Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.



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
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
  • 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
  • Travel between Outposts

Categories

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Found 51 results

  1. I am sorry, but this is going to be a rather long post. However, I feel that for you to understand my suggestions I need to lay out those problems which I perceive and am trying to address, and I need to explain what assumptions I am making in addressing them. Let’s start at the beginning: There once was a little boy…Ok, maybe not that far back…Try again. Anyhow... RvR is my primary playstyle. I am a (de-facto) clan leader, diplomat, and occasional port-battle commander. So it is only natural that the conquest mechanics are among my chief concerns about this game, and it is the mechanic on which I try to come up with solutions to the problems that are discovered during testing. I have previously on several occasions offered thoughts and suggestions to that effect, most notably the following suggestion for regional conquest, which was the brainchild of a former clanmate and fellow danish captain, @Bartas11, and which I was given the opportunity to formulate in English and help develop: It is upon this idea, which has since been partially implemented, that I intend to expand and further develop below. But first: What conclusions can we draw from testing a few variations of RvR mechanics for the past year and a half? I will try to offer some suggestion as to what conclusions I have drawn, based on my own experiences, and talking to fellow players, clan-members, and RvR-players of other factions in-game. Players want conquest to be a daily activity: Most RvR-players that I talk to want conquest to be an accessible, low threshold, frequent occurrence in the game. A lot of the players who had been playing day in and day out since January of last year, left when conquest became dependent on days of grinding, hours of sailing to the other side of the map for some special region or resource far from ones own frontlines, and long (46h) preparation times. Many I know, missed the spontaneity of gathering 20-30 players sometime between 6 and 10 in the evening, buying a flag, and going for a port nearby, with all that it included: arguing about which port, anticipating enemy defences, screening with the flag, planting it, fighting and then sailing home-or never even getting there because while we were wasting time the enemy bought a flag for one of our regions and we decided to defend that instead. Now we have to plan our gaming 2 days ahead and try to get enough people together at the right spot and at the right time. It’s not spontaneous, it doesn’t feel player driven. It feels like a chore the game gives you, rather than an opportunity that you grab. A lot of players left, I believe because there was simply too much work, too much PvE-grinding, too much planning, and too much waiting around for each time you want to do something. Players want conquest to be flexible: On top of that, players-in my experience-want conquest to have a constant ebb and flow. Win and loose. That regions change hands, rather than stay static. It doesn’t have to be either, that regions change hands all the time, but that battles are won and lost with a little more variety. When the outcome is determined beforehand by wether you are defender or attacker, it looses some of its appeal. With the new system, attacking a port is a chore, and victory is a slim chance in most cases. Defenders only need to find a decent defence tactic for a port and stick to it, and the attacker has no chance. Add screening, getting delayed into the fight, and spawning far, far away, and you might end up doing a ton of work and not even getting a fight out of it. Port Battles have been well stocked with players on both sides for the past months, but still half the time port battles were over before the forces were even able to engage each other in the instance. We may have gotten rid of empty port battles, but I’m not sure we made port battles more fun. In my opinion, despite it’s flaws, it was much more fun when the map changed colours from day to day, and you lost one port (or three) one day, and regained it (and 5 more) the next day. There were more undefended Port Battles, more zerging, and more pointless pixel colours, but there was more action. Not all of those things were good, but ideally we could keep the positives and throw out the negatives. I’ll get back to how. But to be clear, to its credit, the 46 hour preparation time makes port battles slightly more fair now, at least once screening will be fixed and easy teleports removed. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero sum game: We as players, want to feel that we achieve something. That when we win we get rewarded and that we win *something*. When we win a port battle, we want to win the region/port. We are willing to work hard to see pixels change colour. It is in the nature of a RvR game. We also want to see the enemy suffer. But for most of us, who at one time or another have been on both sides of the win/loss, we don’t want that loss to be too great. We don’t want our enemy to quit because loosing is too punishing, and we know that one day the shoe might be on the other foot and we are the ones to loose. Ideally you want your enemy to loose to you one day, chalk it up to bad luck, and be back the next day ready to try again with the same spirit. If loosing is too punishing, many players don’t bother to continue playing until they get enough experience to be able to win. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running till the battle is over: Before we got land in port battles, one of the main complaints about port battles was that since the attacker needed to kill the defenders, while the defenders only needed the battle to be over, a viable tactic for defenders was trying to run the entire match and kite the enemy to prevent them from being able to catch up and engage a battle. You could defend, simply by drawing out the time and avoid a fight. Since the circles we got with land in Port Battles, this particular thing is no longer an issue. How can we address these requirements?: Players want daily conquest activity: Ideally the promised raids could be the daily, large-group, RvR-tied, clan-centered/organised activity that RvR-players can do and enjoy every evening, on short notice and spontaneous organisation. It needs to be tied in with RvR-as working towards port battles somehow, so that it is not just an inconsequential activity that players have to weigh their time doing against doing activities that would gain RvR. If we get raids, that work, but with no tie-in with Port Battles, then raids will either be DOA, or kill RvR. We need a balance. Players want conquest to be flexible: With the flags and individual port capture, RvR was too flexible. Frontlines were shifting back and forth every day, but too many ports would change hands each day, and it was all about taking more ports in a night than the opponent could take back the next day. Way too many ports were exchanged without any opposition. There was a lot of sitting around shooting towers, and not enough shooting each other. The new system, however, has made conquest too inflexible, yet at the same time too fleeting. First, winning as an attacker is hardly possible due to the mechanics and the port defences. Second, if you win a battle, through a stroke of luck or moment of brilliant inspiration, that single battle makes a whole region of several ports change hands. It makes little sense to me that a single battle should make as much as 7 ports change nation in an evening. It also makes little sense to me that attacking should be so punishingly hard and unforgiving that it is demotivating. And if you mess up one evening and loose a port, that port will be almost impossible to get back. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero-sum game: You need to get rewarded for conquest, but conquest also needs to be reversible. If you loose an important region, you should be able to get it back if you just put enough effort into it. A defeated nation needs to be able to get back on their feet. You also want it to take more than just one single battle to win or loose a region. Conquesting a region should take several days, but you want it to involve action every one of those days. The grind to get port battles, and the 46 hour wait, are both toxic. Yet without preparation time you will have more empty port battles and difficulty for the defender to be where they need to be. To the point of making it meaningless. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running: The capture point circle system that we got with land in port battles fixed this. Yet I never liked the 3 circles. It took port battles from being about sinking each other to being about artificial points and number of ships. Most of all I strongly dislike that there is now very little viability in fighting when outnumbered. If you didn’t get 25 people together, or one ship dropped out (or god-forbid was blocked out by a devious exploiting alt) you are now at a huge disadvantage, whatever the skill comparison. This might improve with the structure system making ships sink quicker, but with the unlimited repairs it might just as well magnify the problem tenfold. Instead of the 3 circles and the capture points, I wanted the old single circle of the tower maps just to be reduced in size and tweaked just enough to make kiting less viable as you would run into the edge of the circle sooner, and with land in port battles added to that, the number of directions you could run in would be severely lessened as well. Instead of loosing armour after 5 minutes by going outside the circle, and instead of the circle shrinking, you would get a penalty of some sort for staying outside the circle too long, even loosing by having a certain percentage of your fleet outside the circle for a given number of minutes. I think that with land in port battles and a slightly lesser radius on the port battle circle, we remove or reduce the issue of kiting defenders. I have 2 proposals for reworking the conquest system below. I believe that with the current mechanics that are already in the game, neither of these proposals will require prohibitive amounts of work to implement, and that both will constitute significant improvements over the current conquest system which we have. I leave judgement of the latter to my fellow testers and to the devs. Conquest system A: Raids, the new Port battles Make raids the new «port battles». Make raids the activity that clans and organised groups, but also just unorganized spontanous gatherings of players, can do every night, in and out, spontaneous and with little preparation. Specifically, raids need to be viable gameplay for groups of 15/20+ players working together. Give it meaning and make tactics a part of it, not just a blob of cheap ships shooting at another. To allow smaller groups to do raids as well, you can assign different tier raids to different ports, so some can be attacked with small groups of 6 players, while others require 20 players to work together. Bring back the old flag system for raids. 1 hour to plant the flag, and the flag can only be bought in a national port, and allied ports if and when alliances are brought back. We can bring back 2 hour defence timers for raids, or we can have open, 24-hour timers (for EU-server limited to within conquest window). A limited number of raids can be organised each day, but the limit could be something like 6 raids, or even more. You could conceivably organise within a nation to raid every port in an enemy nation’s region at the same time. In order to counter abuse, zerging and exploits, make raids prohibitively costly, and give diminishing returns for consecutive raids directed at the same region. Meaning that flags are purchased for PvP marks in addition to gold/war supplies to craft the flag. Since all or most ports in a region can be raided, buying the flag for one with an alt to block it, means nothing since all the other ports in the region can be attacked instead. Other exploits are also less viable to players, since no regions actually change hands directly from raids. Exploiting the flag system will be prohibitively expensive and gain you almost nothing. A successful raid limits owning nation’s production in that port for one day and gives raiding party produced resources as loot to bring home with traders. Say that production is halved in the specific port for one day by a successful raid, or by 75%, or maybe even halted completely. To prevent spamming and zerging the same region day after day by attackers, implement diminishing returns. A port/region that was recently raided needs time to recover before it will pay anything to successful raiders again. They can raid it again and again, but they won’t receive any rewards. To limit the off-hour raids to avoid defenders, scale rewards during the day relative to defending nation’s active population (or server population as a whole to make it simpler). Much higher reward for raiding in prime time could encourage raiding when there are enemies around to defend. Also, with the flag system, defenders have up to an hour warning to get to the port to defend against the raid or even intercept the raiders. The most likely defenders against a raid will be those players who have an outpost there because they have production there, so that they can go to a national port when they see that a raiding flag is bought, and teleport to their outpost to defend. Other players with outposts in the same region can teleport to their outpost and sail there to defend. Thus better rewards and better defences in a port the more people own production buildings there. Raids will be variable, have a decent chance of success, therefore being motivating, and yet a good chance that defence will involve players and not just AI. If raids are successfully implemented to be the go-to activity for larger scale group play and satisfy RvR and port battle fleets, then we can make the actual port battles even rarer than they are today. Keep port battles mostly as they are today (with improvements), with 46 hour preparation (or rather 22 hours if I had my wish), and increase the time between them. Make them weekly or bi-weekly for each nation for instance. That a nation can manage to set up and go through up to 2 port battles per week. Maybe only during weekends. Regions change hands rarely, and the map and conquest is fairly stable. The tides of war and conquest are slow, but not stagnant. Conquest system B: The removal of Port Battles (this is my preference) After thinking long and hard on how to improve conquest mechanics, the following is what I came up with. This proposal is not dependent on the implementation or progress of development of the raid mechanics that we are waiting for. Yet raids could easily be tied in with this mechanic to contribute towards RvR, or implemented alongside it without affecting RvR. In developing this idea, I tried to rethink my position on RvR completely, and pay some heed to those players who say that «port battles» in their setup are detrimental to the game and to the open world gameplay. They are a remnant of this game’s past. Some even say that conquest should be removed from the game. I love port battles, and I know a lot of players who play this game mostly or only because of them. So the removal of RvR is to me not an option. Yet we as RvR players could perhaps do well to scrap our current ideas about RvR and look at it with fresh eyes to come up with a system that is more integrated with the Open World and the rest of Naval Action gameplay. In developing this idea, I also relied heavily on my previous conquest mechanic suggestion, written in cooperation with @Bartas11, back before we had regions in the game. It is on his idea of Open World «Trafalgar» battles and controlling sea zones that I base my new approach. We now have in-game the regions that we suggested. We don’t however have the multi-stage conquest of a region. There is one Port battle, and then the region either changes hands or doesn’t. I’m proposing that we scrap «Port Battles». Why do I say this, being an admitted port-battle player first and foremost myself? And why do I say that when devs have spent so much effort and time giving us land in port battles and towers and the capture point mechanics? We waited so long for these features to be developed before the port-wipe, and we spent so much time refining them. Well. I’m not saying we should scrap the land in port battles features completely. These ports, towers and so on should be used for the upcoming raid mechanics. Here is my proposal for conquest mechanics port battles are scrapped: -When you wish to capture a region, you buy a flag in any nationally owned port. This flag is crafted with X amount of Conquest marks, X amounts of Gold and X amounts of War supplies - war supplies being the main ingredient. For instance 5 conquest marks, 200k gold and 50 war supplies. -This flag lasts for 5 hours from the time it is crafted and you buy it for a specific region. Say that you want to attack Santo Domingo region. You would craft the flag in Ponce or Areceibo probably, if coming from the east. -When you craft the flag, you need to form a group. This group can hold up to 25 players, and to avoid abuse the group has to have 20 players in it before you can properly craft the flag. -Upon crafting the flag, a message is sent to the entire server, alerting of the fact. Just like previously with the flag system. -The crafting of the flag also spawns a circle in the open world at the region capital of the region that is under attack. This circle has its focal point on the capital city. The radius of the circle is roughly equal to the viewing distance in OW in clear weather. -Whoever crafts the flag, becomes the flag-bearer (flag-carrier). -The flag can be transferred between players in port(?). -If the flag-bearer logs off from the game for more than 5 minutes, the flag disappears and the group is dissolved. -The composition of the group can be changed by adding or removing players from the group. But the group can not have more than 25 members in it. -The point now, is for the flag-carrier and his group to bring the flag and themselves to the region they are attacking. -The attackers are now to get their fleet to the OW circle outside the region capital. They need to be inside the circle. Once inside that circle, if the flagcarrier leaves it, the flag expires immediately. Thus you cannot hover at the edge of the circle and go in and out of it like people do in the PvP-events. -Conquest depends on a «meter». That meter rises for every hour that the aggressors' flag stays inside the circle. -In order to flip a region’s ownership the attacking faction has to have the flag inside the region for a cumulative 12 or 24 hours (number to be determined by testing). Meaning conquest will not happen in one day, but may take several days or even weeks to generate enough points towards the meter. With a 5 hour flag expiry, you can maximum contribute 5 hours minus travel time towards conquest in one day. But then you would have to sit inside the circle for an entire five hours consecutively and the enemy would have 5 hours to mobilise a defence. -While the goal of the attacker will be to stay inside the circle for as long as possible to generate points towards the conquest of the region, the owners of the region that are under attack will have the goal to try and chase or force the attackers out of the area, or sink the attacking fleet. -Once an alert is out to the server that a nation crafted a flag against a region, the current owner of the region will have to mobilise a defensive fleet of their own to sail there and defeat the intruders. Once there, they will observe the invading fleet and engage it in a large open world battle. The position of the invaders in OW will determine the spot of the battle, and it could happen close to shore or at the farthest end of the circle far from any land. Forts will not really be a factor, unless the invader sails all the way up to a town, but why would they? There were no forts at Trafalgar either. -When in battle instance, the timer still counts towards conquest for the invaders. If they stay one hour in battle, that is one hour towards conquest just like if they sat in OW. To avoid that invaders just tag a small fleet or single ship to hide in battle instance from defenders, anyone belonging to the group carrying the flag cannot do a tag on any other ship, player or npc, while inside the conquest circle. In other words, invaders cannot initiate a battle while inside the circle. -The defenders however will have to attack the invaders in order to halt their conquest. To avoid that invaders use alts or trick noobs into engaging a fight with them that allows them to hide in battle instance, the new BR rules should apply. Only a comparable force can engage the invaders. If they have 25 Victories, only a force of 20+ 1st rates or so can drag them into battle. -Once the defenders engage the invaders, making a battle of 25 vs 25 players, the following can happen: The battle stays open for the entire duration of the fight incase either or both sides do not have 25 players initially. However either side can have a maximum of 25 players enter. Neither side can get a 26th or 27th ship in even if there are less than 50 ships total in the instance. The battle may have 3 outcomes. Invader wins, defender wins, or a draw. The invader wins by getting to 2 times the BR of the defender (just like old times). The defender wins by either getting to 2 times the BR of the invader, or by sinking the invader’s flagcarrier. A battle ends in a draw if by the end of 90 minutes neither side has gained 2 times the BR and the flag is still afloat. If the battle ends in a draw, then the time that was spent inside the battle is added to the conquest meter in favour of the invader. If the invader wins the battle, then they get 2 times or 3 times the number of points. So they get credited for twice or three times the time they spent inside the battle. If the defender wins, that sets back the clock for the invader by about the same amount of time as they would have moved forward if they won. To explain this better I will use points: You need 24 points (for instance) to flip a region. For every full hour spent inside the region with the flag, you get 1 point. If the defender engages and you defeat them, you get maybe 4 points from the battle, if the battle is a draw you get 1 point from the time you spent inside the battle, but no bonus. If the invader looses the battle they are subtracted 4 points. There is a bonus to the defender for sinking the flagcarrier, which subtracts another 1 point in that case. -If the defender sinks the flag 3 times before the invader can flip the port, then the conquest is reset and a cooldown of a few day is applied before the flag can be crafted again for that region. -The flag for any one specific region can only be crafted once per day per nation. -More than one nation can have conquest going against the same region simultaneously. They will then be competing about getting 24 points first. -If the defender does not have players near the region when you first attack it. There is a chance that they might not get there the first day to engage the invaders, if invaders turn around and go home after sitting in the circle for 2 hours unopposed. However, the owning nation then knows that the region is under attack, and a flag will most likely be crafted the subsequent days, and must therefore station ships in the region and an outpost to be able to respond in time the next day. -If attackers do not face resistance the first day of conquest, they are guaranteed to face it the next day, as defenders set up base there to be ready. Defences will be gradually increasing as the conquest progresses and defending nation sends more players there. -How to avoid that either side just kites to get a draw? Well. If the defender does not engage and try to sink the flagcarrier, then they will be helping the invader who then gets points for staying in the region by surviving the battle. -To avoid that the invader tries kiting the defenders to draw out the battle, the following mechanic applies: The ship of the player carrying the flag will get a 25% HP bonus as long as he is carrying the flag. However, in battle instances that are initiated inside the circle, the flagcarrying ship will also have a 15 or 20 percent reduction in top speed. If the invading fleet tries to kite the defenders they will therefore be leaving behind their flagcarrier, leaving him exposed to be sunk by the defenders and winning the defenders the battle. -Looting the hold of a sunk flagcarrier yields some war supplies which the defenders can take back home to their own port and use to craft flags themselves. -Players in the invading party, the group formed by the flagcarrier, cannot initiate tags of their own as long as they are inside the circle, but they can also not be dragged into separate battles unless they are too far away from the flagcarrier (the diameter of the ROE large tagging circle). They are bound to the flag-carrier. They cannot be dragged into separate battles, either by allied screeners or enemy screeners. The invading fleet cannot be separated into multiple instances. -To avoid that the defending fleet accidentally drag some of their screeners instead of their big ships into battle against the invading fleet, putting them at a disadvantage BR-wise, defenders should possibly also be able to make 25-player conquest groups that prioritise them into the same battle as players from their own group doing a tag. -Players will be encouraged to take part in screening. Players who show up in the circle to screen, but are not part of the invading force’s conquest group or the defenders’ engagement with the invading fleet will get larger rewards from any PvP they do while the flag and the circle is still active. Any battles that do not involve the flag-carrying fleet will not however count either positively or negatively towards the conquest points to flip the port. -The invaders can get reinforcements and exchange members of the conquest group while inside the circle. -Once the invasion is over for the evening, either because flag expires after 5 hours, or because the invading fleet sails out of the circle, the flag disappears and the effects that apply with it disappears as well, like flagcarrier having more HP or giving off war supplies when looted. -An invasion fleet can be intercepted and engaged before they enter the circle. If the flag carrier is sunk, the invasion is ended for that day before it even started. -The flag has to be crafted over again each day to continue the assault. Thus, the longer it takes to finish capture the region, the more expensive the invasion will be. -Each nation can have up to 3 invasions going on at the same time against different regions. -Not buying a flag for a region one day, does not reset progress on that conquest. A conquest can be halted to focus on another or on a defence. -Flags should not be so expensive that they cannot be bought each day. But they should be expensive enough to feel costly. -Most regions that are invaded, will in most cases eventually flip. Unless the defender sinks the invading fleet’s flag 3 times, the conquest can go on for a long time if slowed down by defenders. But eventually they will probably reach 24 points. That way a small and hard pressed nation can always eventually regain important territory that they lost. No regions are unassailable or impossible to a determined attacker. However a skilled defender will still be rewarded by the invader being forced to spend more resources and time on the conquest, and the previous owner can try to take the region back again after a couple of days cooldown. Advantages of this system: Brings action to OW. Counteracts the segregation between OW and port battles which has happened. Forces RvR-players into OW. To conquer regions you have to spend time in OW. Brings spontaneity back to RvR. Prolongs the conquest of a region. Means that several battles will have to be fought to conquer a region, not just one. Increases variety in RvR battles. Screening is relevant but not OP. No kiting. Gives defenders warning and time to respond to invasions. Battles are no longer set to start at (example) 18:23 and you have to be there at that time. RvR-battles start when both the attacker and defender are present. Removes PvE-grind from RvR. Involves trading and crafting with RvR (for making war supplies) Regions will always be changing hands, but much more slowly and less abruptly. We will have a frontline conquest system limited by sailing distances as you will always have to sail out from a port that you own with the flag. However there is a possibility for conquest over longer distances than an hour for instance, but it will be more costly and more time-consuming as the time you spend sailing there takes away from the time that you have to sit in the region to gain points towards conquest. You could also adapt the above by having most regions be attackable by 3-hour flags (leaving 1 hour travel + 2 hour camping/fighting), while some special regions were accessible with longer lasting and more expensive flags. That would force front-lines more, but still allow jumping the map to certain hubs. There would be no advantage to not showing up and avoiding PvP. Defenders would have to defend, if not the first day, then the second day. I believe this system will suit those players who used to camp their fleets outside capitals - typically - KPR, to bait players into coming out and attacking them. Now these fleets can get involved in RvR. One of the advantages I see of this system is that it leans in favour of the attackers, but still balances. Realistically someone would only invade a region if they had a significant force and a good chance of conquering. In this system, unless the defender repeatedly beats back the invader and sinks the flag (or win the battle, if being able to sink the flag to win would be too easy), a determined attacker will always eventually flip the region. This makes for a dynamic RvR world where regions change hands every week. You will loose regions and have to take them back, rather than just sit on what you have and fend off attackers. The system forces nations to act aggressively in RvR. Otherwise, in the current RvR-system which very much punishes invasion attempts with total loss, nations that start out with much territory are incentivised by the system to not act aggressively, and only defend as many as possible of the regions they start with, at much less risk than those nations that have to go out and attack something. Because defenders would still affect how fast a region would switch hands, this dynamic conquest system would let nations conquer territory no matter their RvR-fleets' relative skill, but would favour as the most successful and expanding ones the nations that have more skilled fleets and therefore more effectively can halt and slow down enemies attacking their regions, while quickly completing their own conquests. A nation would expand not by always winning offensive and defensive conquest, but by being twice as fast at capturing their neighbour's territory as their neighbour was at capturing theirs. Sorry for the long post (5 400 words!)
  2. Part of a balanced MMO is more than just PvP. Other forms of Player-to-player interaction are also required, including cooperation. One of the professed purposes of the upcoming wipe is to bring about a new economy, putting behind us - hopefully - the utterly broken one that we’ve been living with for a year, which allowed us to test every other aspect of the game. Creating this new and working MMO-economy is surely no small task. I am not a trader in this game. I trade and craft mainly to support other activities, and to sustain my clan. Yet I see that for PvP and the open world to have a sustainable environment as well as a proper balance, trading gameplay needs to be developed, and those players who choose to focus on it need to be encouraged. The old economy we have on the live server drove traders away a long time ago. There was no challenge, no unique gameplay, and no supply and demand - only endless supply. The new economy that we are testing on the testbed forces a "division of labour» so to say. Everyone cannot do everything anymore. With new production levels, travel times, and the partial removal of teleports, you can no longer collect every resource, and craft every ship yourself. PvP-players in each nation will depend on the traders and crafters of their respective nation or clan. If well balanced, this looks very promising, yet there are a few issues presumably yet to be solved about this part of the game. Like how do we prevent people from each sitting on a heap of their particular valuable, looking enviously on the heap of somebody else, yet not willing to trade away any of their own production? How do we unite the players who are lacking a resource, with a supplier? And how do we prevent clans from organising an economy internally, while leaving the rest of the nation, and solo-players to their own meagre devices? On the latter issue, you could dismiss it entirely, and say that if the clans are not contributing to the national economy, then that is a national problem of having selfish clans. However on the former issue, I believe we need more trade tools, and some mechanisms that encourage player-to-player interaction, even out of OW in port. -We should be able to put up buy contracts for ships. You request wood type, trim and refit, and the crafter fulfills the order. -If not already implemented, we need to be able to put buy contracts for the refit items. -There should be ways to acquire Marks outside of PvP and RvR. Crafters, haulers and traders should be able to gain marks from these activities. Interactions with players from your own nation, besides PvP or PvE, should have the potential to generate marks. Being a dedicated crafter/trader, who does PvP only secondarily, will be unsustainable once all ships in high demand will require copious amounts of marks for crafters to make them. They need to be able to take payment that includes coverage of the Marks used in crafting. To make this simpler, Marks could be an item that you can buy from NPCs for gold. The Marks are an infinite resource anyway - its production limited only by how many NPCs we can find and kill. And if the economy is properly balanced so as not to flood the market with gold, then having Marks be an item that you can purchase from NPCs for a steep price would not be a problem. In fact it could help the economy, by taking gold out (giving it to NPC) and putting only a quantity of an infinitely regenerating resource into the economy. Secondly it would be worth exploring to encourage trade between players and nudging players to put their surpluses on the market for others to get access to, by rewarding trading with Marks. As an example, when you put a quantity of an item on the market with a contract, once that contract is emptied, you are rewarded with a relative number of Marks. And when you sell someone a ship that you crafted, or fulfull someone elses’ contracts, you likewise get marks. Without some mechanics to ensure its integrity, this system would be very exploitable of course, by players trading back and forth between each other. However, you could put limits on it or other measures to prevent abuse, as well as increase the tax on contracts - to then accept that some marks may be generated by players, but in exchange for a money sink. Thirdly, crafters could get derivative marks, in addition to XP, for kills done with ships that they crafted. So if the player who purchased your ship kills a connie and get 3 marks, then you, as the crafter, are rewarded with maybe 1 Mark.
  3. We all know soon enough Devs are going to post details about Kickstarter packs. So, here is one small collection for all Spanish Fans who in future will be able to fund these projects on Kickstarter. Enjoy. P.S. feel free to suggest other candidates. 18 Guns Privateer 18 Guns Privateer 22 Guns Frigate 22 Guns Frigate 22 Guns Frigate 34 Guns Frigate 1788 (NUESTRA SENORA DE LA SOLEDAD) 36 Guns Frigate 1779 (SANTA MARGARITA) 36 Guns Frigate 1796 (AMFITRITE) 50 Guns Frigate 1797 50 Guns 4th Rate 54 Guns 4th Rate 64 Guns 4th Rate 64 Guns 4th Rate (San Fernando) 64 Guns 4th Rate (Africa) 70 Guns 3rd Rate (Glorioso 1740) 74 Guns 3rd Rate (MONTANES) 74 Guns 3rd Rate (San Damaso) 80 Guns 2nd Rate (Fenix 1749) 80 Guns 2nd Rate 1795 (NEPTUNO)
  4. Because of the recent testserver changes. This might fit well. Complete chat Overhaul no global chat no nation chat In port: - real time Chat between all present captains is allowed - you can write on the port blackboard to leave a message this message last 2rl days has a total amount of xy letters and just one per captain per each port is allowed. - writing to other captains not located in the same port takes time. Message arrives xy mins after being sent and only when the captain enters any port. But the receiving captain will get a notification that a post ship will arrive soon. In OW: Real time Communication between all captains of the same nation in viewing range is allowed. Everything else is forbidden. In Battle: Same as OW
  5. Here is a set of nice 20-24 gun ships (Corvettes and Light Frigates) from various nations. The idea is to choose one (max two) ship(s) per nation ; some of the most typical, best, most known or well-documented ones. Feel free to add suggestions for the missing nations. What would be your favorite 20-24 gun ship ? 1) Spanish Descubierta 1789, 16-26 gun Corvette The Descubierta and Atrevida were twin corvettes of the Spanish Navy, custom-designed as identical special exploration and scientific research vessels. Both ships were built at the same time for the Malaspina Expedition, a five-year maritime scientific exploration. The two vessels sailed from Spain to the Pacific Ocean, conducting a thorough examination of the internal politics of the American Spanish Empire and the Philippines. The military version of the Descubierta carried 26 guns. Pictures / 3-Decks / Wiki 2) Dano-Norwegian Christiansborg 1758, 24-gun frigate The Christiansborg was designed by Michael Krabbe, launched in 1758 as a 12-pounder frigate, broken up in 1786. Krabbe submitted this plan after returning from the obligatory European study trip (1752 - 1756, visiting British, French, Italian and Dutch shipyards) and a certain French influence is clearly visible. Pictures/ 3-Decks 3) Russian Vostok (Восто́к, The East) 24-gun Sloop-of-war, 1818 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7768-exploration-and-survey-ships/&do=findComment&comment=140868 With the 20-gun sloop-of-war Mirny (1819), she took part of the second Russian circumnavigation of the globe (1819-1821), led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen, which discovered the land of Antartica in 1820. 4) French La Diligente Corvette, 20 guns, 1801 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7682-french-corvettes-collection-6th-rates-with-plans/&do=findComment&comment=153304 She had a very good reputation in France as she was considered there as "the fastest ship of her time", "the best model to follow" (J. Tupinier) and her plan were to be reused between 1824-1826 to built 8 corvettes-aviso. Variant : La Favorite (1829) 24-gun Corvette http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7682-french-corvettes-collection-6th-rates-with-plans/&do=findComment&comment=140642 She was part of an expedition that lasted from 1829 to 1932 during which she passed the Cape of Good Hope, stopped at Pondicherry and Madras, and then explored the coast of Cochinchina and Tonkin, stopped in the Philippines, Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand. The expedition was considered a great success, many hydrological observations were completed and natural history collections assembled. 5) British HMS Amazon 22-gun ship, 1745 Sistership : HMS Myrmidon (1781) http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/6183-myrmidon-1781-british-22-gun-ship-with-plans/ La Panthère (1744), a French 20-gun Corvette, was captured in 1745, refitted to carry 22 guns, renamed HMS Amazon and assimilated into the Royal Navy on account of her particularly useful design. HMS Myrmidon (1781, 22 guns) is her British version from which six other ships were to be built. British HMS Sphinx 20 x 9-pdr, 1775 (suggested by Haratik : Thx !!!) more plans : http://zope.mein-media.de/meinmedia/frigate/plans/index.html HMS Sphinx (1775-1811) has been captured by the French, then recaptured by the British : https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=6842 6) Dutch Venus Corvette, 20 guns, 1806 (suggested by SteelSandwich : Thx !!!) http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/19074-venus-1806/ The Venus had an interesting career, especially given her role during the Siege of Palembang (1821). 7) Venetian unnamed Corvette 22-gun corvette, XVIII-th century http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7685-venetianitalian-ship-collection-with-plans/ 8) American USS Wasp 18-gun corvette, 1807 (16 x 32-pdr + 2 x 12-pdr carronades) http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7707-american-ship-collection-with-plans/#comment-145983 In 1812 she captured HMS Frolic, but was immediately herself captured. The British took her into service first as HMS Loup Cervier and then as HMS Peacock. She was lost, presumed foundered with all hands, in mid-1814.
  6. Feel free to propose other British ships. 6 Guns Armed Cutter 1763 (HMS Sherborne) 14 Guns Brig (Cherokee) 14 Guns Armed Merchant 16 Guns Sloop (HMS Druid) 18 Guns Armed Trader 18 Guns Ship 18 Guns Armed Trader (HMS Minorca) 18 Guns 6th Rate (HMS Advice Prize) 20 Guns Privateer 1727 (HMS Flamborough) 20 Guns Privateer 20 Guns Corvette (HMS Amazon) 22 Guns Frigate 1781 (HMS Myrmidon) 22 Guns 6th Rate (HMS Ariadne) 28 Guns 6th Rate (HMS Lizard) 32 Guns Frigate (HMS Ambuscade) 32 Guns Frigate (HMS Unicorn) 34 Guns Frigate 1777 (USS Hancock/Iris) 38 Guns Frigate (HMS Minerva) 38 Guns Frigate 1794 (HMS Diana) 44 Guns 5th Rate 1646 (HMS Adventure) 44 Guns 5th Rate 1741 (Prince Edward) 44 Guns 5th Rate 1782 (HMS Seraphis) 48 Guns 4th Rate (HMS Mordaunt) 50 Guns 4th Rate 1711 (HMS Ormonde) 50 Guns 4th Rate 1774 (HMS Experiment) 70 Guns 3rd Rate 1679 (HMS Berwick) 70 Guns 3rd Rate 1678 (HMS Lenox) 74 Guns 3rd Rate 1787 (Colossus) 74 Guns 3rd Rate 1778 (HMS Alfred) 74 Guns 3rd Rate 1795 (HMS Kent) French Design 74 Guns 3rd Rate (HMS Anibbal) 74 Guns 3rd Rate (HMS Pegase) 74 Guns 3rd Rate (HMS Pompee) 74 Guns 3rd Rate (Black Prince Class) 80 Guns 2nd Rate (Tonnant) French Design 90 Guns 2nd Rate 1788 (HMS Barfleur) 90 Guns 2nd Rate 1788 (HMS Prince) 98 Guns 2nd Rate 1782 (HMS Glory) 98 Guns 2nd Rate 1782 (HMS Atlas) 98 Guns 2nd Rate 1782 (HMS Duke) 100 Guns 1st Rate 1719 (Royal William) 100 Guns 1st Rate 1670 (HMS Prince) 100 Guns 1st Rate 1786 (HMS Royal Sovereign) 100 Guns 1st Rate 1814 (HMS St. Vincent)
  7. With the other proposed sets of kick starter packs being thrown about I thought I might make my turn to do a Venetian one, mainly with the aim of providing some things that are a little bit different to what we already have and what the other proposed packs are offering. I will also start by saying that these are my personal suggestions after a good think, if there is a ship that is missing from this group I would more than gladly discuss swapping a ship or adding any others. Polacca (c1750) Adding a Polacca to the game gives the devs two nice options, one they can have a new small fighting, and two they can also use the same model for a trade Polacca as has been done with the other trade ships, the trade brig for example. Polacca were used quite extensively by Venice as both a small escort ship and as a trade ship itself, they are nimble and sail fairly well up and down wind, their real advantage however is their ability to deter boarding, their high sides being a great advantage in this situation when being attacked by their main enemies, the North African Barbary Pirates. There is also a nice advantage in that there is a purchasable scale model produced by Amati. Sciabecco (18th Century) The devs have toyed with the idea of adding a Xebec for a while now, I just thought it might be fun to throw in a detailed plan of what formed the back bone for the Venetian fleets activities in home waters, this is a 34 gun variant built to mainly operate in the coastal waters of the Venetian Lagoon and the Dalmatia, this style of Xebec would add some flair and variety to fighting in shallow waters. Historically the day to day activities of these ships were to discourage illegal activity and protect higher value trading convoys. I also have a sail map for a similar vessel if anyone is interested. Muiron (1797) I had a long think over whether to include Muiron or rather go for her parent, the Palma class (1784) but I decided to go for Murion, mainly due to the importance Muiron played in breaking through the British blockade of Egypt, inevitably saving Napoleon from capture or death after the battle of the Nile. Napoleon also wished Muiron to be preserved eternally as thanks for his safety and so it would be a nice little tribute to him to do so electronically in the game. For further information please see the dedicated post to her by @Sella22, I will post a link below. Fama (1784) I have personally worked long and hard on trying to unravel the history of the Fama class and have given at least a brief history for each of the 6 ships built, it would be a dream come true to be able to sail her in game. I have explained before my reasons for adding her when it comes to adding Fama, as the swan song of the Venetian Republic's shipbuilding she was the last and most heavily armed of the Fregata Grossa class, the Venetian line of super frigates dating back to the 1720s. She would be a fantastic ship to see in game, not at least to offer some alternative to the Agamemnon dominance of 4th rate battles. She is beautiful, charismatic and historic, her various sisters serving in the Venetian, French and Austrian navy, and as my signature suggests, she is the one I would be most happy to see. Link below to dedicated thread. Bonus: I would love to see either of these ships added on to the pack but when it comes down to the cost of ship development I would much rather see the others added over the two below. Leon Trionfante (1716) The Leon Trionfante is a ship I have discussed before, the main reason I like her is she has such a long history as a ship, serving her users well for over 100 years and taking part in multiple conflicts, as the ship is more of a bonus choice I wont go into huge detail of why I would like to see her, if you wish to read more please visit her own thread. I also like her because she offers a smaller alternative to a 3rd rate, being armed with 70 guns. Or "1780"/La Harpe The 1780 is the other of my bonus choices, my less favourite over the Leon Trionfante, mostly due to her relatively short history. I just like her design really, she would, like Leon Trionfante be a nice offering to give as another compact 3rd rate, but unlike Leon Trionfante was capable of being armed with 74 guns, which again gives a nice little option to take over the current crop we have of the 3rd and the Bellona. Links to more information: Thank you for reading I hope you can find some time to support this proposed pack
  8. These guys are pushing a great basic development model. It would be nice to apply a few of their ideas to Naval Action Edit:(thanks pancake) It looks like its going to be a good game but lets not turn this into an advertisement for the game, please PM me if you have specific questions about it Lets keep this more about the development model they are using and ideas they have put out that we could apply to Naval Action. If you would like to talk about CoE, here is a link to a CoE discussion thread This thread should stay relevant to suggesting ways we can use some of this stuff in Naval Action
  9. In light of all the exploitation that apparently has been going on for months, and the fallout from fine woods long, long ago driving inflation to outrageous heights I propose that it's time for a full asset wipe. We need this to better test the economy, better level the playing field between pre- and post- fine woods players, and give another shot at understanding how current player production intersects with crafting, trading, etc. After the dev's fix the duplication bug, I'd propose to do the wipe. It doesn't need to be accompanied by a map wipe, I don't think anyone wants that in the near-term. But assets are out of control and exacerbated by what appears to be a long-term exploitation of critical, economy shattering bugs. It's time.
  10. Dear US Leadership, It is clear and evident that our show of good faith towards the Danes was an ill-gotten venture, we are now under siege on three fronts (Nth Carolina [Danes], Costa Del Fuego [Spain] and Abaco [Swedes] (Soon to be Andros [Danes] ) ). I fear that in the face of overwhelming odds that we may be forced to abandon one of our holdings, I implore the US leadership not to allow this to be the Bahamas. We may lose Costa Del Fuego or North Carolina and the repercussions of which will be felt through our player base, However consider the Bahamas (rookie zone). Many players, myself included have "production lines" set up in the Abaco region which we use to supply our brethren and which we are allowed to do so relatively unmolested because of our unmatched dominance in the area. The Bahamas Area also allows our shipbuilders to build ships of "Pirate Refit" (Abaco) and "Regional Thickness" (Andros), tools our nation uses to give us a slight edge in combat. My fear is in the coming days that the threat imposed on our Nation (US East Coast) will be perceived to be of higher import then that of the "lesser" Bahama colonies. I implore our leadership, consider all options. If/When the US East Coast falls (as it has done before) where will our nation withdraw? into freeports to succory around like rats in our own backyard? or to the relative safety of our shore-footed resource filled position in the Bahamas?? Kind Regards, [Commodore] Saintjacktar Tattered Flags Australian Flotilla United States
  11. I think it's a pain in the ass, that you are not allowed to make brigades smaller to free up recruits or weapons for the armory. I guess it's a design decision, because you would have to implement an experience system for the free recruits. But right now I'm sometimes forced to reload an entire savegame, when I make a bad decision in the army management screen, erasing all other changes I made until then, which can be quite frustrating, when managing bigger armies. My suggestions: Just make all recruits, that are freed up by downsizing brigades, lose their experience. It's a bit harsh and you would like to keep those situations to a minimum, at least when managing experienced brigades, but at least you could toy around with the numbers of new brigades, that you may or may not want to raise. Or give it a global "Apply" button, making you able to queue up multiple changes in brigades at once, again making you able to toy around with the numbers a bit. I'm surely a bit on the OCD-side of live, wanting to have evenly distributed even numbers of soldiers in my brigades, but for me the system currently in place is suboptimal and I cannot be the only one feeling like this.
  12. My Fellow Sailors: A few ideas i have thought about, and talked about on global, have finally been written down. A few of these have been brewing for awhile, and a few came up while writing. Im sure most of these have been talked about, and may be in the forums. No, i didn't search the forum for these topics. No, i don't really care if there are other threads covering these. These are my thought, basically as they came to me, either through reading notes or remembering conversations. Lets help the devs bring out the potential of Naval Action. ------------------------ Fire Barrels ------------------------------------------------------- Ships with horrible turning can be destroyed by smaller ships. A surprise can stern camp a santi and take it down without too much trouble(Just tons of time). Trading ships also have a habit of being ganked, chained, and capped. To offset these annoyances, i propose fire/exploding barrels. The intention would be to deter or slow down a following ship. It would be a barrel dropped off the stern of the ship, with a timer set by the player(slider?), and it explodes and causes a large flame. The barrel wouldn't be meant to destroy the ship, just cause minor damage. It could potentially catch sails on fire, and cause some sort of crew or rigging shock. If the barrel exploded towards the rear of the ship, it could cause rudder damage. The timer would have a time to detonation range of 3-30 seconds, so it has the ability to damage pursuers that are further away, as well as close up. The timer would need to have a variable on the actual set time (due to a fuse having to be measured and cut in battle) between a flat 15-25% time variation. The other option would be 10% on the "too short" side and 25% on the "too long" side. This allows for the chance it can prematurely explode and damage the ship of the person dropping the barrel. Each ship shouldn't have more than 3-5 barrels, scaled to the rate of the ship. 4th-5th rates have 1 or 2 barrels, 3rd rates 3, 2nd rates 4, 1st rates 5. If a ship is carrying barrels, no less than 2 should be carried in case one doesn't explode. Rates lower than 5th shouldn't need them due to shallow hulls/lack of player use. The barrels could be an upgrade option (non permanent since its only barrels) with each "tier" allowing more barrels than the last (Basic -> Exceptional). Also, a prep time should be included, with the option to drop the barrel early. Dropping the barrel early would increase the "error" range of the fuse, up to 15% greater than a fully prepped barrel. This also opens up the option for a skill, such as decreasing fuse error or lowering the prep time. The purpose of the barrels wouldn't be to act as a main weapon, but as a last resort for defense. ------------------------ Officer Skills ------------------------------------------------------- Officer skills allow us to make our sailing styles a little more unique. Sadly, the skills don't vary enough to keep anyone guessing how an enemy ship will handle in battle. I propose keeping the officer skills, but also adding Captain Skills. Your officer gets 1 "skill" point per rank, with a max of 10 points. The diversity of skill choices to ship choices isn't that great. Captain skills could be implemented to switch that up a bit, make people guess a little more. Captain skills would be attached to the players avatar, not their officer, and would gain a few points at certain rank milestones. The captains skills could include things like cannon trials(reload speed, dispersion,etc...), rigging specialist (Sail rising and yard turn speed, lower damage to sails), shipwright (adds extra bonuses to ships beyond what the regular player makes, use less LH or supplies), boarding training (similar to marines, but for the crew), wind master (adds slight speed bonus to ship), entrepreneur ( better prices in port shops, lower costs for contracts), hull tech (better/faster repairs while at sea or in battle,High enough level allows 2 repairs in battle), shipboard defense (better defense against boarders, defensive only), leadership (adds more overall crew to the crew pool, not to the ship itself). The milestones could be set points between each rank. Each rank could have 2 milestones( current level -> milestone I -> milestone II -> next level), with each milestone giving a certain amount of skill points. Rank 1(Thief) starts with 3 points, milestone I gives 2 points, milestone II gives 1 point, rank 2 (Rascal) gives 3 point, milestone I gives 2 points, milestone II gives 1 point, etc . . . up to rank 10 (Curse) which will give 3 points, but no milestones since it is the highest rank. Having a system like this will make grinding feel more rewarding, while making each player more unique. The skills could be categorized by sailing, crafting, and trading. Having the option to choose a captain skill, without the risk of losing them, would make players feel more connected to the game community. It would also allow specialization of each player, such as a player being a dedicated ship builder, but not having the same sea prowess as a dedicated fighter. This wouldnt negate the "perks" (no longer skills) one would get from their officer. The officer perks would allow everyone to have a baseline set of attributes so they could still do a little of everything. ------------------------ Port Shop ------------------------------------------------------- The port shop needs a little streamlining. If i sell something at the bottom of a list (i.e resources), it sends me back to the top of the list. While it is only a minor inconvenience, that little bit of time adds up to a lot of frustration when trying to sell quickly. The slider when buying/selling is also a pain to use. Using a +1,+5,+10 next to the slider would be helpful. When buying cannons the shop only allows 1 purchase at a time. I think the maximum should be raised to at least 5 when buying. If i want to use the same cannon for bow/stern chasers and broadside, i would like to be able to buy them all at once. With the lag in the system, that can also become frustrating. ------------------------ Warehouse ------------------------------------------------------- The warehouse can become extremely cluttered, and difficult to find something. I know there is an option to show certain types of items, but being able to create my own tabs would be beneficial. Tabs such as "ship build", "future upgrades", or "trade-able goods" would make playing a little less cumbersome. An option to "Show items in shop" would also be appreciated, so i can choose to not see the items in the shop and accidentally sell them. ------------------------ Ship Docks ------------------------------------------------------- Currently we can only have 5 ships docked at a port. I think the maximum should be raised (8-12) through gold purchases. To keep it a little less cluttered, a building (private dockyard) could be built, and each upgrade increase the maximum ships allowed in the port. ------------------------ Clans ------------------------------------------------------- Clan ranks are a big miss when it comes to forming a community . The current system of owner/officer/member seems a bit shallow for a group of people playing together. The ability to have more "ranks" in a clan would give people a view-able goal to strive for, and to show their value to that clan. It can also be set up to allow clan members to be easily recognized of their role (crafter, trader, raider OR Leader,1st mate, 2nd mate, senior crewman, junior crewman, recruit). Having the ability to transport goods from ANY city to the clan warehouse would be nice, or showing on the clan page where the warehouse is located. I appreciate everyone who took the time to read through, and all comments will be appreciated, and discussion is encouraged. Great games are not made. Great games are shaped. Shaped by the ideas of players, and the following discussions. Naval Action has a ton of potential, and i would like to see it become one of the greats. Fair winds and following seas --- Wonderbread O7 Please excuse my lack of observation, I did my best to make sure there are as few grammatical errors as possible.
  13. I'd like to propose a change that would influence the effectiveness of grape. I currently like the effectiveness of grape chewing up crew, however, as of right now the meta has evolved such that any battle against lower class ships is an instant grape fest. Most devolve to broadside vs. broadside graping, that drag on for 1.5 hours with 30-50 crew left on even ships like the heavy rattler. By this point both ships have very little armor damage, until there are so few crew left that reloads are bordering on the ridiculous. This is due to the effectiveness of lobbing grape onto the deck, and even below the partially covered gun decks, especially from downwind. In the early stages of battles I think this mechanic is great, it feels "real" and provides that butt pucker moment as you're coming to broadsides when you realize the other ship is loaded and you're not. Knowing this, and what a huge disadvantage you'll be at in crew shock, and how decisive that will be for the rest of the battle it can be very stressful. Right now, this is pretty much the only mechanic that is being employed. And as of now, where smaller ships are so much more maneuverable that the loss of rudder control is devastating, bracing is not effective because the delay and recovery is just too long, it just seems unrealistic to use. I was wondering if it might make sense to use the mechanics we have out our disposal to create some more dynamics in the meta by shortening the brace prep and recovery for smaller ships, where you might imagine that the orders to brace and recover could be relayed much more quickly. Basically I'm just proposing scaling the brace prep, length, and recovery time by ship class. This would provide a dynamic where a broadside to broadside interaction wouldn't necessarily result in crew shock, which it almost always does at the moment among half-decent players, and provide interesting opportunities for a diversity of strategies (longs vs. carros, close vs. far engagements, do you choose to chop sails or rush in and use your brace in the first pass hoping that the second you can maintain firing angles and your grape will find un-braced crew after their shot, at the expense of reload/DPS, etc.). Thoughts?
  14. The last poll about durability on ships was in April and within the context of the system we had then and the content available the majority of voters thought the current, multi-durability system made sense. But what we've found out is that crafting is shallow, the balance between trading, crafting, PvE, and PvP-orientedness does not support multiple play-styles, and we have quickly arrived at rock-bottom player populations with all wolves, no sheep content, and therefore no sheep dog content. This has created the current situation where we are papering over the cracks with arena-style, leaderboard-led PvP-generating mechanisms to try to keep the remaining player-base from all out mutiny. I propose a system that has the potential to create more opportunities for players at all ranks, and all crafting proclivities to participate in the economy and provide content for the wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs of the open sea. This proposal includes: Reducing all ships to one durability Make all mod slots permanent, and not removable Make all mods craftable Make mods captureable along with the ship Attach a ships log (ownership, kill count, sailing distance is attached to each ship) My reasoning includes: Together with regional build bonuses, this would create a huge diversity in build strategies for different ships. The builds for different ships would persist across capture. Losing a ship and its mods would be meaningful, but would encourage crafters to be making new ships, and trying new build strategies all the time. New players could cap AI ships with a diversity of different builds (leaving AI ships to have fewer mod slots and lower quality of installed mods, but with open slots for new players to customize with their own mods as they level up). It would encourage capturing instead of sinking of ships. It would also make copper, silver, and gold the valuable trade items they should be. There would be no need for "fine" woods, because the value of your ship would likely be attached to the mods and mod slots available. Level 50 crafters would again have something to do besides making gold mods for themselves. Together, this constitutes increased "loot" and encourages people to get back out on the open sea instead of settling for arena-style combat. Captured ships with provenance, along with an implementation of increased drops of low level (green/blue, etc.) mods from ship sinkings would encourage open world PvE and PvP, which would hopefully lead to more content for all, wolves, sheep, and sheep-dogs alike. What say ye?
  15. People are talking about adding "warp" when ships are distant from one another, but this seems unnatural. While on the one hand, faster open world speed appeals to me when there's nothing happening, I also see players using alts to exploit this, or groups of ships suffering slow speed compared to individuals. Basically, inconsistent open-world speed struck me as arcade-like and exploitable. However, what if it were consistent to all players, remained "immersive", was able to be planned around, and based entirely on the open world geography? What if it were just stronger winds when further from shore. This fixes everything. The boring part of sailing is when you're away from the coast, unable to see anyone or anything, and making some long cruise across the big, watery expanse of the Gulf of Mexico on on a compass bearing. It makes sense that you'd want open world travel to be fast out there. But when you're close to the coast, passing AI ships, encountering players, we don't mind the slow pace of OW sailing because there's a high probability we need to pay attention, and scenery to look at besides. As players in the OW move further from shore, the "wind speed", and so the open world top speed, increases gradually to a maximum of 50-100%. Precisely how far from shore the effect starts and peaks is a matter to fine tune, but ideally a slow increase that feels natural can be found. Top speed should be attained before being so far from coast that you cannot select passing ships, while a fairly wide "slow lane" is next to the coast of normal wind speed. Most ships will enjoy top speeds of 30 or 40 knots, which effectively cuts a long travel time in half. Everyone around you has the same increase in speed, so groups remain together, and intercepting enemy players on the open world won't cut them down to "normal" speed. Rather, you'll both have the same increase to your speed. Since most engagements are "merge and tag", it shouldn't make tagging much different, although the tagging itself might be a little hectic. The large circles certainly help. This also creates interesting PvP dynamics and risk-reward decisions. I'll use a flight sim analogy. Altitude is a major component in flight sims, because an airplane in lower altitudes is in thick air, but an airplane at high altitude is in thin air. A plane in thin air goes faster (gross simplification). It follows that being at high altitude gives you an advantage because you can position yourself against the enemy before diving to attack. However a plane at low altitude has certain advantages as well. A high altitude plane is easy to detect, while a low altitude plane is much harder to pick out, and in friendly territory there are ground-based air defenses. Consider a pirate frigate. Does he want slow speed next to the coast, or high speed far from coast? Consider the merchant. Does he want slow speed next to the coast, or high speed far from AI fleets, coastal guns, and friends who might scramble out of port? An attacker farther from coast enjoys a speed advantage over a defender close to shore, however he is easy to spot. He can position himself ahead of a target he sees along the coast, then move in to attack. The defender, meanwhile, can see the attacker because he's sitting in open water. He's harder to spot, somewhat. He can move himself closer to shore batteries while the attacker is moving in from off shore. Also consider the PvP fleet. It wants high speed winds to allow it to move against enemy ships it spots. Enemy ships scrambled from port moving to attack the ships off shore have to struggle with slower wind at the start of their attack, letting the PVP fleet evade a superior enemy. However, a defensive fleet already off coast enjoys high speed, and can attack invaders that go closer to shore and into slower wind. Does the merchant stick close to shore, where coastal batteries can defend him, or does he go for deep water and high speeds for convenience and the ability to outrun other ships? Being far from shore gives you an advantage in your ability to maneuver, but sacrifices the protection of ports, AI fleets and coastal guns. Certain terrain features also become interesting. Choke points and gaps between islands will become effectively narrower, since someone sailing from Jamaica to Bermuda wants to keep to the fast winds, which means they'll go for the middle of the Cuba-Hispaniola straight, and interceptors waiting in the central deep water will be able to attack them. However, ships attempting to sneak along the coast, if spotted, can be attacked from the same speed advantage of deep water. Players in general will be less inclined to "camp" the coast in certain areas since it reduces their maximum speed. Players in general will prefer deep water, I think, and we'll see more and faster travel over long expanses of ocean. Note wind speed in battle will not change, and speed increases will respect the ship's performance at all times.
  16. Several people I have talked to really do enjoy the regional bonuses, however not the pain it takes to sail there, set up a port, build the ship, then tear everything down to do it again for different bonuses. Perhaps we could get one to two more outpost slots in order to help that for regions people consistently build in. This would also allow for people to acquire fine resources and regular resources at a bit higher rate as they could set up farms that obviously have a chance to produce said resources in more locations.
  17. I believe that the biggest balance issue, and part of the reason for the gank fleets, if not the whole reason, is simply player numbers in said nation, and or pirate "nation." To balance this issue i would suggest some sort of player limiting factor per nation that could be implemented by percentile. Depending on others opinions on how that percentile could work every nation should have a +- 0-5% of an even percent of the total players on the server that have logged on in the past X amount of time, allowing for an active nation. OR it could be a somewhat uneven balance more historical to the nations historical presence in the area, i.e. spain with a bunch of population followed by britian, america, dutch, swedes/danes, and pirates. This would limit the pirates, and make them also behave like pirates more than what they do now. However this is a game and that might not be very popular, or it could be very popular. Opinions, more implementation ideas, etc. all welcome.
  18. Since the beginning we had a lot of battle engangement changes, some good, some bad. We had 2 minutes timer, we had Sociable perk 30 minutes timer, we have now new system giving us battles closed instantly. Many players complained or loved some of these systems, but I don't know a player, that would absolutely support current battlescreen mechanic. I gathered many opinions and ideas and decided to come up with my own based on the feedback. Let me first present the bad side of current system. 1. Camping in Battlescreen. This is how players prepare ambush, I've seen it done multiple times by Spanish, Pirates, French and I guess players in all nations use it too. Very simple, there is one bait player outside or one "spotter" in distance and everyone else waits in battlescreen for target. Once the target nearby, they jump out. Easy exploit. 2. Logging out in front of enemy port before Port Battle. Some people support it, some not. Personally I do not like it, I didn't like flag system either to be honest. (No solution suggested here for this as it stays controversial) 3. One player leaving battlescreen first, to let everyone know if it's safe outside. Sometimes they leave 1 by 1, then teleport. Enemy do not engage single ships as it would save everyone else (dragging friendly ships into battle for 3 minutes, especially since dragging circle is damn huge). Very annoying when you finally find enemy fleet increasing hostility and they camp battlescreen. 4. Revenge fleets. Gankers hate them, personally I like ganking myself and I never hated revenge fleets. I met some at La Habana like 15-20 Spanish ships waiting for me. Ganking is not for babies, ganking should be hard and tough, risky as well. Why would Game Developers make ganking easy? Maybe because some gankers tend to cry to Devs that ganking is hard and bad-boy revenge fleets destroy them If you are one of these gankers crying that ganking is hard, you better try PvE Server. Ganking must be hard and risky, otherwise go play with bots. Back to topic, if few pirates attack friendly ship in front of Capital, then they are safely sitting in Battlescreen until it's safe... Having 20-30 Revenge Ships outside... Then this game turns into "NAVAL WAITING", not Naval Action. One side wants revenge, because their friend got killed in battle 1 vs 5 or so and when they finally get the Pirates out of battlescreen after 2 hours that did not expected revenge fleet being still waiting... Some gankers start to cry about unfair battle 5 vs 30 and some zerg talking. _____________________ My Suggestion: 1. Logging out in battlescreen is important feature and there should be also official button, instead of using Alt+F4 or killing game proccess or whatever else players tend to do. But it should be limited! For example player can logout once every 6-12 hours (needsconsideration what's the sweet spot). It's understandable that 1 battle can take 1,5 hour and after that player must leave game. But on the other side, it cannot be overused as advantage all the time, few times during one day. Official button + cooldown time for another use of it. 2. Battlescreen kick - Players get 5 minutes to manage ships, take cargo and after 5 minutes if they do not logout, they get kicked from battlescreen. Also make Battlescreen in form of Lobby, players can leave battlescreen before 5 minutes kick, if everyone in battlescreen lobby clicks "Ready" button, just like in groups when trying to join Small / Large Battle. Everyone in group must click ready and then players can join. This will prevent leaving 1 by 1 and trying to escape seperately. 3. As far as I know, you cannot enter battles for 2 minutes after logging in and leaving port... This is kinda outdated since the 2 minutes timer for battles is no longer in use. But it's weird that you can start tagging (attacking) enemies after 20 seconds! Make it so after logging into the game, player cannot attack enemies for 2 minutes as well. That will prevent "Battlescreen ambushes" ____________________________ The result of implementing my suggestions? Game will be no more so called "Naval Waiting" instead of Action. This is the most important thing that must be changed now. All game mechanics, events are exploited with Battlescreen! Deadman's Chest Event? I captured French Indiaman with Deadman's Chest and waited for 1 hour in battlescreen to come out. Port Battles? Logout in battlescreen before PB in front of enemy port. Ganking? Wait in battlescreen untill it's safe outside. Hostility Generation? Enemy fleet camping battlescreen as well. Changing Battlescreen Mechanics should be priority for Devs in prior to fixing all game aspects. Tons of players quit the game because of waiting and battlescreen mechanics. Tons of players are angry about it. Do not support pro-ganking changes because few gankers that want it to be super easy cry while you have hundreds of "ganked" players by use of exploits. ___________________________ Apparently as a person that do not like ganking being easy I hate having tons of towers and forts all arround the place, like a damn Maginot Line. There should be some, but not that many. Battlescreen mechanic is way more important. Make Naval Action great again o7
  19. This suggestion comes out of an exchange in the last patch notes regarding how to increase the amount of PvP in the game while reducing the amount of time required and flexibility for different play styles. What if there was an option to jump into a battle instance and take over an existing AI? This might occur when you encounter an existing, closed battle instance in the open world, and it would remove your ship from the open world allowing you to take over an AI ship in that battle instance in whatever condition it currently is in. Or perhaps even allow this from port. But for those fighting vs AI, on terms you've chosen, you might quickly find that the fleet battle you've picked is now filled players from the opposing faction instead of mindless AI. If Quick Battle joining were allowed from port it could be quite interesting. If you were grouped up, you might join together into a battles as a group (e.g. if someone starts a fleet mission or sucks enough AI fleet ships to a battle instance you could each take a ship). Overall it could create massive opportunities for "instant" PvP. I would propose you could only join a battle in which your faction had AI (fitting the current RvR), one time you might be in a Santi (rank permitting) and the next time you might find yourself in a pickle. It would satisfy people who might only have a short window of time to play. It might reduce the PvE grind and greatly increase the variety of encounters out there. This would combine nicely with the current RvR and RoE mechanisms since any open hostility mission that someone takes, either on offense or defense could instantly become PvP without the needless sailing around searching for battles. It could satisfy both hardcore, OW sailors who like to take their preferred, custom ships out. And it would satisfy those players who just have time for a quick battle, who don't have a ship in mind and are looking for action and to support their nation's war efforts? Also fitting the RvR strategy, if you're jumping into outgunned fights then your primary responsibility is to run, reducing the likelihood of hostility to rise, etc. instead of the AI hopelessly outmatched fighting to the death. I'd also love the opportunity to test out different, random ship builds in these encounters. And of course any ships or loot you capture you could sail away or teleport back to port providing new opportunities for xp and gold gain, especially for new players, without the time sink or risk of losing their own, "valuable" pixel ships.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. So, this is a simple suggestion/discussion and I'm sure most of you will just read the titles, and that's fine. I would like to see at the next wipe (ports/money/ships) that we merge the servers back together. The major influx of population from the release has no calmed down as most of us were predicting, and if we want to keep playing with a decent number of players we need to go back to a single server. I don't see any major downside to this, I personally didn't like the idea of splitting the server between regions to begin with, and most of you had agreed with that. So please use this thread to discuss and vote on whether or not we should merge the servers back together the next time there is a wipe, that way nobody will lose anything. I'm keeping the poll stupid, simple, and to the point to get the best gauge of what the player base feels like.
  23. While on another stiffness streak again (7 ships until now...), i thought about improving the current system with as little effort as possible. Its just sad to see all the stiffness rotting in the shops sometimes at prices, not even covering the notes. Ill keep it as short as possible: Current situation speed and stiffness imbalanced (essential trim vs situational trim) no disadvantage for speed in terms of stats useless wood/trim combinations like teak/stiffness (liveoak/speed faster and stronger) rigging quality useless (leightweight ropes and blocks does the same) build strenght/planking used for every combat ship one optimal, RNG based build for every ship (no diversity, no decisionmaking) non optimal build = rotting liveoak not balanced (value of stats too high) Possible solution changing rigging quality with speed -> speed as a main trim adjusting liveoak to -5% speed Results RNG between yard turn speed and lesser heel (seems balanced) same principle for the main trim as for fir, liveoak, extra planking and speedtrim: ​​either slow and tanky, or fast and weak players have to decide between survivability and speed for combat ships players have to decide between crewspace and speed for boarding ships lesser useless wood/trim combinations. For example liveoak/speed would provide +3cm armour, teak/strenght +1.4% speed instead (liveoak balanced) no useless trims anymore difference between same ships trimmed for different purposes and playstyles becomes much clearer no speed on tanky PB ships anymore greater variety of ship builds different demand for different trims less frustrated crafters Of course as an alternative you could just exchange stiffness with something better like reload time, or manouverability, but this wont result in more decisions to make. Fir without speed would always be bad. As long as such important boni are based on RNG, there will always be ships you have to throw away. Thanks for reading!
  24. Good Morning Lads, late that night I was thinking about crew and officers and there status in the current build. Crew is, at the moment, a moneysink and not more. You loose crew, restock them with no drawback than loosing money. You can have a crew that is 100% skilled for boarding (thanks to upgrades), and with a few cliks you have a decent gunnery ship with no boarding teams at all. I am not a fan of this right now. Lets think about what "Crew" can be: Crew gets XP like the Officers and you can give Percs to them, like to your Officer. If you restock crew with newbies, you loose an according ammount of XP and maybe Percs. Respec your Crew should be possible for a decent fee (This could be used as a moneysink) Another suggestion is that the crew will get "Perks" by using things. If you fire your cannons you will get perks bound to gunnery. If you are making turns you crew gests better in sailing, and so on... Maybe in addition with the officer Percs, we all can get rid of nonpermanent upgrades. At least, formidable percs for officers will be for crew training not for faster reload, like: Friend of lashing - crew looses 10% less xp if crew members are restocked with newbies. Drill sergeant - crew gets 5% more XP and so on... Atleast... lower costs, or make them free of carge (in gold) for new crew (newbies) , make it possible to hire expirienced crew for a higher fee (no xp loss). Just my thoughts... Regards Jack Tar Karotte
  25. Although this may sound a bit far fetched, it is a possible solution to the current pirate mechanic drama. Pirates should not be able to attack ports on mainland & large islands as these depots would be highly manned & easily re-enforced. Pirates should be free to attack any ship or small island as this was a common practice of piracy. When a pirate is captured or sunk, his account is sunk with it in a similar fashion to changing factions. XP & crafting levels would remain the same but ships & booty would be lost or possibly by using a clan warehouse could protect some assets but would still have to create a new account. A pirate's mandate is to get as much as you can any way you can with the penalty of death or imprisonment so this in effect would give a death penalty to a pirate commensurate with the law of the day. This would make the pirate mechanic a more skill based game as the threat of " death " would be a constant. I believe this would lessen the appeal of piracy while maintaining the hardcore pirates existence. Just a thought - cannons at ease ....