen in my country and i sure would not want to live in a
country where people think this acceptable or normal. No wonder you are so thick with this smug attitude living there.
-
Lol. Do you even understand the concept of ow or sandbox?
Probably better than you.
What "sandbox" type game has with battle timers mind telling me? EVE is sandbox, yet no timers or battle instances at all?
Or will you now claim that Eve is not sandbox?
Sandbox is a broad term that does not imply specific game mechanics but game FEATURES! It pretty much implies that there are no linear level designs and
players are free to explore the world at their own pace or liking. In some games you can build and effect the world (minecraft, RUST), in other you can travel
where you wish without game forced boundaries (like EvE or NA). Many have crafting elements in place as well.
Battle instance and timers involved are unique to Naval Action and are not a part or definition of "sandbox".
-
Sounds like a successful raid to me. They sailed for probably what, 30 minutes to pull that off, from the nearest free town? They put in the effort, gathered a fleet, coordinated, found a target, spent the time sailing together, and got a vic out of the whole ordeal.
And you want to balance all that effort that they put into it by allowing every yokel on the other side of Jamaica to just pour into the fight so that the end result is that they just stop coming into your waters? And we are to believe that this will promote PVP? And how will players fight each other when you do not sail into their territory, and they no longer see the benefit of sailing into yours?
Kudos to them for sure!
But what they did they did not with superior skill or with effort. Stupid game mechanics allowed them to come into heavily populated home waters
and gank a player with 100% chance of success! And FUN? Where was the fun in that? I surrendered the moment the battle started as i had no chance of winning
or getting help and thought better to save myself half an hour of pain. Cut my losses and went to other activities.
I had no fun. I doubt they had either. There was no glory to be had, no fun fight to be enjoyed that one could tell about somebody afterwards.. Literally nothing.
As for lost Vic, i did not care as i have plenty more, and i doubt they cared as they probably have plenty themselves..
Add a min or 2 to the timers, maybe somebody would join in and now i would get a fight out of it and they as well... Works for everybody. That is PvP... Ganking is NOT.
Let's make a IRL comparison: Let's say you are coming home late in the evening in the dark street and get mugged! All are sleeping, nobody in sight, nobody to help you... Pretty common right?
You cut your losses and carry on aware that it was a situation you could no do nothing about. (you would now say: Walk with friends right?)
Now let's make another scenario: You are passing a police station at noon. It's a pretty relaxed day. Then somebody starts beating you with a baseball club
with police officers watching from the station entrance. Just standing there meters away. Would you feel awkward and stupefied later in the hospital?
Well welcome to Naval action! This scenario is exactly how this 2 min timer works in this game and how majority feel about it.
-
2
-
-
I sail off Jamaica constantly hunting traders and 5th rates. I do this alone. I've been caught and sunk twice in 3 months. I've never come close to being "annihilated" by a superior fleet. The ships I lost were in 2v1s where I gave a good accounting of myself. Not the 20v1s I would have had to deal with if longer timers were in.
No, it turns into a dogpile on any lone player or pair who dare sail on the OW. I had enough of that crap at the start of early access, and have no wish to return to it. Fight what you see is the only "fair" ROE, whether it's accomplished by 2 minute timers or by Admin's double circle ROE. If I have friends that can help me, they are already sailing so close that they'd make it in on a 30 second timer. If they're farther away than that, they're not "sailing with me" in the first place and have no business in the fight that I got myself into.
Yours and others definition of a "chance" is perfect safety and total risk aversion. After all, somebody could have come and bailed your sorry ass out for a poor decision you made, if ONLY the game mechanics were modified to allow it. No, ajf has it right. You won't be satisfied even if the battle was open for an hour and a half, you'd complain that battles were to short. I think instead you should learn what constitutes poor decisions in this game and either live with the consequences of making them, or learn to avoid them.
So we had a "scale" and now we're back to "poor decisions" and well, mind reading me.
You "know" i will not be happy even with an hour open battles... For fuck sake will you get off that self appointed throne you build for yourself..
Some modesty will not hurt in your case.
About your "poor decisions". Did i make one when i tried to relocate my Vic from KPR to Carlisle and got ganked right in front of it with no
chance to get help even from guys in my sight? Fuck a Vic, i have 4 more but a game mechanics that allows 100% no risk ganks
in the square middle of heavily populated nation waters is BAD!
Bottom line is we will never see eye to eye as our vision of the game is vastly different. No arguments you make will not change my mind
as i find this game in this state not worth playing and i guess adding a min or 2 to timers it seems would break this game for you.
We are different players liking different stuff. You happen to hold opinions shared by a small fraction of players playing this game.
Truth is, RoE will be changed in some way or another but if it still stays "gankers paradise" guys like me leave, and guys like you will follow suit right after as the
game will dwindle and die as it can't survive without a fresh blood.
-
1
-
-
Yes, I really believe it. The point is that the issue is not the timers, it is the players.
Summary of your post:
1) I do not want to be troubled with playing with other players, takes too much time, effort, blah blah blah.
2) I suddenly want to play with other players.
3) Game is working when things go my way. Game is broken when things do not.
And what exactly is hypocritical? I have been the victim of many 'ganks' within sight of port. Join the club, bud! I still maintain that it is better to have the system we have now than to punish players who are working together while giving training wheels to people who do not.
Whatever you smoking is very potent as i have not stated ANY of things you mentioned!
Never have i stated that i DON'T WANT/WANT play with other players... What i DID state that i do not want to be forced through tiresome process of finding
other players for EVERY ACTION i plan to take in this game! Please do not attempt to strawman me another time.
As for your 3rd point you accuse me off it's it seems to me more of your own mindset as you seem to be deeply offended/protective about
a change to this game you consider helpful to your game style.
All we have proposed is adding a few mins (1-2-3) to battle timer and with it adding a chance of a ganked victim of getting some help. Help that would be only available in waters populated by
friendly ships anyway. What that means to you is your ganks in front of enemy towns would be a bit more risky, yea we can't have that!
-
It's a sliding scale. If you want to mission run in safety, you will need to take some time to ask other players (or you know, ask friends) to join you. Same for hunting enemy players. If you don't want to wait, nothing stops you from going alone at your own peril. Nothing requires you to build a fleet. I rarely need to wait because I sail alone for the majority of my ingame time. I do so at my own peril, and there have been times where I've bitten off more than I can chew. It's part of the game, and I'm not going to cry over it if I get ganked. If my friends couldn't reach me in two minutes, they aren't going to reach me in 5 or 10. I lost a dura, I learned from a mistake, and I'm that much deadlier or if nothing else harder to catch the next time around.
Funny how you mention "sliding scale" yet you do not believe your own words.
Yes it should be a sliding scale but ATM it is NOT! Now, it's either sail with a fleet or face annihilation if spotted. No "scale" in this scenario. The scale is ALL DOWN on gankers side!
But if we added 1-2-3 mins to timer then IT BEGINS to be a sliding scale as now you have a chance of a nearby friendly ship to assist you but not a whole nation to join your side!
And tell me who mentioned "safety"?? NOBODY! But many others mentioned, a chance!
-
1
-
-
Because if it is 3 minutes, you will arrive at 3:01 and complain. if it is 4 minutes, you will arrive at 4:01 and complain. And if it is an hour, you will arrive at 1:00:01 and complain that the game just cut you off from joining.
None of that matters if you sail together. In fact, if you sail close enough together, you don't even have to worry about timers because you all get dragged in to the fight together when it is initiated.
But you do not want that. You want to be able to call for people outside of visible distance to come to your aid because you are lazy and do not want to be hassled with sailing with other people, until the crap hits the fan, and then suddenly the game mechanics are broken and prevented you from helping each other which you apparently didn't want to do in the first place.
Does. not. compute.
2 minutes is about the amount of time you can reach each other based on the sight-lines. Again, 'fight what you see.' Anything more than that becomes some magical GPS-guided SOS distress system that absolutely RUINS immersion.
You really believe in that BS?
Let me break it to you, if for any single action you take in this game you must go through a process of assembling a fleet of other players then it STOPS being a game and begins to
be a CHORE! Plenty of times there are calls for mission runs in chat that last for half an hour or more for only a few players to assemble and go.
It's maybe hard to believe it to you but most do not live in Naval Action nor have the time finding a fleet for everything they want/plan to do in the game.
Not to mention how hypocritical you are. You are unwilling to budge on this issue even for 1 minute yet are happily proposing other players
moving through a long, boring and time consuming process...
-
1
-
-
Okey, time to add one more worthless opinion...
Every time i leave a port i do it with a knowledge i may not return with my ship into it again.
As i play on PvP server i have no problem with this. I am rear admiral rank, lvl 50 crafter with full warehouse full of resources and craft materials.
What ever loss i take on OW i can compensate it fast and easy.
I have whole array of ships in my outpost that are tailored for every mission you can think of. Scouting, PB's, missioning, random Pvping, hunting, etc..
When i go missioning i usually go alone but i choose my mission and only take those that are very close to harbor and often take them from couple of ports and
then proceed to do the one that is the safest and closest. I watch the nation chat for reports of enemy activity and plan accordingly.
Before starting a mission i turn my ship in the direction of the port i plan to return to as to not lose time in order to turn my ship after it.
At mission end (in battle report screen) i take a minute to scroll through chat in order to find out if there are any gankers/raiders reported.
When taking a trade run i take the ship most appropriate to the run's role. I do not use fleets as i do not find them useful.
I play it safe and generally i stay safe. With all that said, i believe we have an issue regarding RoE in this game and i think it plays a major part in bad player retention this
game suffers from. i can not provide any numbers but from my experience playing NA for this 2 years (pre steam sea trials to now) i will put a player retention at about 15%.
That means from all the player who bought/tried NA only about 15% is still somewhat active. This may be normal for early access title but one has to wonder how many players have
left with a bad taste in their mouth never to return again..
Some of you will maybe dismiss this out of hand claiming that these players were bad, carebears, whiners, entitled children, (and i saw many a time those words used from the users who use
this forum on daily basis) but consider this as players are the MEAT of this game. Players are those who give you content and a reason to play! Without players who will participate in Pb's, huntings, trading and who will you gank in OW? Low player count will hit hard core PvPiers the hardest as PvP implies PLAYERS!
So i believe WE MUST HAVE COMPROMISE! PvP or not this game should be a bit more "player friendly" and those of you that i see every time commenting on EVERY single forum
post berating other players who do not share exact vision of what this game should be would benefit from a bit of compassion towards your fellow humans.
Not everybody plays this game for the same reasons nor enjoys the same things you do or has the same conditions.
I understand that there are about 50 of you hard core pvpers very active on this forums who jump on every thread that in your opinion endangers your
PvP heaven, be it timers, fleets, sociable perk or perks all together...
2 min timers are a joke, people DO NOT LIKE IT. Sociable perk is still mentioned in chat and most thought it was a good edition making for more PvP and better Pvp!
30 mins was dumb and over the top. However most will agree that timers would do a good job if they were 3-4-5 minutes long. Personally i would kill timers all together but
that would probably brake balance as the nations with numbers supremacy would be able to rule the OW.
Often i am at sea in my home waters sailing or patroling and seeing a distress signal in chat that somebody is being ganked but i am unable to be of help as i am aware that by
the time i get there the battle will be closed even if i am very close by. Even if i am in a position to help i will do it reluctantly as i know that i will (and the ganked victim) will
be facing a superior enemy and i am entering a losing battle. From any standpoint (military, fun, economic,ego) surely it's better to lose 1 ship then 2.
Sociable for me brought a whiff of fresh air into the game making the PvP more readily, exciting and fun. Fighting a battle not knowing what will happen
during its course was a blast! Will enemy get more ppl in, will i get more reinforcement?
Bringing it back to 2 mins made me not wanting to play this game AT ALL!
You ppl say use escorts or patrols...Yeah well, gankers use speed rigged ships and are generally very skilled in running away only attacking if they have a superiority.
Those stories of "honest gankers" who sail around looking for honest combat are BS and you all know it. I saw it happen sometimes but for every "honest" one there are
50 cowardly ganks.
For all that is wrong with this game, catering to only one play style (ganking) is surely the worst offender. If a working compromise is not found none of us will be playing
NA in the future. With all this potential and a beautiful game in the making it would be a sad, sad affair.
-
2
-
-
Not that it will matter in any way possible but seeing as forum should be a free exchange of ideas i will add my opinion.
As an early pre-steam "Sea trials" (two years ago) backer of this game i am not happy. As an all-around-jack-of-all-trades casual player this game offers little for me in
content department. It's fine, game is still in early development and at this rate it still will be next two years into the future (probably even more).
My problem is the constant and neverending dev focus on pure pvp hard core crowd that are in fact a minority of those that bought this game.
I would not mind as i am a pvp oriented player as well but would it hurt to throw a bone or a cookie here and there to the "filthy casuals"? I guess so...
With that said we come to the "event"!
It's was envisioned as a pure pvp activity, only it backfired badly. Third iteration is even worse as it fits only strong and numerous clans or nations who can field a good number of
players filling the roles of scout, fighter and trader.
Devs openly stated this as fact and how every game out there has type oriented events not applicable to all players. Fine, but "other games" have a plethora of other
content or events done in different manner of execution so every player no matter his preferred playstyle can participate.
Dev's it's your game and i guess this is your vision of it, very well. However this vision might get you to the dead end street as die hards are small in number and large
majority are casuals. Pander and love your diehards as much as you want but casuals are your bread and butter. If steam release was any indicator of future and constant playerbase drops,
it seems that large crowds have some issues regarding this game making them quit very early never to return. I find this fact problematic. Game with a very low player retention (early access or not) is indicating a problem.
Creating a event aimed precisely at one group of players in a game with a heavy lack of content (outside constant pvping) is not a way to go and no wonder that players are
up in arms regarding it. I write this meaning well with a hope of NA becoming the most popular Age Of Sail game on the market and at the end it's my 2 cents.
-
7
-
-
Thanks for sharing
I find it curious about the lack will to go and circumvent the map and explore new coasts but hey, different takes on everything the game has.Oh i would like to explore the land and go to every nook and cranny there is in this world. But every coast is similar and not all that interesting, little vegetation variation, little hills/plains variation so when i saw one coast i saw them all.
Now, if they would add some sort of exploration content like RNG based events you encounter as you sail somewhere, land and sea life with maybe a way to catch it and sell/show, small villages and little towns not on the map but able to dock and buy something exotic, avatar walking on land to set up buildings of your own in some deep lush forest on the far side of the world (I KNOW this will not happen but i dream..), etc, etc..
-
1
-
-
Agree on that. We all play different playstyles and we have to know what's out there and being a multiplayer game anything can happen. I rather be impeded in a raid ( like yesterday, salute Cecil that was a great moment of NA! ) by players than by bots ... oh nevermind, the bots won't stop a raider and you'd have two options, run away and forfeit the bots or stay and lose the trader, the cargo and the bots.
I rejoice on trade raid. What's your playstyle ?
I am jack of all trades and like to do everything this game will let me. I am a lvl 50 crafter, i do a bit of trading, a bit of mission running, a bit of pvping depending on my mood and in-game situation.
Only thing i do not participate in is Port battles as i find them boring and futile as they flip everyday and hold no real strategic value of holding them. However i will get involved in them when the conquest patch hit as than port holding will be worth my time.
I spend 90% of my time in this game in a Carlisle-Port Morant-Pedro Cay triangle. In this little puddle of water there is all i need. Resources to build, missions to do, PvP to be had at any time as there are ganker squads operating there all the time. When one gets sunk or leaves another one takes it's place. So not only do i not need to leave, i lack any motivation to do so and i find this being a great downfall of this game. But i await and hope for a better future to come soon. Hopefuly Conquest patch will remedy some of this.
-
1
-
-
You are missing one very important detail.
Fleet ships add BR. They can create a "invulnerability" bubble if the BR is right versus some enemy setups. It is not about the traders having support ( it is of sorts but we already managed to overcome that ), they do not add anything to the Action game but disrupt greatly all else.
Fast fix ?! Remove fleet BR and use only the player.
Fine, i agree on BR difference as it can override the game mechanics that are in the game for different purposes and not a single player being attacked. Remove BR from fleet ships is fine.
Fleet maybe does not add to things from your perspective but it does to many other players and i think that you should at least try to look from somebody else's perspective as not all who play this game want the same experience out of it as you do (or at least to that of many other players active on this forum who dislike any change that could in any way hinder their pvp ganking prospects).
-
Fleets are a good edition to the game and i hope they are here to stay.
Many ppl here complain because they need to work harder or pick their prey more selectively, no more gank whatever they wish.
And why are you all upset because some players prefer to use them and feel a bit safer is beyond me. Is ONLY YOUR playstyle that should be followed or allowed?
Fleets- OH NOES NOW THEY CAN HAVE SUPPORT!! REMOVE FROM GAME!!
Sociable perk- OH NOES NOW THEY CAN HAVE SUPPORT!! REMOVE FROM GAME!!
Next thing that to some extent benefits somebody else not 100% pvp oriented- OH NOES NOW THEY CAN HAVE SUPPORT!! REMOVE FROM GAME!!
-
I made the same suggestion days ago when the devs post the Alliance thread but it seems that they didnt like it.
Its sad to see how basic is going to be the political system in the game. Or enemy or ally, nothing more, nothing less.
I would not think like this just a few days ago but after saturday i have a bit different opinion of our devs. They seem to highly favour gankers and reiders so any change that would limit or
lower ganking targets is a no-go. If we put neutral into the game suddenly gankers have less ppl to hunt.
-
Hello everybody.
With the new diplomacy system that came into the game we can now declare war or make alliances.
So now it comes to my mind that we should have NEUTRAL nations as well.
What is special in declaration of war if we are all enemies by default? It is not normal not realistic.
NEUTRAL is the default position is it not? As in real life there is a process involved in making an enemy. "A road to war", sometimes
it's slow and sometimes fast but there is a process. Pretty much same happens when making allies.
So i propose three political positions:
1. WAR, self explanatory. Your duty to king and country is to destroy, burn or seize the enemy on sight.
2. NEUTRAL, You can't attack them on OW nor can you call flags on their towns. What you can is dock in their towns and trade with them
(BUT ONLY resources, NO ships or anything else)
3. ALLIES, as it is in game right now. Dock in their towns, trade, make outposts, build.. Just not pull flags.
In this system as it stands now we are enemies so WAR is useless option and we only make Allies. So i think my proposition is normal and realistic.
I would like to add one more suggestion about port battles.
The clan or if not in clan a person that pulls the flag is a sort of port controller and gets trading Tax and a name/clan tag in port information.
What i am thinking about is similar to 5% combat XP for crafter of the ship used in combat.
So, shallow port 2% trade tax
deep port 3.5 trade tax
regional capital 5% trade tax
I think this system is easy to put the game with minimal effort and in the same time it will give more incentive to players and clans to battle it out.
And it's cool as well.
)-
1
-
-
I was there on time and after salvaging 2x dead man's chest (each one weighing 250 hold) i ran for the nearest port to open them.
Most ppl used warships, others small traders like lynx and such. However as we were not informed what this event will be there was little time to prepare and or
participate properly.
Well, my reward was a Paint scheme for Santisima (2x, one for every chest) and a random quality upgrade.
I believe there will be a few more events of this type but as it stands i rate this event and the patch that preceded it as EPIC FAIL!
Where are my new ships devs?? WHERE??
-
While you keep splitting hairs over combat model which is pretty good at this moment and is the best part of Naval Action, players keep leaving
in droves for the lack of content or meaningful things to do in the game.
Please concentrate on things needed in this game, like alliances and diplomacy, port battles, pirate nation changes, more ships, UI... Important stuff, promised but delayed to infinity!
You can fiddle with the damage model later when we have a damn game to play!
Thx!
-
5
-
-
While it would add a bit more realism to the game i fail to see the purpose to it and benefit.
By getting rid of Dur ppl will be more scared to engage and to die in pvp, resulting in less encounters or
more boring encounters where one side tries to flee if they even smell a hint of a loss..
In your proposition i see a lot of possible negative effects to the game yet little of positive ones.
Content plans for the first half of 2017
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Isn't that a sad irony in itself? A naval game WITHOUT a competition in it's niche that barely tops 800 players at weekend peak times!
I think this speaks volumes more about the state of the game that i could ever write in my lifetime!