Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'port battle'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Support
    • Tribunal - Трибунал
    • Forum and website problems and improvements
  • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • National news
    • Guilds, Clans and Trading companies
  • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Developer news and announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Gameplay Help Q&A
    • Guides
    • Suggestions
    • Combat mechanics discussions
    • Open world discussions
    • Economy, Trading and Crafting
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action: Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
    • Tavern
  • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (en français)
    • Naval Action - German language
    • Naval Action - Spanish language
    • Naval Action - Polish language
    • Naval Action - Українська мова
    • Naval Action - Italian language
  • Naval Action (Русский язык)
    • Новости
    • Обсуждение проекта
    • Предложения и идеи по игре
    • Морские тесты
    • Кланы и Гильдии
    • История
    • Таверна
    • Сайт и Форум. Проблемы и предложения.
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General games discussions

Blogs

  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17

Categories

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Found 34 results

  1. All video reports in Naval Action! 1. name 2. youtube link 3. little battle report
  2. At the battle for Bermuda there were no less than 2 alts attempting to grief the PB fleets. One succeeded. Please investigate and punish these two accounts for alt abuse: brightlight [NAP]MorgotHola With our scouts we managed to pick up the first one and then screen him out of the port battle ourselves. The second one we were unaware of and he managed to join the Port Battle from far away only to sail into the fort fire and get killed. Both accounts are low level. One is French, the other Spanish. Both were in Mortar brigs. Both pretended like noobs but are clearly players with some experience with the game. We contacted devs with our suspicions about the French account prior to the PB. The case against brightlight: The player was 1 day old at the time of the PB. It was created after the Port Battle for Bermuda was even generated… No player sails all the way to Bermuda on his second day - in a mortar brig. Please also look into who traded him the Mortar Brig or any gold he spent to buy it. The player was spotted sailing up earlier in the day. The player sailed to the south of the port and logged off near the edge of the circle, showing forethought and malice, by indicating knowledge of the PB system, PB entry and PB layout that no 1 day old player would have. The player was told not to enter the port battle, and answered in the affirmative. Since we obviously didn’t trust his word, we dispatched a screener of our own to keep brightlight from sabotaging the PB. Just as the PB started he entered open world. This screenshot is from ca. 1:30 minute after the PB started when he was caught into battle, right before he would have been able to enter the PB. (original picture with timestamp can be submitted to devs if necessary) The case against MargotHola: MargotHola is another low level player who decided to make the sail all the way from La Habana to Bermuda to sabotage a PB. He was one of the first players to join the PB, despite us joining immediately when the 2 minute timer was up. I use a stop watch to time our entry to Port Battles, so the alt must have been sitting in OW, ready to enter the PB as soon as it was open to anyone without hostility, and intent on clicking fast to be able to get into the PB. The alt joined really far away from the port, in an illogical spot, and he sailed into the fort fire to get killed by it later in the battle. The alt ignored requests to come on Teamspeak, but answered some messages in game-chat. He told that there had been a request in chat for a mortar brig to Bermuda - an obvious lie. He also makes basic grammar mistakes in his answers indicating that he is probably using Google Translate in order to answer only in Spanish. Video of the battle: (comments about the alts on teamspeak during battle should be ignored as made in affect, I take it for granted that the enemy port battle fleet was unaware and unconnected to the sabotage)
  3. How do u solve the problem which a nation has more active players set an outpost at Free port far away from their Capital? For example, United States could sent some players to Hat Island then they could do the missions any rising the hostility around the territories of Danes or Swed. Which is mean players can jumping to emenies main territories to do Port battle so far, but i think battlefront quite improtance in this game, and we need some high security space around rear areas for newb to ranking up.
  4. Assuming we go back to port battle timers, I would like to propose we have timers for each day of the week. The issue today, you play on a weekend in the morning or during the day, you can end up scheduling a port battle during the week when many people cannot attend. A 10am PB on a weekend is OK for me, but 10am on a weekday, I'm working. I would propose each region have timers by day of the week, rather than a single time slot for all days. With a total number of hours allowed for attackers being assigned to different days. In the example below - having 8 x 2 hour time slots that have to be assigned by the lord protector - one for each weekday, three over the weekends - with the weekend day time slots spread a minimum of 6 hours apart. For example - using eastern USA time Monday - 8pm-10pm Tuesday- 8pm-10pm Wednesday- 8pm-10pm Thursday- 8pm-10pm Friday- 8pm-10pm Saturday - 8am-10am, 6pm-8pm Sunday - 10am-12noon Then when the attacker buys the flag from the admiralty, the flag is purchased for 2-3 days into the future. When you convert these times to Australian or Chinese times, there is always at least 1 day of the week were each port can be attacked in a players primetime. The reason for only one extra slot on the weekend, Sunday night in the USA, is Monday morning in Australia or China. Thoughts?
  5. I may be a little behind the curve on this due to the time from the announcement of implementing raids and now, but I figured I'd share my two cents on the matter. Hopefully the community and developers like this concept enough to support and adopt it as future gameplay. Conquest: Taking Control of Counties. Conquest should happen by port battles as it does now, though how we get to port battles will be a little different - through raiding non-capital towns. A captain would be able to purchase a Raid token from the Admiralty (or Brethren Council). Once acquired, the captain would sail to the port they wish to raid and plant their Raid flag within ship-sight of the port docks. This functions much like the old assault flag system did with a few differences: 1) Purchasing a Raid Token does not send a notification to the entire server on which port it is intended for. In fact, Raid tokens are not assigned to a specific port at all*. Any non-capital can be raided at any time*. 2) Sailing through waters controlled by non-allied nations will highlight their territorial waters in red on the map if that port is able to be raided by the token the ship is carrying (see below). Doing so will send a chat notification to the nation that owns that particular port as well (e.g. "Admiralty Notification: Salina Point has spotted a Raid Fleet!"). 2a) Any town that is actively being raided or having a raid token planted will have its territory flash red (as contested ports do) on the map. 3) Raid tokens are differentiated between Shallow and Deep, with restrictions to prevent their being carried by under-rated fast ships. For instance Shallow raid tokens would only able to be held by 6th-rates, and Deep raid tokens could only be able to be held by 4th-rates and up. This fits with the theme of having a literal Flag Ship - the biggest and scariest ship in your fleet. Even if you intend on conducting a raid using, say, Privateers and Cutters, that Heavy Rattlesnake bringing up the rear should be the one with the flag. Raids tokens would also have enough weight that carrying one would preclude carrying more than one additional on board. 4) If a Raid is successful, the individual town in question will become Contested by the raiding nation for 48 hours. If the Raid fails, the port will instead be on High Alert and invulnerable to further raids for the next 72 hours. Upon exiting a Contested state, a town will enter a High Alert status for 24 hours, and Reconstruction for 48 hours during which its defenses will be lessened, but the Raid treasury will also be reduced. Reconstruction can be lessened by delivering War Supplies (or some other similar good) to the town in question to reduce its Reconstruction state by 6-8 hours. 4a) Once a Raid commences, all other non-capital towns enter High Alert for 6 hours and cannot be raided, whether the triggering Raid is successful or not. 5) If, at any point, the majority of non-capital towns (>50%, not =50%) are Contested by the same nation, a Port Battle is scheduled for the following day (or so) around the time that the last town became Contested. This could be done similar to the present means, 22 or 46 hours afterward, or a randomized time +/- 2-3 hours around the time the last port became Contested. 5a) Once a port battle is scheduled, as above, any non-capitals that are Contested will remain Contested until the port battle. If the aggressors in this conflict successfully raid the remaining uncontested ports (if any), the defenses of the capital will be reduced by a certain percentage for each town (minimum half normal strength). 6) If the attackers in a Port Battle are successful, all towns immediately become Contested and change to the victors following maintenance and follow the same pattern as Raided towns (High Alert for 24 hours, Reconstruction for 48). If the defenders of a Port Battle are successful, all towns in the county immediately enter High Alert for 72 hours. Raids: Sacking and Looting Once a Raid begins using the above flag-planting method, attackers will then have 90 minutes to sail in and take the town. Joining a Raid is similar to joining a Port Battle now - an inner Defender circle, and an outer Attacker circle. Attackers usually have the advantage in the element of surprise, but Raiding a town is a tough sell in any case; the objective in a Raid is to sail up to the town and defeat all of its Militia, either by bombarding with cannons or "boarding" the town - there are no capture circles or zones, though sailing too far from the port (5+ km?) will force an attacker to immediately exit (if they are otherwise normally able to) in order to prevent "holding the battle". If the Raid is successful, the town becomes Contested and all attacking participants are distributed a share of gold (and/or other rewards, including admiralty/council vouchers) from the town's coffers (Shallow towns as small as 2 million, perhaps - 80k each for a full 25-ship battle). This sounds easy, but it is complicated by the fact that the forts and towers are still present and will prioritize any ship closest to the town. The towns are also tough nuts to crack - Shallow ports could have up to 500 militia with up to 10% of those as Marines, while Lineship Capitals could have as many as 5000 milita, up to half of which are Marines. Bombing the town with mortars and ball are the most effective at killing defenders, but they also damage the town and will reduce the gold share from the coffers. Captains that engage in boarding will need to be careful with crew setups and boarding commands to avoid being taken by the town. Defenders will need to sink, capture, or drive off all attackers to be successful, but they will receive Admiralty awards if they are. A Raid, like a Port Battle, remains open indefinitely, but the defensive victory condition will engage after 15 minutes; if there's no live attacking ships after 15 minutes, the defenders win. Additionally, War Supplies will become a purely defensive tool; supplying a town, capital or otherwise, with War Supplies will increase the number of town militia, fort guns and militia, small increases to the range of the forts and towers, and potentially even additional Martello towers. At no point should the forts and towers cover the entirety of the combat zone, however. War Supplies: Reinforcing your Defenses Each War Supply will provide the supplied town with 1% Equipment, 2% Supplies, and 0.5% Defense Fleet. Each town starts with 0% Equipment (base values, existing fort defenses and guns with no bonuses), 0% Supplies (base values, existing fort/tower crews and town militia - 250/10%, 800/20%, and 2000/30% respectively), and 20% Defense Fleet (4 random typical ships, most likely 1 2nd rate and 3 3rd rates for a Lineship port). At 100% Equipment, the number of Martello towers is doubled and all fort guns and towers receive a size buff (up one or two weights), a 20% range bonus, a 20% reload bonus, and a 20% accuracy bonus. At 100% Supply, all fort/tower crews are doubled and have increased marines (doubled, up to 50%), and the town's militia and marine percentages are doubled (max 50% marines). At 100% Defense Fleet, the fleet will total 20 and be weighted such that about half of the ships are the best possible for the fight (Heavy Rattles, Aggies/Connies/Waffles, Vics/Oceans/Santis). Towns with high defenses need to keep them maintained, however. Equipment will decay at 2.5% per day when above 50%, Supplies will decay at 5% per day when above 25%, and Defense Fleet will decay at 2% per day when above 40%. This guarantees that not -all- War Supply contributions will be wasted, but maintaining the best possible values for defense will require continuous effort and Labor Hour usage. A single player could supply enough to keep a town's defenses high, but it'll heavily cut into their other crafting. If a Raid or PB are successful, then the defenses reset to base values. If the town is successfully defended, defenses instead reset to the maximum for non-decay. Port Battles: The End Goal Port Battles would be conducted rather similarly to how they are at present, with a few key exceptions: Instead of three circles, one large capture circle, 2.5-4 km in radius, centered on the port. The goal is to have one large combat zone that is approximately half-way covered by fort guns. Defenders would start in this zone and have the initial advantage. Victory Points would be accrued by the BR difference of ships in the combat zone as well as ship captures/sinks/escapes and fort/tower destruction. VPs would instead be accrued at a rate of 1 VP/second per 100/200/400 (6th/4th/1st rates) points of BR difference, capped at 10 VP/sec. Victory for either side would occur at 10,000 VP. Defenders could also win by driving off all opposing ships, while Attackers would have to destroy all land defenses as well as take control of the town (see Raids above). After 60 minutes of battle, the point rate will double every minute (2 VP/s for 60-61, 4 VP/s for 61-62, 8 VP/s for 62-63, and so on). This way, a fight that is dragging out with one side only having 4,000 VP, having had a steady, but slow advantage, will quickly start to wrap things up as the battle draws to a close, ensuring that a port battle will almost never end without one side being victorious. As with Raids, War Supplies will affect the defenses of the town in question similarly. It should be noted that the BR difference is truncated; with one side only having 350 BR greater for a Lineship battle, no VP would be accrued. If the difference is instead 700 BR, it's still only 1 VP/sec. BR of a ship should be dynamic and based on crew - That big L'Ocean with 1,100 crew that suffers a few solid rakes down to 400 crew will not have nearly as much BR to contribute. This victory method is known as the Show-of-Force victory and is useful if only a few opponents show up to contest the battle or attempt to harass and drag out the battle by skirmishing in and out of the combat zone. On the other side, an unopposed battle will only last under 17 minutes. Since the VP rate is also capped at a base of 10 VP per second, that means that having more than 1000/2000/4000 BR will have no additional effect beyond the maximum rate. The accelerating rate after an hour of fighting is multiplied off of this base amount. Let me know what you think, and as always: numbers presented are for the purpose of illustration - they are details that can be adjusted. The concepts are more important than specific numbers.
  6. I have submitted a bug report for this already in game (F11) on 2/10/17. After winning a port battle if you have lost your ship, it is currently impossible to take your loot with you. I am fairly sure this is not the intention and am wondering if there is a workaround or a planned fix to this issue. It is extremely frustrating to put in the effort for a win then be robbed of your reward at the end.
  7. What if a port battle would have screening phase and port battle phase. Everyone can join port battle lobby, and if there is enough players for all roles, each player may be in one role. If there is not enough players, players may join 2nd role after battle. You play 1st the screening phase (could be even multiple). If you win, there will be another match that will be the port battle. It would be possible to create different kind of port battle screening scenarios as well. For example: (You have to win majority) 1. 25vs25 2. 3x 5v5 3. 10vs10 + 3x 5v5 4. 9x 3vs3 5. 10vs10 + 5x 3vs3 6. 2x 25vs25 Screening fleets would be for smaller ships, frigates, max 4th/5th rates for example. Port Battles then for big ships, SOLs, min 4th rates for example. Or BR limited, or rate limited, or BR&Rate limited. Development would be pretty simple, as you only need a lobby for this. There can be countless of different screnarios. No issues with ROE, or with things like small/big nation etc. Current screening mechanism could be then used for Raids and/or Flags. We would have 2 different systems, maybe richer PvP offering as well. About the night flip: Times for battles could rotate, for example in steps of 4 or 6 hours. Everyone will have their night battles/flips.
  8. I proposed this in @Jeheil 's thread but this is a critical mechanic change that may address many of the current issues of the game regarding time zone issues, screening RoE, PvP content "event" areas, etc. What if the entire region became a battle instance where you could join at the edge and stay in it, destroy forts, have capture zones, come and go at various towns but you have to sail within the zone. These could be "super" instances, say 50 v. 50 or whatever the server/client infrastructure could manage, and run for 48 hours. These are effectively long-term PvP "event" areas that constitute the entire region. You sink, port up, or leave the zone, that's your chance, it's over and someone else gets to join during a one hour cool down. I'd say defending players can port up and join from port but on the same cool-downs and they would be exposed in the port in the non-battle instance for "screening?" This would encourage PvP not just in the zone but also patrols along the zone in the OW. Points accrue according to the current event mechanics (BR scaled) plus the current port battle mechanics (capture zone occupation, which would need to be shifted throughout the region, plus ship sinking and fort destruction (forts perhaps could regen over time)). This would encourage very mixed fleets because the entire region can't be dominated by 1st rates but you may need 1st rates to take highly occupied capture zones. You may also add in trader/war supply delivery to encourage trade ships in these super instances as well? At the end of the period the region flips according to who has the most points.
  9. Someday there might be a manual for this game. In the meantime, I've learned what I have in my few short weeks from countless YouTube videos, published guides, and helpful answers on chat. THANK YOU to everyone who responds to questions and those who have spent the time making the guides and videos. Now, for this evenings question: I know port battles are limited to 25 ships. In a line ship battle, does that mean all 25 have to be 1st rates? A 4th rate battle means all 25 have to be 4th rate. Shallow water can be any ship that has shallow draft?
  10. Hi I have an idea how to tie in raids and hostility and Port-battles Lets say we bring in the old fags and timers system in but not connect it with the port-battle itself but raids. You pull the flag and go raiding a port other then the regional capitol. With timers there wont be night flipping on raids and flags will make screening and gathering fleets a thing. To give raids and meaning for RVR play a successful raid triggers 100% hostility ?!?! or maybe 90 % hostility What does everybody think about this idea and would it be that hard to implement ??
  11. The Port Battle at Santo Domingo today ended before the attacker had any conceivable chance to enter. With the new mechanics giving the attacker less control over the Port battle this is a serious bug and needs to be addressed. I will add screenshots and a video from within the PB to this topic once I have been able to upload them. Video of the bug: As you can see in the video, the battle was over the moment the cannot escape timer ran to zero. At 1:27
  12. So it seems to me that the current Port Battle mechanics are not really working the way players would like. It's too easy to set a Port Battle up by means that are very hard to counteract (the war supplies bomb - sending hostility from 0 to 100 in one instant). Once a battle is set up the attacking force log out in front of the battle, logging back in once it begins thus rendering screening fleets useless and denying the hoped for pvp. Also only one port battle flips a whole region. This seems too easy to me. So here is my idea: Each nation has to gain 25% hostility against another nation via pvp. This pvp can happen anywhere on the map. The hositiliy will degrade, but must be kept at or above 25% in order to be able to start raising hostility in a region by other means (missions, war supplies etc). If nations try to avoid pvp by simply hiding in port, the amount of pvp that is needed to get hostility to 25% adjusts accordingly each hour. The amount only goes back up when the hiding nation starts pvping again - i.e. they attack first. The rest of the mechanics stay as they are now. Once hostility is raised to 100% the resulting port battle will randomly appear in any one of the ports in the region. This will only be made know 10 minutes before the port battle to promote pvp in the port battle area as everyone tries to get to the location. If the port is won by the attackers the next port battle in the region is set up for the next day at the same time. The attacking side must win a majority of the ports in a region in order to take it. The defending side must defend back to 0 taken ports in order to defend the region and reset the hostility as now happens. The attacking side/alliance may enter any port they have taken and it's forts will work for them. I'm sure people will shoot down any obvious faults in this, but I just want to make a positive suggestions to the devs rather than just compaining that it currently doesn't work.
  13. I believe hostility system is a step into the right direction, however it’s not working now. Fixing it may improve the game significantly. I’m saying this as a guy who proposed the system in the first place ( afaik ). Sometimes systems don’t work as you intended, or are modified to not to work as intended Edit: The newest version of this post is available under link below. It's constantly updated and allows you to put your comments on top of the text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QReWu6p7LJ3hhKpi4Lf5pbKQrK9NeqDVZU8NdTJtm5c/edit# What doesn’t work: hostility mainly generates PvE, not PvP system of entering PB’s is prone to exploits (log off screen, wave of screeners jump out of harbour) without using exploits, a decently organised defender has a huge advantage, making capturing a port extremely hard and costly system generates 1-2 battles per nation per week, with no meaningful encounters in between (not counting PvE) larger nations gain big advantage in both hostility generation, as quantity is quality now war supply hostility bump is not limited, allowing for a hostility bomb tactic What is important to notice: RvR is completely a domain of clans, and as such every system related with RvR should support clans people want screening encounters, it’s worth to give it to them people want more or less fair fights, which balance out nation size difference and which require skill, not numbers players raising hostility are PvP, not PvE players. It’s hard to convince PvE player to join even a PvE hostility generation mission. That’s why hostility should focus around PvP port battle system should value people's time, giving them interesting, meaningful and fair encounters quickly, without tedious work Some ideas to improve the current system: remove PvE missions completely. Instead, when attacking fleet reaches the mission, launch a notification that the fleet is raising hostility. Allow for any defending captain in an attacked region to teleport to a battle, filling in defending fleet to a BR limit of an attacker. In case defenders don’t show up, raise hostility by X and allow to launch next mission eg. 10 minutes later. this still allows for uneven screening tactics, however it also promotes PvP battles of different fleets in even encounters it saves time of players to get a good PvP In case players won’t show up on a regular basis, you could tweak mechanism to fill in defender’s fleet with AI up to attacker’s BR create war supply encounters, where eg. 4-28 hours in advance (chosen by attacker) there’s a notice that war supplies will be delivered to a harbour. Delivery ships would be allowed to deliver goods only in the specified time (eg. 1 hour), raising hostility eg. only by 50% if all goes well. This would allow for a large screening operations and delivery operations. it makes economy significant for war effort it could be launched both by a defender and attacker it would create more of meaningful encounters at times when port battles are rare, and often happen once per week it empowers organization that clans offer multiple other types of missions could be created with a similar mechanic. Eg. raids could be set 4-28 hours in advance, requiring attacker to sail his ships into the harbour within 30 minutes. Any ship that would get in would have to reach a certain area and eg. stay there unattached for 2 minutes to raise hostility, while defenders could join battle only to a limit of attacker's BR already in the mission. This could raise hostility eg. by up to 30% adds variety allows for experiments with different mission mechanics, defining which are fun, in the same time not influencing player's experience so much creates another opportunity for screening encounters Those are more or less rough ideas. If they were thought through and modified in search of corner cases and exploits, I think after implementation they would improve experience a lot. They would also make game available for much more players who don’t have time to sail for 3 hours in search for PvP, however would likely invest 30 minutes in order to do so. It would make organized even PvP battles more often, which is probably the best side of NA. ps. My first post wasn’t noticed probably since it was in on 5’th page of a large thread, and as such TLDR. That’s why I create this one in a separate thread.
  14. This is a very simple personal statement and all those who agree to it may freely follow in my footsteps! At this point I sadly have to say I do no longer care about the comments of the Admin/mods on the matter. I personally consider the port battle insta join an exploit and its use an abuse of a flawed system. Anybody who insists on using it is in my eyes not somebody who has the interest of improving the game in his mind. In addition there ahve been several other issues coming up over the last days since the patch which had given us a new system to not completely rip apart yet people jsut seem to have no other way of winning anymore. To clarify - I am fully aware that at this point British and other nations captains too have started to log out in front of captured ports and I disagree with it jsut as much as with the Danes doing it!!! Therefore I will from this moment onwards completely abstain from any port battles (and other events should it become too much there as well) including the screening (which in a defense would be a waste of time anyway) wether it be a defense or attack when through either side any of the following issues comes up: - Hostility bomb (PvE, War supplies, whatever else players find) created in under 4 hours (I consider it impossible for a nation to counter this especially should they currently engage in a port battle) - Attack fleet logs in in front of the port to circumvent the screening fleet by mechanic and not by skill! (this does not apply to sail time - log out a 5mins sail away from the port and I ahve absolutely no rpoblem with it!!!) - DDoSed TeamSpeaks (this is actually going into ranges outside of the game itself which I consider a personal attack and should my own TS ever be attacked as such I would report it to the police!) - Insults in game (I have seen this coming up in ever more increasing ways - A simple 'good fight' whether you win or lose should be customary at the end of a battle - suck up your salt and acknowledge the skill of your enemy!) I expect more exploits to come up in regular use in the near future and they will be added to my list. Again this list applies to both sides of the conflict - I will not join my own fleets or even leave an active port battle should these issues come up in my own fleet! (My apologies to those who haven't commited an offense and that I will leave behind by such an action - I am afraid doing this has become the lesser evil...) Last week I said in response to the Bermuda actions that I would now be willing to go with any 'legal' exploits and use them to the fullest extend myself but I am afraid I am just not that kinda guy hence this post. Consider my statement retracted and this one being in effect. Any captain who agrees with this may follow in my footsteps or not obviously being entirely up to you yourself. I believe that at this point only through creating empty port battles we will actually get a change going as it will quickly get boring and rid us of exploiters or at least force the devs to get us back by making useful changes. Should this still fail I am afraid my next step will probably be to finally leave the game that I once enjoyed so much behind me. Cheers Jolly
  15. Hey lads, Good fight Brits and US you've been very sporty. Massive battle, massive joys! http://i.imgur.com/3ZzqJaV.jpg
  16. Context: Privateers were historically contracted (carrying a Letter of Marque) by a Nation to pursue and capture/destroy the ships of hostile nations. They were in a sense mercenaries of the seas, however they were still employed and thus required to fly the flag of a Nation (lest they be deemed Pirates). Idea: As part of the Orders section, the option for "Obtain Letter of Marque" is available from the Admiralty. This can only be purchased for a tidy sum at the Capital Port (perhaps at a price that is 50% of ship value). It can only be applied to ships up to Fifth Rate (even then perhaps only up to Frigate). The result of application of a Letter of Marque is threefold: 1. The owner of a Letter of Marque receives slightly less financial reward on capture of enemy ships (reflecting the Nation's cut of the return) but secures all cargoes for themselves. Sinkings generate even less financial reward. 2. The owner of a Letter of Marque boosts "hostility" scores by X% at nearby Enemy ports when operating. 3. A modest XP boost to OW battles. To switch to a ship other than the one carrying the Letter of Marque results in a expiration of the Letter of Marque and a new one will be need to be purchased. (a warning notification would be needed to prevent accidental switching) Purpose: Letters of Marque are a financial commitment by the Privateer. The price is not small and so the commitment must be there to pursue that path of a Privateer. By restricting the use of ship type while a Letter of Marque is active it should hopefully discourage spamming of "LoM" as a step before a port battle as it would be a financially impractical and the restriction to up to Fifth Rates would enable a group of dedicated Defenders to rally a fleet to engage Privateers. The modest XP boost would encourage lower level players to range out on the OW stage to rank up faster, while the hostility boost encourages National returns on the Diplomatic front. Doubtless there are some nuances I am missing or considerations but this is what I've got so far. Thoughts?
  17. When the new port battle system is made, it would be very cool, as a low priority feature, if the harbors in the port battles matched the actual historic harbors (for those harbors that had fortifications in real life). Player built upgrades could reflect progressively stronger fortifications as built over time. Since generally, capitals and regional capitals had much better fortifications in real life, modeling actual harbor fortifications will create natural difficulty levels according to the importance and usefulness of a port. Use this thread to post any maps, pictures, drawings, etc, of historical fortifications so that perhaps some day, they could be coded into the game. Attached are several historical maps of Charleston, SC, USA
  18. Howdy all Just wanting to discuss peoples views on the Niagara and it not being able to participate in Shallow water port battles. What is the purpose of the Niagara in game atm? Where does it fit into the current state of ships being used? Is it worth using? At this current point in game the Niagara isnt able to participate in Shallow port battles, i believe its due to its power of carronades being to strong for other 6th rates, with it not being able to participate it effectively becomes a ship without real purpose, the only thing it is able to do is be used as a screening ship but at times that doesnt provide any action or enjoyment. Do you lash out and purchase a Niagara with no real purpose of use or do you buy other shallow ships so your able to participate in shallow PB's. Whats everyones views on the Niagara. Do you think it should be allowed to join shallow port battles? If it is to strong does it need to be slightly tweaked to make it fit in amoungst the other shallow ships? Should it remain how it is at the moment? If there are any question ive missed that you want to discuss please feel free to commet. Cheers
  19. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/?p=273743 As we had our battle at Belize yesterday, it struck me funny that you are actually allowed to buy a flag for another port and bypass the port battle completely. Thinking about it a bit more it didn't make much sense to me, although I think I have done similar things in the past. Rather a port battle should truly blockade all forms of passage. And thus when you are trying to leave the port, you get a "join port battle dialog" with BR info & ship numbers and the same thing happens when you try to enter such a port. So I drafted some questions to see what the general consensus is.
  20. we are looking for a guy in the port battle for saint-George he was on the dutch TS and when we asked him to speak englsih he continued in dutch and that was fun so if you know him tell me =)
  21. So this is my suggestion for port battles / flags. It is grounded on the belief that the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it should cost you and the more notice should be granted to the defender. Point 1: The further the port you want to capture is from your Nations front lines the more the flag costs. For example, buying a flag to capture an enemy port immediately next to your front line might cost 250,000 gold. The flag for the next enemy port (further into enemy territory) might cost 500,000. The flag for the third enemy port might cost 1,000,000, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increasing cost of waging war further from your empire (think supply lines, sail time, crew wages, provisions etc.), and reduces the effectiveness of “steam rolling” through enemy ports, as it will cost you significantly more the further you go. Of course, once you successfully capture the first enemy port, your Nations battle lines have extended, so what was the second port (which would of cost 500,000) is now the first port, and thus costs just 250,000. Point 2: Notification timers should be set to represent a “nation’s intelligence”. Think of all the small ships / fishing boats / outposts etc. dotted around a Nation which would warn of an impending attack by your enemy. Tying in with Point 1, the notification timers should be set depending on the distance from frontlines. For example, the attacking nation buys a flag to capture the defenders most remote port (i.e. the one immediately adjacent to the attacker). The defenders get 30 minutes notice to prepare a defence. If the attackers chose to buy a flag to attack the defenders next port (i.e. the second one from the attacker), the defenders get 60 minutes to prepare a defence. The third port might provide 120 minutes warning, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increased warning a Nation would have, generated by its citizens, of an enemy fleet sailing deeper into their territory. This will concentrate fighting on the front lines, and provide stability to a Nations core ports. This should help with Nations losing huge swathes of their territory due to ninja attacks when the server population is low. Point 3: Sneak attacks should be possible, by decreasing the warning given to the defender. This would be achieved by paying more for the conquest flag. For example, the attacking nation wants to capture the defenders second port. Point 1 and 2 implies this would cost 500,000 and the defender would be given 60 minutes notice. The attacker however buys a “sneak attack flag” which costs double (1,000,000) but reduces the defenders notice to 30 minutes. Such a mechanism realistically represents the additional expense of preparing a sneak attack, such as the planning, bribery, waiting for the opportune moment, chasing down witnesses, etc. Point 4: All of this could of course be supplemented by a "cooldown" on port re-capture. The 7 day suggestion currently circulating seems too long - maybe 2 days, in combination with these other points, would represent a good balance. Example: The attacker wants to capture three ports on their front line. They opt to buy a normal flag for the first port – 250,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They also buy a “sneak attack” flag for the second port – 1,000,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They opt to buy a normal flag for the third port – 1,000,000 gold and 120 minutes notice. Assuming they are successful at capturing ports 1, 2 and 3 then the following day, what would have been the defenders ports 4, 5, 6 are now reclassified as 1, 2, 3 and the process can begin again. Of course the attacker could opt to also try and capture ports 4, 5, 6 on the first day, but the (exponentially?) increasing cost would bankrupt most players and the (exponentially?) increasing warning notice would give the defending nation time to mobilise their defence. Conclusion: I hope the point I am making is clear enough – the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it will cost you and the more notice is granted to the defender. Of course the numbers are just suggestions and open to discussion. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.
  22. [before you vote, keep in mind that you're voting for having a lobby in general and NOT for what I find a good lobby should have, thanks!] hi, first I wanna say that I've never been in a port battle in Naval Action nor am I very eager to participate in one at the moment, hence it is very possible that my suggestion doesn't work well with NA. However, from my POTBS days I remember that more and better overview and control over the port battle lobby instance would have been something awesome.. Here's what I think a good lobby should have: Once attackers outside of a port which they intend to conquer are able to click 'join port battle' they'll join a lobby screen instead of immediately being transferred into the port battle instance. That lobby screen functions as an organization tool which the conquest flag buyer is in control of. However, everyone inside the lobby will be able to see what the flag buyer sees.. Inside the lobby people get information about the players which have already joined the lobby like name, clan, level, ship, formed groups and port battle timer. The flag buyer can transfer control over the lobby to a different player which has already joined the lobby if he so desires. The flag buyer and players inside the lobby can both create groups. The flag buyer can kick players out of the lobby. If kicked players try to reenter the flag buyer will see a request to join the lobby and ship info. A lobby chat tab will automatically become available and includes the possibility to vote on things. The flag buyer can draw lines and make marks on a tactical map of the port battle which everybody inside the lobby can see. Wind should be displayed, too. Admin can allow others to draw lines and make marks as well. The flag buyer will have to decide when to close the lobby and start the actual port battle before he runs out of time. Once the battle has started stragglers will be able to directly jump into the battle for 40 mins. If the flag buyer disconnects/ crashes inside the lobby screen or decides to jump out of the lobby without transferring his flag buyer status, admin rights will be transferred to the leader or highest ranking member of his clan. If the flag buyer has no clan the rights will be transferred to the highest ranking leader of a different clan. If there is no clan leader, the highest ranking player will receive control over the lobby. Defenders will have the same style of lobby as well. However, defenders will have to use the chat to vote for a port battle commander if they so desire. An elected commander will have admin controls over the lobby. If a port had a governor it would make sense to automatically make him port battle commander as long as he gets early enough into the lobby. If the governor is not online or doesn't like to command he either stays away and people vote or he makes someone else leader inside the lobby. Do you see possible exploits or unfair situations a port battle lobby could create considering the current iteration of Naval Action? Remember that there're also downsides to a port battle lobby like:
  23. I do not know if this already has been suggested, but I think this could be an idea for making the Port Battles more diverse and exiting for more people. I guess that the recent tweak of the xp/rank system has in part been made to allow more players to crew the 1st through 3rd rates that seem to be the requirement for participating in port battles. The result is a that a couple of thousand ships of the line now sail the Caribbean and a lot of admiral players are looking for challenges that are not rewarded by the game as it is now. As it is now the port battles are the main scene for conquest and a test of cooperation of the nations and clans but they are very similar [except for the distinction between shallow and deep water battles...which may be expanded to regional captitals (1-3rd rates) deep water (4-5th rates) and shallow (6-7th rates)] But why not make an individual profile for each port for instance (the number of ships that can join on each side) San Juan 3 1st rates 4 2nd rates 6 3rd rates 7 4th rates 10 5th rates Moscscito cay 2 5th rates 16 6th rates 10 7th rates Along with the "Land sighted" thing that makes each port individual (E.g. the knowledge of shallows) so that a nation can be "experts" in their own harbors and players who have ships of lower rate will be able join without blocking the bigger ships from entering (a mistake you are getting yelled at right now) (a system based on total BR or rating intervals would also be better and more diverse than the current system)
  24. As a compromise, I propose that the Pirate Nation as it currently sits, be split up into a loose coalition(think EU4 HRE) between pirate clans. In other words, each pirate clan that owns at least one port becomes their own "Nation". Non affiliated Pirates or clans without any owned ports could still port up at these different pirate clan ports so newbies aren't left without anything other than free ports to use. In order to give Non affiliated pirates a chance at having a nation this would be the only case someone would be allowed to pull a flag from a free port (but only once per day or something like that). This has the effect of potentially having small enclaves of pirates setting up shop outside of the main pirate hub in the Bahamas. With the eventual introduction of diplomacy between nations, these same mechanics should then be applied to pirates between their loose coalition of "Nations", however Pirates and National's should never be able to make a peace treaty between each other. That does not exclude the possibility of some kind of ceasefire agreement where the National party in question pays some kind of tribute every week or so to the pirate clan or clans that signed it. This proposal would make Pirate internal politics closer to history (just "closer" not exactly) while still remaining fun and interesting. TLDR - Split Pirate Nation into a loose Coalition of PCN's (Pirate Clan Nation) - Only Clans that have captured at least one port are a PCN - Non affiliated pirates or clans without a port can port at any pirate port - Can still assist with port assault/defense - Non affiliated pirates or clans without a port can pull a single flag per day(make it cost labor hours and gold) from a free port - capable of creating pirate enclaves outside pirate coalition borders - National's and PCN can never be at peace - National's and PCN can have a temp cease fire but will require tribute by the National - tribute comes from the admiralty coffers(once implemented), amount decided automatically by game, no 0 tribute exploit for constant peace - if tribute can't be met hostilities continue - PCN's can make treaty's with other PCN's the same way Nations to Nations would be able to with each other - This includes war, peace, port access, etc. TLDR;TLDR - Pirate Nation split into Pirate Clan Nations (PCN) - PCN can only make treaty's with other PCN - PCN can not make treaty's with Nationals except to offer cease fire for tribute - Any questions you may have, might have been answered above so please go back and read
  25. This tribunal is against the clan KF(Kungliga Flottan) for abusing flag mechanics to prevent us from launching an attack on Codrington, at about 20:30 server time my clan was making preparations for an assault on Codrington. A player named "King Gustavus Adolphus" bought the flag and we figured they would bring the flag to Codrington, we set up just to the east of the port after a 10 minute sail. However judging from KF refusing to answer our question on where the flag was, instead responding with "buhu" and "We are playing the game how we want, just like you are..." A group of about 13 ships myself included waited outside Codrington for the entire duration of the flag, but it was never planted and trolling was the only response we got to our question. I originally didn't want to post this into Tribunal because of the flame war that it will most likely create, but for the sake of the game this blatant trolling and abuse of game mechanics has to be exposed. This was witnessed by many players in Sweden and succeeded in ruining the assault on Codrington and wasting the time of everyone that participated. Below I will provide screenshots of the flag carrier who turned out to be a Kadett that joined Sweden on March,12,2016. http://prntscr.com/anexat http://prntscr.com/anexr9 http://prntscr.com/anexx1 I will also provide the chat logs if a moderator would be interested. (To clarify this is not against all KF members, only those responsible for this abuse.)