Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ow'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
    • Feedback & Suggestions
    • Support
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 57 results

  1. In defence of ganking (Sorry for new topic, I couldn't find the proper thread for this, and sorry its so long, i had a long sail ) Firstly, What is Ganking? 1. Sailing around in a large group looking for solo player or smaller group to sink them? 2. Sinking a trader? 3. Sinking a noob? 4. Sinking a solo player 1v1 when you are in a vastly superior ship? 5. Coming out with overwhelming force to sink an enemy fleet running hostility on your Port? 6. Coming out with overwhelming force to sink an enemy ganking fleet? 7. Coming out with overwhelming force to sink an enemy player who has been sinking noobs? The list is endless..which ones of these are acceptable and which are not? There is this idea that ganking is 'bad' and so we need new RoE to prevent it. 1.5 BR difference is the most common idea. But what will this achieve? It is going to prevent many of these types of play, some of them (if not most, and indeed maybe all) are perfectly legitimate imo. Even number 1. The most obvious 'bad' ganking has it's upside: It might be nice to sail around all day in a gold Belle Poule with Poods and Naval clock and carta etc looking for fights and yes its shit if you lose it to a gank. But a good captain is most likely going to beat everyone he meets 1v1 in a 'fair' fight. A very good one will win most if not all fights v 1.5 BR, certainly against the average majority like me. But if 8 reasonably experienced players meet you with some fast ships and a Bellona or two with them, then it doesn't matter how good you are, you might lose that Belle. So perhaps even this bad ganking is really a good thing in that it places at least some limits on just how much advantage experienced players can wield or at least how often? Atm even the very best players in the very best ships are in danger of losing them. If we start introducing BR limits to somehow make battles 'fairer'. Does this not just makes it nice and snuggly for the best and richest players to sail pimped out ships more often, safe in the knowledge they will nearly always win? Doesn't it also mean that average players and noobs will nearly always be outclassed when they meet more experienced players or groups of players? (not just in terms of skill but in terms of the ships too (an insurmountable disadvantage, a gank even?). If you sail to an enemy port and try to attack that nations players or run hostility against them then you should expect a large force to come out and try to prevent you. I think that is acceptable. So if you do that you had better take a really fast ship, and if you do that then your options are reduced and you might find, if you meet another player who has fit for duelling or PVE. (even if he is less experienced), he has a better chance of defending himself? As others have said, ganking also allows newer players to take part in PvP and be a genuine threat. They can make up for their cheap ships, basic upgrades and inexperience (restrictions on gaming time) through sheer numbers. Imposing BR limits on OW battles might just widen the gap between the elite few and the more casual majority and ultimately just alienate more people who will quickly learn they will never have the capacity to compete in meaningful PvP where they can win, and they will just quit. When the new PvP zones are introduced, players who want to, can go there for their fair fights and elite honour duels. OW RoE BR restrictions just restrict game play, frustrate players who cant enter a battle and all to fix a non-existent problem. It might also turn the game into a playground for the few rich and experienced players and the majority of new and less active players will get frustrated and leave. Then everyone loses. There are ways to minimise ganking anyway and a lot of players enjoy the challenge of playing solo and evading gank fleets and do so successfully. So let them gank I say.
  2. Instead of keeping things easy for ganker squads, please make both join circles very close to the battle swords, very close to each other. Sure, ppl might call it skill to land a tag where the enemy join circle is on land, but this is way too easy just sitting at someones port and way too easy to do against slower ships, thus negating it being any skill at all. This is like the 20th time in 2 weeks that I've seen join circles on land. Either get rid of 2 circles and have just one like PvP Zones, or Make the join circles touching each other and the battle swords. F11 made. heh
  3. RVR, Timers, the flow of WAR and exchange of territory -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I was just sitting down in a chair and I was thinking about Planetside 2 and their conquest. What about their system makes people O.K. with losing bases overnight? First thing to come to mind was that well, bases in planetside are expected to flip hands many times a day. That's what makes the game interesting. Unlike NA there is no making residence in a base. Things are constantly getting reset so new fight always happen, no this is not a suggestion for map wipes. It's a better idea. Next thing to come to mind was the idea of "Front Lines". I remember @admin mentioning recently about a plan to add them in some way shape or form. This got me to thinking, what if instead of timers, conquest worked more similar to the lattice control system of other RVR games. You take ports in an order, along a path. Some ports branch off into multiple paths giving strategic options. For example you work your way along a coast, jump and island, and cut off the enemies lines to their capital, possibly sending ports into neutral status. What does this accomplish? How does this solve timers you may ask? Well it's simple. Along the front lines, heavy fighting is regular. It's expected for the front lines to shift periodically. So what does this mean? Along front lines, there is no need for timers whatsoever. For one, if you hold a port and right next to it is the enemies own port, why would ever think to yourself that you could safely base their, and not expect the enemy to come charging in at any time? So with that, why do you need to set such a time window to prevent that from happening when that's what war is all about? You're probably still not with me. Imagine 7 ports lined up along a coast, 3 ports on the left are owned by the brits, 3 ports on the right are owned by the french, the port in the middle is contested, being taken by the french initially, captured by the brits the next day, recaptured by the french the day after that and so on. Isn't that normal to happen along the front? Do you really think anybody should have enough things stored in the port to even warrant setting such a strict time rule on it? They hardly own the port let alone the space around it. What gives them the right to lock it under timer and stall what is quite literally the flow of combat? I strongly believe the locking of ports should be earned, pushing at least a buffer of 3 ports or more before a port can be secure under timer lock. With that flags can be reintroduced. Flags should be what push front line gameplay, as in you can attack at that moment with whoever and whatever is available, like a real attack generally is. Timers should protect ports within territories, non border and non contested ports. If you want to cut deep into enemy lines, sure you can do that but as a penalty you have to fight on their ideal time. Otherwise you push the line. So what does this whole thing grant us? It grants us constant reciprocating action across lines thanks to instant actions and ever flowing push and pull of the front. It returns the flag system which people loved, in a way that is conducive to it's style, which is you grab everyone you can and attack, at that moment. That's a type of extremely fun play that is not possible at this time. Disclaimer on details of the suggestion: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have come up with a starter rule set for this gametype of RVR if you'll call it, but I'm kind of banking on you guys already knowing the general details. If need be we can discuss things like variables, prices, or whatever else but I expect that sort of thing to ultimately be decided by the developer. The idea is more the realm I want to stick to. So on that note, let me know what you think, does this sound like a big improvement to regular RVR? Anything you would add, take away, dispute the idea as a whole? Let me know
  4. I stumbled upon an old chat-log in the steam folder where my first OW fight was recorded. [2015-May-12 20:46:09.953380] jodgi: hi buddy [2015-May-12 21:06:26.661662] Tief N Tote: good fight sir [2015-May-12 21:06:43.935791] Jaeger: here comes the cavalry [2015-May-12 21:07:10.768246] Jaeger: time for swedes to run [2015-May-12 21:07:33.139671] Tief N Tote: i'm done no cannon left [2015-May-12 21:07:42.470086] Jaeger: come towards us [2015-May-12 21:08:10.399197] Tief N Tote: can't see ya [2015-May-12 21:08:20.864258] Jaeger: hear our guns m8 [2015-May-12 21:11:33.976477] jodgi: sorry, tief, just want those xp's ;) [2015-May-12 21:11:54.895393] Jaeger: aaah! how annoying to spawn so far away [2015-May-12 21:47:16.250025] Psico Avalanche: Welcome [2015-May-12 21:47:26.278926] Jaeger: thanks :) [2015-May-12 21:49:40.875106] jodgi: where did tief go to, earlier, Jeager? [2015-May-12 21:49:53.884798] Jaeger: no idea. [2015-May-12 21:50:05.449489] Jaeger: to us it looked like u both went away [2015-May-12 21:50:25.063338] jodgi: he just went poof, right in front of me [2015-May-12 21:50:54.009422] Jaeger: the "coward exploit? " or bug perhaps [2015-May-12 21:51:00.423479] jodgi: anyway, Cerb and all I'm out [2015-May-12 21:51:11.157580] Dom: Get back here! [2015-May-12 21:51:35.554682] jodgi: if would, if I didn't lose the little XP I collected I tagged @Tief N Tote and we had a fight in lynxes or cutters, then the Swedish cavalry came barreling down on me to save Tief. I didn't understand much. I don't remember why I said the "lose xp" thing, was it a thing then or did I just not understand? This bit also cheered me up [2016-Sep-17 22:59:12.217439] : <color=white>[RAKER]jodgi sank [RAKER]MrDoran</color> Let's not talk about how many times it was the other way around, let a man enjoy the little things!
  5. I brought this up before but honestly we should be getting the xp for traveling in OW going towards our ship knowledge. It's not a big amount of xp and I really can't see how it can be abused cause it's sailing from point A to point B not dependent upon how long you been at sea. This would give players a little help at opening slots and help on trade ships that don't have slots perm open.
  6. The current system for navigation in the open world is a choice between extremes. The following suggestion is aimed at giving players a more immersive option. What I mean by "choice between extremes" is that, barring 3rd party options like @Felix Victor's map or use of the distance indicator in the trader tool, a player can choose to either spend a perk to hire a navigator which reliably tells them their position on the map. The result is a GPS-like dot at your current position. The other choice is having no means of navigation other than sight alone. Both options lack immersion. The out-of-game navigation tools require a second screen or alt-tabbing, which is not game-breaking, but having immersive navigation in a sailing game is a matter of principle in my opinion. Thus the following suggestion: 1. The Navigation perk can stay as an option for players that are either new to the game or simply don't want to bother with navigation and accept the cost of losing a perk slot. 2. For everyone else basic (or simplified) terrestric navigation should be made accessible. What do I mean by that? The navigation model should be derived from reality while being a bit streamlined to minimise clutter and complexity of the implementation. The changes to the current system would be as follows: The distance indication in the trader tool is to be disabled. A coordinate grid (preferably a projection of real world coordinates, scaled to the ingame map) must be implemented as a map overlay. A line drawing tool is added to the protractor allowing the drawing of at least three seperate lines. These can be drawn from any point of the map, at any length. Their azimut (horizontal angle) or bearing should be displayed along the line. A cross-bearing button is added to the map tools. Clicking this button will result in three ports being listed with their relative bearing. These values need not be exact (a random error of a degree or two will introduce a bit of realism) but the ports selected should preferrably be somewhat close and their azimut angles should be at least 30° apart. With the tools I listed a player can now find the three ports on the map and draw a line along the azimuthal angle, given by the cross-bearing tool for each port. The point in which all three lines meet is the current position of the ship. I case of measurement errors (random deviation of azimuthal angles) the lines will draw a samll triangle giving an area of possible ship loactions. I made a small picture as an example: Example image Why do I think this should be implemented? This system is based on real world terrestric navigation but simplified, leaving out magnetic deviation and stuff like that. That makes it immersive and fit well within the theme of the game. It also gives players something to do on long journeys. Last but not least it is optional. Players can still choose to navigate on sight and experience only, or spend a perk for hiring a navigator who always tells them exactly where they are. Normally instead of ports a navigator would use landmarks or beacons that are referenced on the map to do cross-bearings. Lacking those having the game select three ports is acceptable in my opinion. Hardcore variant: Instead of listing ports and their relative bearing the player gets a bearing indicator built into the telescope. Using this they can make cross bearings using landmarks of any kind (coastal formations, ports within sight or specific islands) and identify those on the map. This adds possible errors to navigation but works without any magically appearing numbers. What do you think, Ladies and Gents?
  7. I would suggest increasing the travel XP for new players and add a flat one time bonus for every new port that is visited the first time. Seems like a very easy to implement and good way to encourage new players to explore the OW. What is the point of the current travel xp anyways? It is so minuscule, you might aswell remove it.
  8. In face of the fact that NA has very limited resources for development and the visual update of ports taking quite some time when we consider that there are hundreds of them, I wonder if it will ever be one of the top priorities, potentially leaving us with the dull and out of scale cookie cutter 5 building ports we currently have. I'd like to propose the idea that the devs create a large amount of elements ( churches, warehouses, random buildings, civilians, soldiers, different forts etc. ) and maybe somehow give the community the tools to create very different towns / cities in very high detail with these elements from the devs that they then could upload in the steam workshop or somewhere else, where the devs could choose the best. Maybe this could save developer time somehow and outsource the work to the community who might even very much enjoy creating a part of the OW and helping to improve the game. As I already discussed with admin, the current placeholders do just fine for now and there is a very small amount of variation like buildings towering on a cliffside at the mythical island of Bensalem ( one of my favourite ports in the game albeit fictional, as I love unique ports and easter eggs like this ) or some small huts in the forest etc. but in general all ports somewhat look the same, except for the 2 different architectural styles we have and I really think NA deserves and can do better. I also know many do not care at all and I can understand their POV and how there are other priorities and more pressing issues ( maybe always will be so ) and hence my suggestion. I think proper ports visualization is only thing still missing in NA in terms of visuals and since they are the port UI background now aswell, I would really appreciate an update on them some time in the future. Thus I will remain a fool waiting and hoping... This is actually from the NA WIP thread in this very forum and I sincerely hope it is in fact still work in progress, as it is how I would like ports to look with other ships, civilians and maybe even ambient noise.
  9. @admin and players, I also wish a targeted fishing. 1. The old fish should be kept as "fishing". Maybe you could reduce this catch to about 50%. 2. Ships In addition, certain ships (such as Basic Cutter and 7.Rate merchant ships) could be converted to fishing boats. It would be to consider either "ship knowledge" or "permanent upgrades", one for "fishing nets" and one for "whale harpoon". Good would be a reduction in the number of cannons. Fishing boats had a low armament. Something could be achieved by "doubling the load time" or even more. Personally, I would be in favor of a "permanent upgrade" and a "tripled load time". At the same time you get more time to escape or "hostile marking". Maybe you should only be attacked by ships of the 7.Rate? 3. Interaction There are large swarms all over the map, maybe even whales. These swarms are visible at great distances, through gulls in the air. One then crosses with his fishing boat at the seagull swarm. You catch large quantities in a short time. The swarms may always stay around 30 minutes. After that, they dissolve and, by accident, re-emerge in another place. In these swarms there are "no bottles"! 4. sale It could be conceived an additional market. How about provisions for each ship? A certain amount needed per day at sea for each ship. Or maybe only for ships 1. 2nd and 3rd installment? Or the "outgoing teams" of the ports are counted. This will determine a fish meat requirement leading to a higher "selling price". Also interesting would be the decrease of Waltran (suggestion comes from @Odol ). An additional "permanent upgrade" (whale harpoon). So you would bring the profession of the fisherman more in the game. Also interesting are the suggestions of the following threads, which can perhaps be linked with them: Maybe you can find more or better suggestions on how to do that? (German texts are always translated with the help of Google.) @admin und Spieler, ich wünsche mir zusätzlich ein gezieltes Fischen. 1. Das alte Fischen sollte als "Angeln" erhalten bleiben. Eventuell könnte man diese Fangmenge auf ca. 50 % reduzieren. 2. Schiffe Neu hinzu könnte man bestimmte Schiffe (z.B. Basic-Kutter und Handelsschiffe der 7.Rate) als Fischerboote umrüsten. Es wäre zu Überlegen entweder Mittels "Schiffswissen" oder "Permanent-Upgrades", eines für "Fischernetze" und eines für "Wal-Harpune". Gut wäre eine Verringerung der Kanonenzahl. Fischerboote hatten eine geringe Bewaffnung. Sowas könnte man durch "Verdoppelung der Ladezeit" realisieren oder sogar noch mehr. Ich persönlich wäre für ein "Permanent-Upgrade" und für eine "verdreifachte Ladezeit". Gleichzeitig erhält man mehr Zeit zur Flucht bzw. gegen "feindliche Markierung". Vielleicht sollte man auch nur von Schiffen der 7.Rate angegriffen werden können? 3. Interaktion Auf der ganzen Karte ziehen große Schwärme umher, vielleicht auch Walfische. Diese Schwärme sind auf großer Entfernung sichtbar und zwar durch Möwen in der Luft. Man kreuzt dann mit seinem Fischerboot beim Möwenschwarm umher. Man fängt in kurzer Zeit große Mengen. Die Schwärme bleiben vielleicht immer ca. 30 Minuten erhalten. Danach lösen diese sich auf und entstehen durch Zufall wieder an einem anderen Ort. In diesen Schwärmen gibt es "keine Flaschen"! 4. Verkauf Es könnte ein zusätzlicher Absatzmarkt erdacht werden. Wie wäre es mit Proviant für jedes Schiff? Eine bestimmte Menge, die man pro Tag auf See für jedes Schiff benötigt. Oder vielleicht nur für Schiffe 1. 2. und 3. Rate? Oder es werden die "auslaufenden Mannschaften" der Häfen gezählt. Dadurch wird ein Fischfleisch-Bedarf ermittelt, der zu einem höheren "Verkaufspreis" führt. Interessant wäre auch die Abnahme von Waltran (Anregung kommt von @Odol). Eine zusätzliches "Permanent-Upgrade" (Wal-Harpune). So würde man den Beruf des Fischers stärker in das Spiel bringen. Interessant sind auch die Vorschläge folgender Threads, die sich damit vielleicht auch verknüpfen lassen: ... siehe Oben ... Vielleicht findet Ihr aber noch mehr oder bessere Vorschläge, wie man sowas umsetzen könnte?
  10. I've just been inspired by @King of Crowns and what his gang did last night. The devs should create a type of "Treasure Fleet" mission which rewards the sale of items (or it could be based on the amount of currency generated) at an enemies capital within a specified time, starting when the first person in the battlegroup drops it off. A with B to F forms a battlegroup. Person A picks mission up at Fort Royal (FR) and their mission is to sell 30 Parisian furniture to KPR (they don't have to leave from FR). Only one mission can be taken per nation per 4 hours and it can only be taken within the port battle window (so no running up just before maintenance). If the mission is completed, the players triple their money, half completed, double. If you fail to complete half then you are not permitted from joining or creating a battlegroup with this mission for a week or two (to prevent people spamming and time wasting. You could always require a cash deposit to take the mission in the first place which they lose if they fail to complete a quarter or half of the order. This would have two effects, it would give dedicated traders a job within the PvP arena. It'd create player generated events much like port battles but in open sea. If you wanted to make it extra difficult you could announce in CombatNews "Treasure Fleet due to arrive (you could even say where) within 3 hours". This would allow players to gather etc.... This would create much needed interaction between PvEers and PvPers as well, communication is content! A reason for the nation to work together as well as clans. PvEers would venture outside the zone for trade but do it with a group of PvPers at their back as the PvPers know they're guaranteed action for helping them.
  11. z4ys

    Pimp my Patrol

    The suggestion: Admiralty offers every player for the duration of a week 3 event vessels of 2 different rates ( rates and vessels are RNG but for all players the same) for free To Devs: Some time ago a rework of the Redeem function was announced, implementation could be achieved through a new tab like "Weekly Event redeem" Details: Every player receives 3 ships out of 2 different rates. The ships are equal for all players Wood,build-ins are determined by admiralty perma mods cant be equiped only certain books are allowed claimed or unclaimed ships get deleted after their event week to make room for the next 3 ships Those ships are called for example "Event Cerberus" (they cannot enter pbs, but have normal RoE and can be used in OW) They cannot be captured or used as fleet can not be traded Event ships have reduced pve reward in order to guide players towards pvp *edit* How outfitting with determined books could work: Pros: reducing fear of loss guide players to all kind of different ships they normally wouldnt use reducing fear of loss give access to ships even for casuals all players become competitive by giving them "equal equipment" skill matters Cons: Could be used to troll people because free ship - but kind of same like ow captured AI ships and quantity is limited to 3 each week for every account. /discuss
  12. Guest

    Sunshine aka Blue Sky

    I'm not sure maybe it's an issue with my monitor or my graphic settings but I sometimes have the feeling, even it's not a rainy day in game, that I'm sailing in the English Channel instead of the Caribbean as the sky is almost grayish, overcast and murky. I miss sailing in scorching heat, bright sunshine under a clear blue sky I know not every day in the Caribbean is a sunny day but a nice mix between cloudy and sunny days would be sweet
  13. CaptHansen

    Shipwrecked

    This is my first post . Apologies if I should violate any forum conventions. I have now been shipwrecked for 2 days ( incl of today's maintenance cycle) . After I entered OW PvP EU to sail, I arrived far from my port of origin, without a ship only floating in the sea. The map control M key works and I believe I am stranded somewhere in the water south of Carisle. No other key is working, inclusive of esc. F11 opens the bug window but not sure whether my message submitted. Mouse controls do not work and cannot look right or left. Chat windows are all working and update as normal and I am able to enter chat messages. It appears that the graphics are running in a loop. Keeping the map window open only works for a certain time - then its back into the empty ocean. On the log in screen I have ping for PVP EU and Global, but not for PvE. Maybe not relevant - but never saw this happen before for so long. Below is a screenshot which I hope illustrates what I am writing about in the above. This only happens in PvP EU. I can however log in on PvP Global, and all is working fine, so this is not a hardware issue. Appreciate any help or suggestions as to how to proceed. Thanks CaptHansen
  14. Captain Lust

    Events

    I really dislike the current "events" where the lootable wreck spawns close to some nation. It's just too rare to favour only 1-2 factions closest to the area... @BallsofSteel suggested "2. Event wrecks scattered over map no location. " Which would be waaaay better... Make it like epic events scattered around the map but much rarer of course, so you can find them when sailing long distances. This is a really easy implementable / low hanging fruit mechanic i see that could give something interesting to open world sailing...
  15. Look at this video and find the mistake. In my opinion it feels wrong. When I tag in a storm then we should fight in a storm and not on a clam sea with nice weather. I understand that the ST stormmaps may a bit to much but at least. Rain, some bigger waves, less visual range and fog would be handy.
  16. There has been always and sometimes conversation about content in OW. I think this subject has slipped away couple times. I am purely writing from PvP perspective. So what we need... The current missions are, sail to location X and fight. Buy goods and Sell at X. What if we had OW PvP missions? Lets 1st say: 1. We can inform about those for other people. In game world this mission was planned 1 month before, rummors run far. Sure, irl we would tell from it immediately. Yes, the world is too big to not let others to know about these. Yes, it takes 15 to 240 minutes to find someone, these things has to be indicated clearly. 2. We should be able to screw them up, but not F* them up! -> There has to be balanced instances. Yes, someone is doing mission for 4 persons in 5th rates, and you cannot go there and F* it with 25x 1st rates. Yes, there is a magical barrier blocking you and thats it. Yes, it is just a game. 3. You cannot teleport to friendly port after battle, there maybe more to come, yes you have to sail there. omg! 4. Rewards if you win. 5. Could be connected to RvR Mission examples: 1. Escort - Escort AI ships from port A to B. 2. Transport (And escort) - Transport goods, one has a trader, couple other players have escorts. 3. Hunt in region X, hostility creation maybe. - Go to area X, while you are there, it creates hostility if you just are there 30 minutes. The other faction will be informed that you are coming, and that you are going to be in the area for 30 minutes, and not vanish in some mission and never to be found again. Other faction has time to go and look for you -> PvP 4. Destroy tower X - Like Port Battle, but smaller, and just destroy a tower or a fort. 5. Transfer goods to build tower X - Destroyed tower/fort can be built again, but you have to actually transport those goods. 6. Treasure hunting - Fish a bottle, X% change to get a map, collect your friends, use the map, you have X hours to sail to location and pick the treasure, sail back to port to open and see what you got. 7. etc. Not a mission but a system: 1. Bounty Hunting, add a bounty for a player. If someone is able to sink, he will claim some/all from the bounty. e.g. Blackjack Morgan has been sinking way too many ships and you want revenge. You add X million bounty from him dead or alive. You sink him, and you collect the money. Maybe even fame from this, adding a rolling list of bounties claimed. 1a. You have to sink, capturing is not enough. Adds abuse protection. 1b. If you capture him in a basic cutter -> You get nothing. The ship defines how much from the bounty you are going to get. If bounty is high and he always sails in a surprise, it can be that he has to lose 41x Surprise before the bounty is gone. Abuse protection once again. 1c. You set this bounty in port X, you can claim it only if you are in port X. You can set a bounty in KPR, and only your countrymen can claim it. (They should not allow allies to sail in your ports, removes reasons for RvR, I assume this will be removed as well, right?) 1d. Bounties do not count in RvR. You sink him in a port battle -> You cannot claim the bounty 1e. Bounty divided between kill/assist players. We are going to get new RvR system. After this, I think they should fix bugs from it, and major flaws. Then they should add other content as well. If they do not add other content, at launch we have RvR, port battles, and ? So they should add other activities already, so that we can test those before launch as well. OW PvP missions can create a lot of things to do. In theory, should create a lot more than for example those port battles.
  17. My main question is stated in the title. Why are battles limited to instances? Would it be so difficult to make it into a sandbox of sorts where pvp is conducted in OW?
  18. W.I.P. history on Naval Action will be coming when EA hits. Preparing at the moment, maybe ill get some pre-EA pilot posts but nothing worth looking at. Read this topic for additional info http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7975-is-there-a-way-to-curb-these-english-devils/ .
  19. So the population is dropping vertiginously. Today earlier i saw only 20 players at PVP2 and now are 40... Most people reached the top level and, right now, dont have any relevant reason to keep playing until some things get fixed. In my case, im playing because i need 3 lvl to reach the top crafter. So, i almost trading (have to mention that i liked the current trading changes) and crafting. Devs said that new ranks will be introduced, but how? What comes after admiral? And, as pirate, maybe i can be "uber curse" or "ultra curse"? I dont think this will work. Players at top lvl still earning XP (including travel XP). Right now that XP is useless and the system just throw it away everyday on the server reset. So, i propose this: * create the personal XP bank, which store the extra unused and useless XP earned each day; * allow players to exchange that extra XP for labor hours, upgrades, paints, bps, ships, whatrever, just make a way to make it worth (as i said, new lvl will not work). I think that will work, at least to the huge amount of players that are top levels and left the game.
  20. Well even though I'm not active in this game anymore and haven't been for quite a while now. (But I truly want to return, if they find a way to make the game fun, again) I'll try give a shot at proposing something which might cater both the RVR player and the WOWS player style. People keep talking about the style of the game, should it be OW RVR focused only?, thereby only catering for the hardcore players? Or should it be more arcade like just like WOWS catering for the more casual players? That discussion leads nowhere other than a continued arguing about rights and wrongs, combining both concepts in this game should be possible, in fact the foundation is available already. OW - RVR What I suggest is, keep the OW RVR, but improve it (That has been said numerous times, and even louder since patch 9.96 which was horrible imo.) anyway, OW should be OW but without much meaning other than creating an OW environment, which would cater traders, smugglers, PVP'ers and all other types of players including PVE'ers. Now before everyone starts screaming "we have it all now" Why say it again, let me quickly say, yes OW does exist today, but is it fun? Everyone is using and abusing exploits, each new patch introduced a new exploit option for abusing. Below I have tried to summarize what I believe could make Naval Action fun again, and keep it fun! Teleporting ships (Skip it entirely, but increase OW speeds by 100%) The title says it all, no more teleporting, but increase speed in OW by 100% or let the player pay for a transport of he’s ship to a wanted destination where the player has an outpost, with the risk of the escort fleet being attacked and the ship captured. This effectively means that either way implies a risk of losing the ship either by sailing it yourself or having it sailed as an AI. A large payout for the transport means a bigger AI fleet up to a certain limit only, a smaller payout means a smaller AI fleet. Only the transported ship can be captured and only in battle will it be visible which ship can be captured. However even though the playership is in fact now an AI ship, it will fight harder and hence be harder to capture since it can carry various upgrades etc., but it can be captured though, whereas the AI fleet ships hired to escort the playership cannot be captured. Should an attempt to capture fail, the AI fleet will respawn at a random point, so that it cannot be planned to just continue to attack until the fleet is sunk and the ship is captured. OW: BR / Battletimer (Skip it!) Skip everything that can be abused, skip the battle timer, skip the 20 sec. wait timer when you tagged or got tagged, if you are alongside a ship and press attack, you are alongside that ship when battle starts!, if people are close and want to join the battle, let them - and that goes for both sides, which means no BR limit - this will effectively deal with ganking fleets - but then again, superior fleets was a natural thing in those days, so why whine about it? Having no BR limit, and no time limit, gank fleets can be countered, if wanted. OW: Personal fleets (Skip it) / introducing convoys instead. Skip the option of personal fleets for all players, do you want a fleet to escort you, either get someone to help you, or pay for the escort fleet, this includes AI fleets, but here with a max no. of ships and BR allowed. One option here could be, that you put out a tender or hire someone, just like you once did for materials (Sorry guys, it's really been a long time since I played this game....). Convoys could also be included, an announcement was made in a specific harbor, that at a certain date / time, a convoy will leave with a certain destination, then a player or trader can either sign up for the escort role or being escorted (If he sails a trader). The convoy can consist of several nations, but once in the convoy you all sail under the same flag and can be attacked by others and not attack your fellow convoy sailors. In order to avoid exploits the information of the convoy, and destination should be kept confidential. And all who’s interested should pay a fee to participate (players wrongfully abusing the convoy principle should have a penalty / fee to pay….not really sure how to avoid exploits here. Maybe by giving the convoys a random start point, so when you are in the convoy and ready to sail and a timer counts down, the convoy will spawn in a random point within a certain distance from the harbor (Could be an option) so an immediately attack can be avoided and thereby give the convoy a fighting chance. OW: Logging off in battlescreen (allow 30 min. then you will return to OW no matter what) First of all, increase the overall battletimer from 90 min. to 120 min It has been proposed before, that when you are in battle, sometimes a huge enemy fleet is waiting just outside the two crossed swords, meaning you will exit battle basically on top of an enormous revenge fleet. This usually results in people camping in battlescreen. Instead provide these people with options! A way to counter this battlescreen camping is that the distance you travel while in battle shall be linked to the open world, so that once you exit battle it wont be at the predictable spot X, but instead at point Y or Z, based on what direction the player headed inside the battle, and the speed he was sailing at - this also means, that now it will be an advantage not to exit battle instantly, but instead use whatever time there's left to sail as far away as possible from where the battle started, meaning the player could actually have a real chance of escaping now. If you on the other hand decides to exit battle instantly and sit in battlescreen, you can do so while you go to the toilet, get something to drink etc. but you have only 30 min. in battlescreen then you'll get kicked, HOWEVER! a third option should be introduced, hence the increase of the battletimer from 90 min. to 120 min. Instead of only having two options stay in battle and spend the time sailing trying to escape by creating a greater distance from whatever you expect to be on the outside waiting for you, or log out into battlescreen, a third option should be introduced, give the option of logging back into the now empty battle from the battlescreen (This option gives the player the option of doing some personal things after battle like getting something to eat, drink, toilet visits etc.) and still providing them with an option of a escape. Also in regard to the crossed swords, make them increasingly smaller depending on where the battle goes (though the crossed swords should disappear once the battle is ended. Could also solve the battlescreen camping because of revenge fleets. OW: Map coordinates (Get rid of them) Map coordinates as they are now, helps navigation, but also makes it too easy, to report enemy ships and their position, return to how the map looked before summer 2016 e.g. no coordinates. OW: Special ships /Special perks / upgrades Make these so-called "hard-to-get" ships / perks / upgrades available for everyone. OK by participating in tournaments, you get them faster, but still, they should not be exclusive as they are now. Every crafter in this game who is dedicated enough should be able to obtain these blueprints etc. without participating in tournaments or whatever, but it should be a hard job for them to get them this way. OW: AI fleets (Reduce size and make them more diversified) AI fleets should be aggressive and have the role of a more stationary / predictable form of patrolling territorial waters. Meaning if a player from a hostile nation is within a certain distance, the nation AI fleets will attack the player. However in this instance no other human players from the outside will be allowed to join the battle on neither side, unless the player under attack was sailing in a group with another player or more players from the same nation, then these players will be pulled into battle as well. Officer and officer perks You hire an officer for a type of ship, you train him but you cannot retrain the officer to fulfill other roles without losing experience on the officer. This approach counters how officers today also are being exploited but giving them different perks. Once a perk is chosen it will cost you severely to reset a perk and chose another one. Also you cannot use an officer trained on a SOL on a frigate, or a trader, each officer have special abilities and skills. And likewise, if you have an officer who is not being used actively for a certain time, he will slowly lose some of he’s skill (he will grow old). Maybe also skip the officer lives? Regardless of your ship being captured or sunk, the officer always lives, but you MUST pay a tribute to the player who saved your officer in order to get the officer back (The tribute should be fixed and reflect the officers skills / perks / level) and governed by game mechanics, however once the officer is back he will have lost some of he’s skills or perks, meaning he will come back demoted. So if you have an admiral, he will only be a commodore now. The officers skills could in fact also be linked to how the ship he’s commanding performs (independent of the perks he has)…. The tribute thing could be expanded to also include captured ships, so if a player loses he’s ship, he could have the option of buying it back………….from the capturer. WOWS style arena battle Change small / large battle into the arena style we see in WOWS. This means PVP, but with no risk of losing your ship like now. However the earnings from such battles should therefore also be decreased. Also no upgrades etc. will be allowed in these battle types. Small / Large battles will be fought on equal terms / setups, the only difference would be the different wood types of the ships participating. And the officer you have on board the ship. Also there should be a mix of ships in each battle, meaning you could chose to enter a large battle in a Cerberus, because even though it’s a large battle each fleet would consist of groups of each ship classes just like historical naval battles. So the Cerberus joining would have to fight ships of its own size, or larger depending on where the player sails.
  21. Hello captains, I've been playing NA on and off since January and would like to give a few suggestion based on my background irl (active tall ship sailor and occasional computer game player). First I must say that I really enjoyed playing this game when I have time, specially for the realistic battle where wind tactics allow to take over your opponent, but also the open world and the crafting/trading system. However there are few points that I would like to comment on, and give my opinion. Two minor incoherence concerning the map and navigation system: - In the map window the coordinates start with the longitude West. irl it would always start with Latitude North or South. For me (and I guess for other players with navigation background) it is hard to get used to it. - On the wind direction and ship direction diagram (bottom right in OW, bottom left in battle): the wind direction arrow is pointing on the compass where the wind is going to, not where the wind is coming from. Same here, irl the convention is the opposite and would show the direction from where the wind is coming (see image of a conventional instrument plotter, wind is represented as the yellow arrow with letter T). Concerning the open world navigation system. I would suggest the development of a more realistic navigation system including wind direction change and wind patterns, currents, leeway, weather changes, clock system for longitude, poor latitude position in case of overcast (cannot fix the sun with the sextant) etc.. Making a more realistic navigation system would attract a lot of people from the traditional sailing community that would see this game as a simulator from the age of sails. Moreover I've been reading a lot of complains on the forum about long and boring OW navigation. A more realistic navigation system would bring more dynamics to the OW and offer more challenges and tactical decision, making long OW navigation more fun. I know that represents a huge amount of work for developers, but might be worth considering. That's my suggestion for this wonderful game. Developers keep on the good work!
  22. Why should we do this? The upcoming changes in the port battle mechanic will force people to participate in OW PvP to start a port battle by raising hostility levels at the port you want to attack. For more Information about the upcoming changes see the links below: (http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13596-such-is-a-lord-simple-politics-and-alliances-part-1-heavily-moderated/ http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/ That leads to the question: How are these changes are going to affect player behaviour? At the moment we are facing a big problem. A lot of people are complaining that battles are not reaching anywhere near the full potential of what naval action battles can be due to one side always being able to field much larger numbers than the other making battles simply about who has more online and bigger numbers than skill, tactics and strategy to win battles. Most battles are so called ganks. People fear to leave the result screen because of revenge fleets. People think that to do any pvp you have to be in the biggest nations and clans to have a fair chance at Open World PvP and Port Battles (Port Battles still stay 25vs25). We are not in kindergarten, not everyone can be a winner. But with this proposal we want to help all Naval Action players, solo players, casuals, groups, small and big nations to get the most satisfaction out of open world PvP that is possible to offer to everyone. Naval Action has one of the most unique combat systems that has ever existed in any game, with this proposal we can truly get the most out of it and overall add a lot more enjoyment to the game and PvP. As the title mentioned this is our proposal to change group size and open OW battle size to a maximum of 6 players per side. What are the benefits: Smaller clans and smaller groups can be effective in PB screening/RvR and OW PvP Ganking Fleet size reduced even smaller nations can face bigger nations Bigger clans and nations will have to hunt and sail around in smaller group Makes Port battles unique in groupsize Handles Timezone problems, because it’s easier to have such a group size even it is not a Prime time Removes the much hated Revenge Fleets Battles will no longer be about who has more players online, it will be shifted to skill, strategy and overall superior tactics Helps causal players to find enjoyable PvP You will no longer need to search for a even fun matched PvP, every battle will deliver a new exciting epic battle experience List of cons Large Clans will no longer be able to take a 25 ship fleet into every battle (no swarm tactics) Large Nations will no longer be able to dominate open world PvP with superior numbers & large revenge fleets 25 ship fleets are no longer effective on OW PvP Proposal 1: How a battle join mechanic could work Attacking side: A system to start OW battles could word like the mission enter system. When sailing in a group the attacker can press “attack as group” or “attack”. Attacking as group will pull all group members in range into the battle instance. Group members which are not in range will not get pulled into battle. Open slots can be joined by players who are not part of the group and in 2min range of the battle. Attack will just pull the attacker into the instance. That leads to 5 open attacker slots which can be used by other player who are not belonging to the group. Defending side: When attacked all group members in range will join the battle. If there is no group, a group which is not full or not everyone in range. Then only the defender or all group members in range get pulled into the battle instance. Open slots can be joined by players who are not in group but can reach the battle instance in 2 min. AI fleet: If a player has an AI fleet every ship take a battle slot. Therefore AI ships reduce the maximum amount of group size. Proposal 2: How a battle Join mechanic could work If more than 6 people are in the battle circle. then first the people who are in the group with the attacker and defender gets pulled. If there are less than 6 people in the group and more ships in the circle then pull in the biggest player ship. Example 10 swedish ships(group 1(st pavel 2 ingers consti)) group 2( consti 4 frigates)) and group 1 attacks 6 pirates(6 constis). First the st pav 2 ingers and consti get pulled in because they are all in the same group, second the consti and one of the frigates gets pulled in due to the highest br in the battle circle. And finally what about PVE? Attacking ships in OW work after the same system mentioned in the proposals above. But creating a PVE battle requires that the PVE attacker or one of his/her group mates in range is not being targeted by an enemy player. Epic events will once joined by a player open a Battle Symbol in OW like the Port battle icon which then can be joined by everyone. Designed by Seawolf, SeaHyena and Z4ys
  23. In sted of having drop partys one day a week, why dont u do the classic MMO style certain areas spawn certain ships that drop certain loot. That way people form different nations would still bump into one another and do pvp, but also travel the map more to get to specific areas. That way u are also able to add more different mission like " Find the stolen cannons" go to an area and fight ships till u find the stolen cannons fx. Or hunt down Flifhty Steve, go to and arene with hostile Enemerys where steve spawn and sail around. Stuff like that would make the game 10x more fun and give player a purpose rather than the 30 min of fun the race to the sunken convoy, now i dont say thats was bad, it was just if u dindt have 3-4 hours to spend on that saterday u would miss it. Cause it took alot of timer getting close to where a note told u, then sailing to the ship wrecks and sailing back to safety took alot of time. And even after doing all that , chances are most likely u dindt get any loot.
  24. UPDATE: The official map has been published by the devs with a few changes from the data I had. Go here to find out how the map will look after the wipe: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16468-important-final-map-player-action-required-for-both-pve-and-pvp-servers/ And to find the ownership of each individual port, go here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16468-important-final-map-player-action-required-for-both-pve-and-pvp-servers/?p=312498 Salut Captains, The September Patch is looking to bring significant changes to this game. It should be a huge patch, and contains many different updates, mostly relating to the map we use. In that regard the teasers and bits of information we’ve been given so far may leave some feeling it is a bit lacking. The patch isn’t ready yet, and devs might not have decided all that is going to be implemented. However we have already been given quite a lot of information. Still I read a lot of questions and hear a lot of rumours about what is coming that could be dispelled simply by people reading all the information. But the information is spread across multiple topics and multiple pages of those topics. Devs will obviously provide us more information as well as patch notes around when the patch will be clear, but in the meantime I thought that I will post the information that I have already sorted myself from the answers they have provided. My main interest is the general layout and implications of the new Conquest system and map wipe. The noob-zone in the Bahamas interests me less. The official information that I am basing myself on, can be found here: September Port Changes Plans for conquest mechanics Free Towns Rookie regions Again, devs will continue giving us more information as things get closer, but if you’re very worried about your outposts already, or you didn’t quite understand the maps they have shared, then this topic can hopefully aid you. The Map You can find the current iteration of the map the devs use here: Older public versions you can see [url=http://imgur.com/a/ryp86'>here, here and here. I made a map legend to go with the maps: Map symbols: Orange lines: Region outlines Red circle: Capital Orange star: Regional Capital (1st rate port battle) Yellow pixel: Port location Yellow line: Port entrance with direction of inlet Blue circle: Shallow water port White line(on blue circle): inlet to shallow water port White circle: Freetown Green line underneath name: New Ports Striketrough text: Pacific ports not open until release Map letters: (Indicates historical ownership only) N: Neutral P: Pirate D: Danish S: Spanish W: Swedish UP: Dutch B: British F: French US: United States I: Indian/Native USC: US Capital SC: Spanish Capital DC: Danish Capital WC: Swedish Capital UPC: Dutch Capital FC: French Capital BC: British Capital B - PC: Pirate Capital, historically British B - NC: Neutral Capital, historically British UPRC: Dutch Regional Capital SRC: Spanish Regional Capital FRC: French Regional Capital BRC: British Regional Capital (N)-W: Historically Neutral, Swedish noobs’ capital (N)-UP: Historically Neutral, Dutch noobs’ capital ( -D: Historically British, Danish noobs’ capital ( -B: Historically British, British noobs’ capital (N)-F: Historically Neutral, French noobs’ capital (N)-S: Historically Neutral, Spanish noobs’ capital ( -US: Historically British, US noobs’ capital ( -P: Historically British, Pirates noobs’ capital I also added a map legend onto the map most recently shared by the devs: All the new ports are marked there with a green line underneath their name, and because a lot of people have made the mistake, Free Town is written next to every Free Town on the map. Some background information about the map: About the port wipe The information that we have so far, is that the September patch will introduce a new system of dividing the map into regions. Ownership of ports will also be reset, and whatever ports you own now will not matter to the map after the reset. In essence the map will be reset to how it was after last wipe, so if you look at the PvE server you will get an idea of how ports will be distributed. However, as the regions system means only one nation can own a region, it’s not as clear cut as that. The division into regions will mean that some ports that were historically belonging to one nation will now belong to another or be neutral. The map is based on the territories of nations approximately between 1780 and 1800. According to the developers Historical nations did not care about artificial regions invented today, and several nations may have owned ports in the same region on the map. If that is the case, according to the devs, the region will be all neutral ports in the beginning. There is however some ambiguity here. With Pitt’s Town as an example, that is the current Neutral faction Capital (made redundant by the removal of playable neutral faction). Pitt’s Town is said to become of another nation after the wipe. But according to the map, apart from British ports, there were also neutral and pirate ports in the region now named Crooked. By the strictest interpretation of the devs, Pitt’s Town will remain neutral, just not a capital. But as it has been stated to switch nationality the best guess is that it will become British. The question then becomes if Pitt’s Town is an exception, or if only «nations» mixed historical ownership counts. So if Denmark and Sweden shared a region, it will become Neutral, but if Dutch and Neutral shared a region, then that does not count as mixed and the region becomes Dutch. But what of Pirates? Do they count as a nation in this regard or not? And what if a nation is dominantly owned by one nation, but a single port was owned by another, like the Bovendwinds Region which is dominated by Dutch ports, but has a single French port. Does it become Dutch, or Neutral? I have not yet found an answer to this, but I have used the information available to make some calls about regions that are definitively going to fall to one nation, regions that will presumably fall to one nation, and those that are highly unsure. I will share my data below: The green background indicates the rookie regions. The first column lists the number of ports each region has. The second lists the name of the region. Three is the historical ownership(s) according to the devs’ maps. Four the ownership by the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership». Five lists the current freetowns and their regions. Column six lists the new freetowns and their regions. The Region Capitals column lists the regional capital of each region. The "Maj. Owner» column lists the faction that historically was dominant owner in a region on the dev map by owning most ports and/or the regional capital. Under «New Ports» all the new ports that have been currently added to the map is listed. By the most liberal interpretation of «mixed ownership» the nation listed as «major owner» should spawn as possessor of a region. Where the nation is listed in cursive there is mixed ownership between two «nations». C means it is a capital region, and an asterix means the region is a capital with mixed ownership and thus mixed ownership will have to be ignored. Some more statistics: Number of ports: 378 Number of regions: 75 Number of Freetowns: 31 (formerly 33) New Ports: 14 By the most liberal interpretation, this will be the division of regions between nations: US: 3 Pirate: 4 Neutral: 4 French: 8 British: 18 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 Dutch: 2 Spain: 34 By the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership», these are the regions per nation: Brit: 7 Spain: 13 US: 3 Dutch: 1 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 France: 6 Pirates: 1 I have also made a more visual representation of region ownership, to help decide where your ships might be safe and how nations will be positions when the new conquest system kicks off. The regions that are more or less guaranteed have been coloured according to their nation on this map: On the next map I have coloured almost all the regions according to what nation has the most claim to it on the historical map. The map is coloured based on the principle that what made Crooked a national region is a rule and not an exception. Sharing ports with pirates, Neutrals or indians does not make them mixed ownership and thus neutral. Rookie Zone The devs are going to establish a rookie zone in the Bahamas. You will be able to get most information available so far by reading the official OP here: Rookie regions - new player experience What happens in October Obviously we do not know that much yet. However: In the October patch we should expect a reset of the resources distribution which will affect production buildings. NOTE: I started writing up this and making the maps before today's announcements from devs. Some mistakes may be lingering from when I tried to adapt the text to account for the information changes. I will try to add more information to this topic as I discover it and as it is shared by developers. EDIT:UPDATED according to:
  25. I just had a brilliant idea that would make players engage in pvp battles that's not port battles or screening fleets. A convoy of NPC trading ships sail from port A to port B. This will come with an announcement in the OW like when a conquest flag is bought. Enemy nations can intercept them and capture them for a great deal of resources and materials. (Line-ship constructions worth of cargo). If the convoy reaches its destination safely there will be upgrade and money rewards for protecting ships. As well as a huge abundance of resources in said port. (Crafters rejoice!) Cheers Fry.
×
×
  • Create New...