Angus McGregor

The person with a problem seems to be you. The poll was requested... he's putting in a plug for people to respond to it. Seems simple enough. No idea why you seem to be struggling with the concept.

I can't believe you are STILL advocating this asinine strategy other than as a troll. By the way - I directly accused you of nothing - I just offered my opinion of your motivation for suggesting such a stupid idea. Sure - bypass any chance at crafting half decent ships for a long, long, loooong time for a tactic that you offer zero proof of. I rest my case. You are nothing but a troll. That is a ban-able offence. Giving false advice to new players is a ban-able offense. Reported right back at you. Consider yourself ignored and reported.

Talked with a dev? Which one? As for me I had nothing more to add that hadn't already been said. If I offered anything, it would've been an antecdote that my BP drop odds seemed to run much higher then 50% with Exceptiional plus gIfted perk. And I always crafted the next ship as soon as I reached the level that allowed it. Frankly, telling people to build only trade cutters until reaching crafting level 50 just sounds like you're trying to reduce market competition.

I couldn't have said this better... problem is it applies to you... not Bearwall. You do realize you're arguing with people who've been playing NA for a long time right? There's wisdom in old forum threads and a wiki that nailed down the BP drop mechanic ages ago.

booooo!!

Agreed - most players will probably lay low until after the wipe anyway. Why keep dead primary servers going with existing version of NA?

Huh? Please rephrase - I don't get it

Okay - I'm going to be selfish and hope they don't wipe the BP's. But I am left wondering about the BP drop rate with ship quality levels gone... Oh crap - I think I just made an argument for wiping them.

Oh lord yes... maybe not for the same reasons as TaranisP, but really wish we had Reddit's upvote/downvote system.

People need to watch what they wish for. The hypocrisy flying around the forum these days is getting really thick. "There's lots of good ideas being offered. Slap some code together (HA!) and let us test them. They can always be removed later, but if they aren't tried we'll never know if it would work or not." "Geez - they put stuff in and then take it out 2 months later. Don't they know what they're doing??" And yes, I realize I've been guilty of this too.

Exclusion zones around the nat capital ports is a dead zone for new players. I know of very few PvE (or PvP) players who liked the change to the Combat missions when they were suddenly no longer available in nat capital regions. Now you are advocating a situation which will only frustrate PvP rookies. I also don't know where you get off calling any server a "PvP" server. Those distinctions are obviously going away. GameLabs does not want to foot the bill to keep a dedicated PvE server running. What exactly are you afraid of? Being PvE inclined isn't some contagious disease that will 'infect' other players. People will either want to engage in PvP or they won't. One side of your mouth has argued that a sandbox game shouldn't impose mechanic based rules on players. Now the other side is arguing against any concessions for PvE players whose server is about to disappear. Seems you have a very narrow view of which players should be allowed to play NA the way they want.

I give the devs a lot of credit for stating their intentions and giving us the opportunity to offer a different perspective. The land grant idea sounded good to them, but then valid concerns were raised about denying port buildings to PvE players and they reconsidered.

I think this link addresses your question directly, but I must admit that it isn't 100% clear whether admin is referring to a ship note, or the the ship that was redeemed from a note. But it seems obvious that a redeemed ship would be wiped along with all the others, so I've interpreted this to mean the notes themselves have info in them (wood type, mods) that makes it necessary to delete them too. Maybe a mod who can bend admin's ear can get a clarification on this specific point. Safest thing would just be to hang onto the note and hope for the best. The materials gained from breaking it up will seem trivial to having the ship after the wipe.

Just for the sake of argument, I modded one of my saved maps to highlight the idea of giving each nation a stake in the GoM PvE zone. It isn't pretty but it gets the concept across. I gave 2 regions to the US, France and Spain to acknowledge their historical presence in the gulf, but yes - otherwise this isn't historically accurate at all. Restricting the PvE zone to the actual gulf leaves more map for the PvP side, which I think is the primary emphasis for Naval Action. Let's face it, the GoM is a large body of water. Besides, the PvE people can make runs out of the gulf in the off hours when server populations are down and the risk is lower. They could also hire a screening fleet for protection. I'm also sure there will be some bickering over the exact regions given, but there's no pleasing everybody.

When one of the most successful and popular MMO's (and others) does exactly this, I think you are just showing you're own bias. Keeping the PvE and PvP players on the same server at least leaves the door open to PvE'rs crossing over without having to start from zero money, mats or ships. This is a good question, and I hope so too. With the douchebags who go to the Bahamas just to club the baby seals, it didn't work as intended anyway. Just let the rookies start in the PvE zone. AND... if we're not all that concerned about the historical accuracy - give each nation a region inside the Gulf.