Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Age of Steel historical discussions
    • General discussions
    • Blohm+Voss
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Warehouses and Docks's Topics
  • Clan [ppp] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar
  • Warehouses and Docks's Events

Found 58 results

  1. Player Bounties, suggested several times elsewhere on forum. Dont think i need to elaborate on this one, pretty strait forward. Bounty Missions: This is AI bounties. A player select missions and then bounty mission. Assignment says something along the lines: "Target X is wanted dead or alive for blablabla. Last known location of target is in the Z region" plus other hints and leads. Could be more leads to other places once the player arrives at the location, or friends of the target is at the first location and attacks the player. Many things that could be added to this AI bounty missions.
  2. Super-Speed is supposed to be against escaping from a PvP battle and getting a chance against revenge fleets. It should not be a sure-fire way to get a defensive tag off NPC ships which is how it is used right now. NPC battles should also be joinable positionally - to avoid Defensive tags on NPC's altogether. * Edit: *This means that if you tag an NPC fleet from max range to prevent me from catching you, I should be able to spawn within shooting distance anyway. This jumping from one NPC fleet to another to escape is an exploit.
  3. Rework of Economy

    This thread is to discuss my suggestion to get one of the core game mechanics fixed for those interested in other parts of the game outside of combat. This will provide alternative options of gameplay and to supplement non-trade/crafting orientated gameplay (Missions, PvP, PvE, Conquest, Exploring). The biggest issue with the economy revolves around supply/demand supplemented by a player run economy model and low population numbers. To address this we need to break down the economy into the different parts and address each part and how it ties together. First I will cover off on common terms used throughout, then I will identify the key areas with suggestions to fix each if needed, and finally I will provide a conclusion. Terms Common terms used: Store inventory - The quantity available within the shop of a port Raw resources - Goods produced through 'harvesting' in the craft menu - i.e: Logs, Ore, Hemp, etc. Manufactured materials - Parts made from raw resources and other manufactured materials but are not usable themselves - i.e: Frame Parts, Planking, Rigging Parts, etc. Manufactured goods - Finished products usable as consumables, upgrades, and cannons - i.e: Hull Patches, Turning Trim, 6pd Medium Cannons, etc. Trade goods - All the products not usable in crafting but consumables for ports - i.e: Sussex Oak, Fine Leathers, Parisian Furniture, etc. Goods - Encompasses all the previously mentioned goods - Trade goods, Raw resources, Manufactured materials, and Manufactured goods Currently in game: Supply The supply of goods can come in three different forms: Acquisition Appears in the shop for sale Acquisition is a static figure with a % chance of occurring to add stock to a port. Production Produced by players Production is goods produced through raw resource harvesting buildings Trade Populates the port inventory through the sale of goods to the store Trade occurs when players sell goods to a store or when NPC trade ships arrive at a port (unconfirmed the effect). Consumption The consumption of goods in a port are static transactions that reduce the port stock by a set amount every hour. Biggest Issues: Population Player numbers are FAR too low to support the existing model! Acquisition Quantity of acquired goods are purely added by a static figure that does not adjust based on nation population/activity Acquired goods are mostly only shippable from region capital to region capital, other ports are not interested in the goods Production Raw resources produced by players are more expensive than NPC port prices, it is actually more affordable to source from NPC shop inventory then from player contracts Some goods are ignored by players and therefore create massive shortages when NPC shops are not populating regularly as an alternative No profit in shipping goods from raw resource ports to the manufacturing hubs Some raw resources are not available through production Trade Goods moved from an acquiring port to a consumption port are being consumed at a static rate similar to acquisition of goods, there is no adjustment for player population/activity to increase/decrease in proportion Dock space Limited to a small number of slots globally Limited in number of upgrades available Upgrade costs to increase number of slots are astronomically high Building Slots Global limit of 5 buildings Upgrading buildings is costly for minimal gains Production ports Minimal variations of raw resources of ports in proximity to one another meaning ports further from a hub will rarely see any activity Proposed changes: Ports Dock space: Needs to be port dependant, not global. Each player with an outpost in a port should be granted 1 slot in a production port or 3 slots in a regional capital. A player will then need to purchase the upgrades currently available at the current prices to increase their slots available that is applied globally (to make it easy to store a players data). The UI also needs to indicate slots currently used vs total available so a player can visually see how many they have total in a port, currently there is nothing. Outposts should remain the current model of purchasing additional spots however, the increasing pricing without a hard limit needs to be slightly more reasonable. Building slots: (I will cover buildings in more detail later) Limits need to be port specific, not global. In a raw resource port the limit should be 3 and regional capitals 5. 'Upgrading' of buildings needs to change. Buildings Speaking of buildings, it needs a different approach: When you purchase an 'upgrade' to an existing building it should use up an additional slot within that port - A capital cannot have a level 3 shipyard, a workshop, AND a level 3 oak lumber camp. Raw goods ports will require more careful planning, one should choose to either a single level 3 resource building OR 3 separate level 1 resource harvesting buildings if multiple resources are available within a port. This means that for someone to have level three harvesting buildings across multiple ports it will quickly become time consuming and more investment capital required in outpost permits. This will limit massive conglomerates but reward the hard working and smart investors while remaining viable for players entering the resource or manufacturing market. Workshops should be upgradable - Level 1 to class 6, level 2 to class 3, level 3 all cannons/carronades. Again, this will force players into considering investing in a level 3 shipyard OR level 3 workshop unless they invest in another regional capital and split their manufacturing across multiple hubs. Port Population There currently is no difference between major hubs and smaller ports while consumption/acquisition is static. This needs to change to provide the dynamic and evolving world for players to interact with. I am proposing that population be based on two key figures - Production activity and Trade activity. Production Activity As players construct outposts and production/manufacturing buildings within a port, it will 'grow' the population figure of the port with better figures from 'active' ports (players harvesting resources) Port population increases the 'consumption' figures to reflect more people settling in the port for work at the production buildings. Trade Activity Key component as a flourishing port where raw goods are purchased from NPC producers which in turn promotes increasing NPC stock availability of that good to be supplied to the port store at a price above player production costs but not cost prohibitive to purchase nor restrict player profits in port either (~50% markup?) Sale of consumption goods to port encourages the growth through supplying the needs of a port. At any point that players demolish their buildings and outposts or when consumption goods go unfulfilled for long periods then the population would decrease. The supply of goods should remain with the three primary methods mentioned earlier however to address shortages and supply: Acquisition Expensive Trade goods should be exclusive to regions, not necessarily nation but will promote smuggling activity when another nation in a far port has a valuable trade good where massive profits could be made. Lower cost nation specific trade goods appear in all regional capitals and are in demand in all non-capital ports based on population. Raw resources specific to ports can be treated as 'acquired' as an interim measure to replicate NPC producers. Needs to scale based on port activity as mentioned above in trade activity Manufactured materials should appear in small dynamic quantities to replicate NPC crafters, needs to be expensive (2-3x player crafting) to provide space for player sellers without blowing the market out of proportion. Production As per buildings section above, players will be the primary producers of goods Raw resources in the shop will be populated under the acquisition section until NPC producers could be implemented in a better form. Trade Ports need to have far more consumption items including commonsense items such as whole fish, fish meat, and food supplies. Ports need to have consumption of all trade goods with better prices the further they are away from regional capitals or when they are becoming larger/wealthier from player activity/trade. Goods Pricing This has been partially covered previously but prices are currently very confusing. There is no commonsense approach to this, when production cost for Oak Logs currently is 73 gold and I can purchase them for 42 from an NPC shop, it defies logic. This is where prices need to be adjusted and as developers you can influence the economy to ensure it doesn't stagnate while promoting shipment of goods. Raw resources Purchase prices at raw resources ports should be low but not lower than production costs with a little margin thrown in (50% markup?) Purchase prices at manufacturing hubs should be punishing but not insane (~300% markup from craft cost?) Sale prices of raw resources in production ports should punish stuipidity (half production cost) Sale prices of raw resources in manufacturing hubs should be profitable enough to encourage movement of goods to restock but not out do player purchase orders (50% markup?) Manufacturing materials Purchase prices for manufacturing materials in hubs should be expensive but not entirely cost prohibitive for basic ship/upgrade construction (2-3x crafting cost) (Oak frames but not Teak frame, etc) Sale prices of manufacturing materials in hubs should be above the cost of materials if harvested and crafted to offer the option to supply the port when no one else is interested Sale/Purchase prices of manufactured materials at raw resource ports should be very low to encourage moving goods from non-hub ports where a player has chosen to manufacture Manufactured goods Sale prices on finished products should be above crafting costs as a last resort but not enough to exploit Purchase prices should be punishing but not insane (~500% markup from craft cost?) Trade goods All lower priced goods should be low buy prices in region capitals and high sell prices in resource ports linking in with population All high end trade goods should be regionally priced, moving goods from one regional capital to another should be good but not insane profit with modest profits if sold to resource ports within a region, again feeding the population/consumption. Ship Production I haven't found any major flaws to the current crafting system, it's been mostly the economy that has been the flaw that is breaking the ship building industry. The one change that needs to happen is that player crafted ships NEED to have at least 2 or 3 durability to actually ENCOURAGE purchasing player ships over NPC ships. The PvP servers are dying for a few more durability or ships while the PvE server is flooded with overpriced capped ships with no effort to craft better. Secondly, selling/breaking up ships. What is the go here? You want players to craft ships to increase craft rank, ok. But what do they do with the unwanted masses they need to make in order to progress? Selling them at 3% of the production cost to the NPC store is cost prohibitive. Swamping the market with cheap boats destroys the 'player led' model economy. And breaking up ships for a meger few pieces of scrap is an insult. What needs to happen is breaking up a ship should yield between 25-50% of the craft materials. NPC sale prices need to be at a minimum a slight profit from the cost of crafting the ship (~20%) to encourage people to pursue ship crafting. *edit: Admiralty Store One thing I didn't mention is the admiralty store, everything that is available that is not merely aesthetics SHOULD be purchasable with gold. This prevents pricing small clans/solo traders out of business and also prevents the current turn towards a P2W style. As it stands to obtain the correct marks one must either play PvE server or participate in the majority of PBs to earn enough to provide ships for the players focused on PBs and PvP. It just doesn't make sense to force the people who choose to supply the market instead of battling with engaging in a part of the game they aren't interested in and if they never did indulge in it wouldn't make a difference to the greater scheme of it. Asking a crafter to harvest 25 conquest marks simply to produce a single SOL for other players will hugely inflate prices due to the grind cost associated with it. On the contrary asking a PvPer / PvE mission grinder to have to trade goods and craft goods as a prerequisite to sail the next ship up would infuriate the player base. This needs a serious rethink, it needs options for both sides. Combat orientated players SHOULD earn less gold but SHOULD have an avenue to BPs / Permits / Upgrades etc. the same as Crafting / Econ orientated players SHOULD be earning the most gold but also SHOULD be able to purchase everything at a premium (i.e: Victory BP for 5 mil, Permit for 200k, Crafted ships will thus sell around 1-1.5 mil on the market or less internally). /edit* Conclusion These suggestions to fix the economy are based on my experience having played many 'economy simulation' games from as early as the original Sid Myer's Pirates!, Port Royale series, PotBS, to name a few more relevant games, and many more. These suggestions are by no means to completely resolve the economy issues but at a minimum revolve around tidying up the markets, providing a 'player led' economy model while using NPCs as a way to moderate prices and prevent abuse of the markets. It will encourage players to branch out beyond the starting regions, encourage supplying the ports they use to harvest resources, provide a more dynamic and immersive economy that can bring about more player interaction in the wider regions of the map. I'm not looking to hear how PvP needs this or that, they have had their time, take that to your own suggestion threads, please keep criticism constructive. If you don't agree with me on trying to fix this mess before the game is completely abandoned then please, by all means spend half your own evening devising an alternative, I long to hear more people offering solutions to the problems.
  4. 1. Give everyone Ship Towing ability: Fleet Control Perk change: New extra feature: Ship Towing - transport multiple uncrewed ships at once (limited to tier 5, see explanation) Dock Storage change: Existing: 5+3+3 etc. Ship Slots that can accept any ship New: 5 extra slots that can accept ONLY Tier 5 Warships. Optional: Only Light Frigates and below. Their storage can be restricted to only accept repairs (to avoid affecting slot balance). Explanation: 1. Ship Towing is needed to promote OW PvP as a way to prepare for longer PvP sessions on front lines. This function of the basic Fleet Control will allow a heavy ship to tow multiple smaller ships out to an outpost. Towed ships do not show up in battle (or if they do, they can't fight back). If the towing ship gets destroyed or captured, they get lost. (both these points can be adapted) Each ship will have a new number - Tow Size. Only ships of 5th rate or lower can be towed. Example: Constitution = 6; Suprise = 2; Snow = 1; Constitution can tow 1 Constitution or 3 Surprises or 6 Snows; Surprise can tow 1 Surprise or 3 Snows; Snow can tow 1 Snow; You will be able to bring multiple ships out to a remote outpost and then use them to fight against enemies, allowing you to prepare for an evening of fighting with less sailing around. This will be risky - if you get intercepted you can lose a fortune in ships. (Whether they can be captured or just sunk or sold is a balancing question. I am uncertain). For this suggestion to truly shine, the Docks need a similar themed expansion: 2. Docks Storage will have 5 expanded slots exclusive to 5th rate or below Warships. Perhaps it can be further limited to ships of a certain Tow-size, making it available for light frigates but not the heavier ones. Perhaps that storage could be configured to accept no items except Repairs. What people didn't realize is that when we lost Ship Durability, the size of our Docks was effectively proportionally reduced - now to achieve the same # of lives we have to have 5 time the ships in most cases. This update will provide you with 5 slots exclusive for 5th rates or lighter ships to engage in OW PvP with more zeal and aggression, not fearing a prolonged down-time and rewarding people that prepare replacements. Feedback and Questions about this suggestion are welcome!
  5. Outside of combat and trading, there's a core gameplay element that seems to be missing from this game, to make it fully engaging and more sim-like. My main gripe with Naval Action is not its slow pace, nor its detailed trade system. And certainly not its tension-filled sea combat. Rather it is in the feeling of grinding for XP that this game conveys, a game design sin typical of MMORPGs. To be sure, this feeling of grinding for XP is the single biggest reason for my install/play-a-few-sessions/uninstall relationship I've had with this game over the last two years. It's also my belief that no amount of tweaking with ship speed and manoeuvrability - or ship teleportation - will solve the current XP grinding issue tied to the open world portion of the game. No, what Naval Action needs right now is a feature that adds depth to the moment-to-moment gameplay in the open world sailing part of the game. My suggestion is as follows : add an additional layer of simulation to the sea travel gameplay. Specifically, a crew management "layer" should be added on top of the auto-skipper function, so the player can micromanage crew tasks and activities while engaging in sea travel, and be reactive to changes both in weather events and aggregate crew behaviour. How I see this feature in my mind's eye : a replacement/upgrade of the current very basic ship management interface available on the top left of the screen in the open-world sailing portion of the game. Basically : while sailing on the high seas using the WASD controls and mouse for ship and camera control, the player should be able to hit the space bar (or caps lock) at any time to get a full "ship dashboard" translucent overlay superimposed onto the the main screen, for the tasks of both crew and ship management. This "ship dashboard" could be a simplified cutaway of the player's current main ship, side view or overhead view (or both). Using the mouse, the player could then click at sections of the ship cutaway and select specific tasks, from simple pop-up contextual menus appropriate for each ship section. Thus, from the overall pool of sailors, a set number of sailors could be assigned to a specific task located at the selected part of the ship. Beyond the ship cutaway, the "ship dashboard" overlay could also provide a basic sailor task assignment table - à la Banished - for crew assignment to specific tasks from the overall pool of "free" crew. Or, a visual 24h crew scheduler - à la Prison Architect - to play around with different schedules of crew rotations. Sailing modes could also be implemented into the regular scheduler, such as a "discipline mode" for an unruly crew (a "crew loyalty" metric would have to be added, of course), an "emergency mode" (full crew mobilization) in the event of storms. In terms of visuals, this system would require no animations or complex visuals. No need to do full cutaway visuals à la Silent Hunter (or the upcoming UBoot). Just a good visual implementation of real-time crew management mechanics via a visual dashboard and ship schematic. Simple metrics could do, so long as feedback to player management actions in implemented in a clear fashion. Of course, I'm also aware that the main challenge of implementing such a system lies at the level of game mechanics. For effective crew management to work at the moment-to-moment gameplay level, the design team will have to tie crew management activities to overall ship and sailing performance. So the crew management model needs to seamlessly blend in with the ship sailing mechanics. At minimum, this would mean that optimal crew management by the player would impact ship speed and manoeuverability. One could also tie a crew "morale" metric to tangible sailing performance benefits : i.e. optimal crew management - the sweet spot between discipline and meeting diverse crew needs - would result in an overall better, and more adaptive sailing experience. More experienced crew would also handle weather situations more responsively, etc. I am mindful that there already exists a simple version of moment-to-moment crew management mechanic in Naval Action's combat mode. My view is that this feature needs to be extended onto the regular sailing gameplay, via a crew management screen overlay that can be toggled on or off at will during the activity of sailing - or even as an optional feature available in the options menu for players who don't want a crew management layer added to the existing sailing experience, but with XP generating activity to incentivize players who do wish to occupy themselves with crew management for the added challenge. Naval Action : it's the name of the game. So let's add a little bit more action, and a little less grind, and this game will truly shine ! In my opinion, real-time crew management mechanics would be a definite cure to the bore out and grindyness of the moment-to-moment sailing gameplay. Properly implemented, this feature could make the sailing portion of the game even more immersive, propelling the sim qualities of the game a notch up from its current state. So that's my two cents, for what it's worth. As for the feasibility, the devs and the NA community are in a better position than me to assess whether this is desirable (or realizable) feature for the current game. Many thanks to all of you who've taken the time to read this for hearing me out. And my apologies if I've missed somebody else posting an identical suggestion : my bad!
  6. 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.
  7. Feeding Crew

    For the past 8 hours I have been traveling from Fort-Royal to Little River in America. While the sailing is realistic and takes such a long, long, long, LONG time, it's not realistic in its own right. I have a ship full of trade goods which I'm going to sell, and have spent 19 days on the sea, with my crew being a group of gods. I was thinking that without fish or other kinds of rations, they should start dropping like flies. This would make kind of a give and take with the bigger ships. Larger ships means a bigger crew which also means more dedicated space for food and fresh water, giving another layer of realism into the game that I think could fit in quite well, and make fishing more useful than just selling off next to useless goods.
  8. ...and perhaps 1 free dock space that's only good for that county (i.e., you can park 1 ship there and it doesn't count against your total dock space). Just thinking this might drive more contested port battles, if we could more reasonably park a ship at the counties we are Lords of. I mean, you'd think they'd give a Lord a free docking slot at least.
  9. 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!)
  10. 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.
  11. 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)
  12. Chat overhaul

    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
  13. 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)
  14. 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
  15. Learning from others

    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
  16. 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.
  17. Do not lose my Bahama mama!

    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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. More Outpost Slots

    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.
  24. Balancing of Nations/Pirates

    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.
  25. 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