van Veen

I would like to propose two minor changes to gunnery that could have a nice effect and improve battle gameplay. Current situation is as follows: It is possible to switch each gun deck on and off using F1-F4 keys. The toggle has two states: "nominal" and "no fire" (sign "X"). The gundeck is still reloaded. F5 key removes crew from the whole ship side. The toggle has two states: "nominal" and "no crew" (sign "R"). Cannons on the ship side are not being being reloaded. 1) My suggestion is to have a three state toggle for all keys F1-F4 as well as F5: "nominal", "no fire" ("X"), "no crew" ("R"). This would allow to remove gun crew from individual decks or from the whole side, switch off individual gundecks or the whole side. For instance, in long range battles you might want to free crew from your top gundeck because you are out of carronade range anyway. 2) An additional improvement would be to apply the ammunition selection only to gundecks with state "nominal". This would allow mixing ammunition types, e.g. grape on top deck, ball on middle deck and chain on lower deck (just an example, not sure if there's a situation in which that makes sense). What do you guys think?

I like the idea of Karma or a reputation system! Great job @admin Good to see some ideas brought up in the last years finally make it into the game. I like the idea of locking out someone from joining sides, but this should not be permanent to allow players to adjust their alliances from time to time. A cool down of 2 weeks perhaps? At any rate, the cooldown should be longer than any considerable offensive action in game. RVR is a stalemate, mostly. Please do not turn PVP into one as well. Alternatively, there could be a nation-by-nation amnesty from time to time so that you are free again to renew your alliances. In this case there is no need for a buy-out. On the buy-out (in case you want to keep it): buying yourself from the list of enemies should be possible only in a port held by that nation. So, players need to put in a little more extra effort and risk instead of just click and buy. You could turn this into a mission with negative rewards (you need to pay).

I'm confused. For me it says "Buff Teak, and Trinc won't be DLC. " From this, everyone seems to understand precisely what is coming. I don't. Perhaps it's because I am old and my brain is a little sluggish, or because my crystal ball is a little cloudy these days. Could you wise guys with more foresight please enlighten me?

The problem is that the whole game is centered around rewarding those who are winning. No wonder everyone likes joining the winning side. It's not the fault of the players. It's in the game design. What is needed is a counter-balancing mechanic in game.

Voting does not work. It's corrupt per se. Player actions should matter, not other player's votes.

GG Sweden! I'm just a little sad it's over now. HAVOC and CABAL were always good opponents. A bit salty at times though. But, since it's good practice for HAVOC to disperse and assemble again in another nation, I suppose we'll meet again soon.

Who did put this into your head. Read your willis It's so much fun sitting in Holland at a lock entrance in the sun with a coffee on the table watching some holiday skippers trying to stop in front of the lock. When realizing they start drifting, they try everything at once, bow thruster, rudder, reversing and finally full ahead again while the stone wall is getting closer and closer. Most motor boat people just don't know what wind does to your boat. And then there are computer gamers who never even went on a boat at all. Seriously, guys, the sailing in battle instance is close to perfect. There are only some minor things that could be a little better. But these are negligible for the sake of gameplay imho. Close hauled speeds are too high Leeway should be greatly reduced with increasing speed Accelleration/deccelleration is too high Yard turn speeds are too high "Depower" removing all jibs instantly is absolute nonsense Fore and aft sails (spanker and jibs) position for downwind sailing is too close to the center line No square rigged ship could tack through the wind without reversing, but in NA fast square riggers can do this And of course, wind, waves and the weather in general are just too constant to be called realistic. All these flaws were implemented knowingly, for better gameplay (weather and all speed related things) or ease of coding (depower, sail position).

Observed a player sinking russian players in close succession. Player in question is of the same nation. Serious abuse of green on green or farming.

On topic: I think it's problematic to judge actions by players intentions instead of observable actions. Simply because there is no evidence for the intentions in the server log files. In this case, the observable actions were: Port hostility was raised (no violation) Attacker did not show (no violation) Both actions individually and also in combination are no violation of any rule. This does not mean, I support this behaviour as I think it is an exploit to prevent others from playing. However, any no-show could then be tribunaled. And we all know that sometimes it is just not possible to fill a port battle for whatever reason. So, imho, the case needs to be closed for now. The only thing that could solve this is a proper alliance system. In this case, alliance (which is allegedly in place between the nations involved) should have prevented raising hostility in the first place.

Yes, but doing that in Tribunal might not be the best idea. Others got forum banned for less. Can we have a mod clean this thread up? Otherwise, we won't get a proper case and no judgement on the issue.

No spicy soup without salt! 😁

This has been proposed many times by various players, e.g. here:

I thought you were. If not, what is your point? Insisting on facts just for being right? But, yeah, whatever. If that makes you feel better, I agree. Yes, the Russian faction is the mightiest Zerg that has ever been! Resistance is futile!

Come on, @Tac, do you really want to complain about being multiflipped? Seriously? On 21st Feb, NATO (Swedes, Pirates and Spanish) had 7 (in words: seven) port battles against the Russians within one hour. Several more at other times, in total >10 on that day. Did you hear any complaints from Russians?

Sounds good in the first moment, but thinking about it, it's not so good at all. As you earn VMs by owning ports, clans without a port will never have the chance to conquer one. Essentially, the big clans do RVR, the rest just can't. The only way you can make this work is by scaling the price with the number of ports owned by the nation (not the clan, cause that could be abused with alts). This could simulate some sort of over-expansion and balance the map somehow. On the other hand, large nations would just stop doing RVR when the costs are too high, putting a stop to RVR sooner or later. All in all, I'm not sure if the whole approach is really promising.