SeamanStaines

The way the game is at present is great for a small number of the "best" players (PVP allocation ). But not so good for the more causal and average player who serve as fodder for the elite. The current reward does not encourage PVP. Quite the opposite. If your PVP win average is less than 50/50 why would you make a fight of it. Better to avoid or run. For those not in the top tier of skills, not running multiple alts and struggling to get PVP marks for elite mods, the game in its current incarnation is not very rewarding. Some allocation of PVP marks for losing would at least give some consolation.

Seems to me that the DEVS should set the alliances rather than the players or at least have the chair of a council. They have the membership details (i.e. numbers in each Nation) and other statistics and also control of resources. They can see when a Nation is being destroyed or becoming all-powerful. I am not saying that they need micro-manage but should keep oversight. It is in their interest to keep the players interested by a considered balance of power and ensure continuity of PVP. Whereas its great to be on a winning team its not so much fun to fight a long defeat against overwhelming odds nor is it good to be lacking in direction. I don't see a hands-off approach being successful in the long term.

Yes more like Syrian Militia's than National Navies.

This all worked best when we had a few clans and was for the most part Nation driven. At that time we had a relatively large number of players. Now we have dozens of clans with only a fraction of the number of players. Imagine the chaos if the game is released like this and the player base gets big again. If the 300 or so regulars cant get 'casual alliances' to work and things fragment (as is the case) what chance it will work with 1000's of players? I don't have any magic solutions, there have been good suggestions. But I do believe the DEVS and should consider these problem before release. For me National agenda should be set. Clans should operate within these parameters.

I don't agree that everyone knows or that the diplomatic system works. Only those that follow the forum (which is difficult) and those involved with negotiations have an up-to-date picture. . Even if an alliance is known, not everyone follows it. Often there are simply too many clans with different opinions to get any consensus. If (as suggested) when someone disagrees and forms their own clan the situation only gets more complicated. So despite imperfect mechanisms I believe an alliance system is required to bring some order to the chaos.

One problem I have is that day-to-day I have no idea who is allied with who. These "alliances" change all the time. Frankly I miss the alliance system. Fortunately as I am British a good "rule-of-thumb" is that everyone hates you.

I don't mean in the context of a game, I mean in a RL context. Its always been absurd that small ships could take out SOL. The musket volleys alone would probably destroy a Requin. But this has always been the case but the Requin with its large crew is now the ship of choice for the reasons stated in the previous post and now we if you want PVP its most likely going to be against Requins.

Just my opinion. This ship has ruined the game. Virtually all the PVP is against Requin's and if you don't sail one you cannot catch them. The fact that they are over-crewed means no other cutter has a chance as it will be boarded. So all other small ships are now redundant. In fact yesterday I saw a Santi boarded by Requins (how absurd is that)! The result is the game has become very dull for many except for the Requin raider fraternity. The fact that they are issued free if you buy the add-on makes them more destructive to the game as a whole. Where is the risk of loss if next day you can redeem one? Why would you sail anything else that needs crafting? Soon you might as well rename it Requin Action as that is the only ship you will routinely see. What happened to the glory days of Trafalgar's? What happened to historical accuracy? I hate to see the game go downhill so rapidly.

Springby I appreaciate your concern and it cant be easy for the DEVS to listen to harsh critisism. But its important to be frank. I can only speak for myself and why, after 3000 hours, I gave up. We had a beautiful game. Yes it needed tweaking here and there, but overall it was wonderful. We then spent a long time going around in circles tweaking things that already worked and not addressing the remaining problems. But then the DEVS inexplcably changed everything, including the things that worked fine. I dont know where these ideas came from and why all was changed at once. The grind became worse, the consequences of PVP drastic and the time required sailing mindlessly became a major drain on players time. In short, it appeared to me that the DEVS had lost touch with the mainstream communty and the things that made us play the game. Instead the vision of the DEVS became increasing at odds with everything that kept me playing. It was as if the founders, who were passionate about the game, had lost control, to be replaced by "wall street" executives who just viewed the game in terms of population cycles and natural wastage of players. I hope that they can get back to the passion for the game that we once enjoyed. Then I will happily return. For now its not that I have turned to another game, its that its so frustrating to watch something that I loved going in this direction.

Deleted

Zaba whereas we may be on opposite sides of the fence I applaud your politeness. Its very rare these days.

Don Sanchez and others are voicing the opinion of many of us. And unless you are one of the "lucky" players that enjoys cutthroat hit-and-run, piracy or ganking (and its sequel revenge ganking), then this patch (and maybe this game) may not be for you. Naval Action has changed so much in the last few weeks that its barely recognizable to many players who have been around since the beginning. Some of the more unpopular things we thought had gone away for good have returned, and some good hard-won changes have gone away. A host of new untried features have suddenly appeared out of the blue. Sadly for many, its an epically regressive patch. Progression is replaced by grind, battles by ganks, RvR by under-the table-deals and excitement by frustration. The word "fun" has disappeared to be replaced the strange notion of "a sense of loss" that is apparently imperative in a game nowadays. For me its a very fine line between a "sense of loss" and being demoralized. Worse still, Admin now appears to be disinterested in mainstream opinion and has clearly stated the new direction of the game in a series of surprising posts in the Naval No-Action thread. Although its recognized that the game is indeed more "challenging" and may in fact be too much for some players, this is not seen as an issue (although there follows some motivational nonsense about leadership that I could not understand). Fun does not appear to be high on the agenda these days. Many of us have plenty of real challenges, frustrations and (indeed) boredom in our lives without taking on an additional load in our leisure time. Not all of us are massively competitive "win at any cost" types. Some of us are revolted by "seal clubbing" as a way of getting ahead and actually have an unfashionable sense of fair-play. Many of us are mature people interested in naval history, not juvenile gamers, and shudder at the thought of clan orders and "charismatic leadership". Many of us only require some degree of mental stimulation, some hope of progression and a reasonable amount of entertainment without the need to devote our lives or sell our souls to obtain success. As the current incarnation of Naval Action offers little to a sizable number of us (including many some veterans), I am predicting that many will stop playing. This is indeed a terrible shame as the game has much potential. I truly hope that sanity eventually prevails and that the DEVS realize that they need a more inclusive game rather than this bizarre hardcore vision that they propose. But I suspect that this wont be the case until the player base has once again been whittled down sufficiently to make denial impossible.

I read it that there was a line from slot 4 brig direct to Cerberus. But looks like I was wrong and have to go to the snow although I am not sure I have the patience anymore.

Has something changed? I have unlocked 4 slots on the brig and have the xp to unlock 3 on the Cerberus but get the message must unlock 3 slot on the snow?

I think you miss the point. Its about the mechanics requiring kills to get PVP marks, not sportsmanship.

He can suggest anything he wants. That's the purpose of the forum. Why do you imagine that your opinion is more valid than his? Why use emotive language? Why are you so upset?

The suggestion is reasonable. You may not agree, but if this is the case then its better to provide a reasoned argument why you do not agree instead of "trashing" the proposal and attacking other nations.

Remus you where correct, even a slight movement causes the problem. Thanks.

It might be but I am not sure as it keeps going in and out of "interrupted". I will experiment and see.

Every time I get alongside a ship and X to salvage I keep getting interrupted. The ships hold contents show briefly and then disappear. Sometimes after repeated attempts I may manage to salvage some items. Sometimes not. I will try and F11 but its not easy because it always happens in a battle situation.

I cannot see how it wont encourages swaps. The mechanism has been explained in previous posts where ports are temporarily swapped and then retaken (without a fight) but now they are generating pensions where before they were not. Yes solo crafters have always had it hard, but why make it worse. I don't see why because its hard on EVE that NA should be bound to follow? If you don't craft then it wont make it harder. If you do craft and cant get pension points and if they are needed to get BP's then it will be harder unless you have a clan or someone to provide them. .

Is this not just piracy?

I don't think this will work and will have negative effects. These are my reasons: 1. Encourages behind the scenes port swaps and rewards them. What is to stop nations from swapping all their ports (except capitol) over a period. The map changes color but no real change afterwards. We had plenty of real port battles in the old days before they were connected to reward pensions. Why do we need these mechanics now? When the initial flurry of swaps is over only ports with tactical significance will be fought over, just as it was before. Players wont spend time endlessly sailing across the map to kill off pensions. They want to see some real gain from the effort. 2. Will cause endless disputes over internal allocation of rewards. Please don't expect players to act reasonably. We have enough battles in the game without promoting battles in the national chats. 3. Encourages the arms race. The first nation to field first rates will have a huge advantage. Again linking crafting to PVP and conquest just prevents many crafters from competing in this race. 3. Another nail in the coffin for casuals, solo and crafters not affiliated to large clans. The intention (I assume) is to create more port battles and more PVP by linking crafting and trading to them. But I don't see this happening. And I even question whether its a good thing to attempt to create a situation where its constant port battles. I remember a time when we did so many that we all got tired and fed up of it. If we can get the economy balanced and iron out a few other problems they will happen anyway as a result of natural competition. And they will be real battles not faked events.

Just did two missions in a brig. Mission 1 second lieutenant got snow and pickle. Mission 2 first lieutenant got snow As with pickle missions midshipman and ensign it appears reversed. Both were F11 reported approximately 1700 and 1730 server time. In game name Eric Shun

Sorry I am not sure that I understand the connection between number of slots and balance between large and small populations? Wont this effect all nations equally?