Archaos

This sounds at first as though it solves the problem, but it creates another with people joining to fill up your BR so your friends cannot join on your side. In the example you give if you are GB and a US player joins on your side to fight a Spanish player then they might even up the BR and close the battle leaving you at a disadvantage if both go for you. I can imagine the complaints raised about this, there are already enough about alts doing this to block BR.

As an introduction to the game it is probably a good intro, but for someone starting who does not even know how to aim and fire their guns it can be quite frustrating, Someone raised a topic a while back about being unable to fire their guns and I think this was the issue, they did not know that they needed to be locked in on the broadside they wanted to fire before firing. The sailing they probably get away with as most games use the WASD keys, but the firing is different. Maybe some sort of intro about firing would be worth adding to the first mission.

and easier for spies to report.

At the end of the day is this exploit really any different than people having a complete alt clan in another nation and doing the HDF's themselves for the same outcomes? I hear more and more stories of people acting in two nations with clans of alts. But I agree with the suggestion that the flag should be locked to the nation that is attacking the HDF's before it is picked up.

Can you tell me which ports GB can defend then? The answer is basically none. If GB could actually field a good PB team then the coast from Tumbado down to Great Corn that they once held with crafting ports in Belize and Trux was one of the most defensible areas on the map next to what the Russians have in the Gulf of Mexico. Without the buffer of the Russians SDC and PaP would not remain in GB's hands for long. Personally I dont think there should of been a ceasefire and GB should lose all the ports it cannot defend even if that means being reduced down to uncapturable ports in Jamaica at least then they would probably have to wake up and get serious about creating a fighting force. I do agree that there are too many people who presume to speak for the nation and make decisions without a mandate, but this is not just clans in the far away ports but all clans in GB. GB gave away one of the most defensible ports on the map prior to the start of the first Swedish war and that was up in the Bahamas. That single action totally destroyed GB's presence in the main shallow water area on the map. Get rid of all agreements regarding other nations blocking access to ports and defending GB and see how many ports GB are left with at the end of a month, doesn't matter whether they are near of far away ports they will still fall.

The problem is that it is so open to abuse and not just by alts. All people would need to do is load up their trader and sail to be attacked by their friend from another nation, surrender instantly and then their friend can teleport the ship and cargo all the way across the map to their outpost with no risk. It had been suggested that maybe to combat this that the captured ship could be set to sail to its destination under the control of AI so it appeared in OW and could be attacked by other players, but I think they said this was not possible due to load on the server or something like that. The surrender issue is also difficult especially where PVP is concerned, because some players would rather sink than let their enemies have their cargo and also some people rig their traders to be able to board as a trap for raiders. For PvE I guess they could do something like this for AI traders but it takes away some of the effort. You also have to remember that many warships also surrendered after receiving a broadside against a heavier opponent, so it that was in the game then people would be upset when their ship suddenly surrendered while they were still in a position to fight. I do like the idea of reducing crew as they are sent off on prizes and maybe a way to counter abuse is allow the captured ship to be teleported back to port but it goes to the admiralty and you get the purchase value of the goods that were onboard and the insurance value of the ship. At least that way the system could not be abused to teleport ships and goods across the map for huge profit.

From the looks of it if what I suggested was the problem then they really need to put the basic controls tutorial before this mission as the controls are not intuitive.

The F11 notation you see is for reporting bugs, its always there. The square below it with your ship in the center is like a radar showing other ships close by. Not sure why you cannot fire though. This mission is new start to the game so existing players dont get it. If you press the "[" or "]" buttons do your guns fire? If they do fire then you probably are not entering the firing position. To get the cannons you should right click when looking it the direction you want to fire, this should bring up the aiming arc of your cannons and a small line showing the level your guns are aimed at. Then you can use your left mouse button to fire a broadside. Thats the only thing I can think you are doing wrong.

You can redeem one every 24 hours just like other DLC ships.

There is a lot to be misunderstood in the way you used the term. You just threw out a general statement that the mast goes down to the keel to aid "ships stability" with no further explanation other than a few pictures showing the mast going down to the keel. I challenge you to search the term "ship stability" and let me know if you find anything about constructive stability. Even the word "stiffness" in relation to "ships stability" has a different meaning than what you are talking about.

Apologies, its just that in my limited study of Naval Architecture I always thought that stability was to do with things like Center of Gravity, Center of Buoyancy, displacement, Metacenter etc and the ability of a vessel once inclined by and external force to return to an upright state on removal of the force. Maybe all that learning was a waste of time!!!!! I think what you refer to as stability is actually more about structural strength and the ability of the vessel to withstand structural stresses it encounters in normal operation. You can have the most structurally sound vessel that is useless without adequate stability. Where the mast is connected and whether it goes down to the keel or not has no direct bearing on the ships stability.

And how does the mast going all the way down to the keel aid the ships stability?

But you missed the point where he says the ship had no crew. You can even see it in the top right of the picture where the crew is zero yet in the boarding screen it has 861 crew.

You are trying to make the game the way you would like to play it, the problem is that the lobby style game was tried with Legends and the retention numbers showed there. Okay there are probably several reasons why that failed same as there are several reasons why population in OW game is low, but I do not think that your solution will gain the game more players, in fact I think it will alienate a lot of players. There are many games out there that require a lot of time investment and many of them manage to keep a lot higher populations than NA, so it is not just the time investment that makes the pop low. I am not sure where you get the 2 hours before you get a fight, because with the PZ you can almost guarantee to get a fight quickly (probably a gank, but still a fight) all you have to do is setup in a freeport close to the zone and play on the days the zones you are interested in are active.

I want to attack AI, but you say I should always PvP!!!!!