greybuscat

My only problem with this is that, in practice, you often don't get to fight what you see with extremely short timers. If this is the intent, any battle within your horizon (or for any ship within a hypothetical second, much larger circle than the pull circle) should stay open for as long as it is within your horizon, with little to no regard for time-based limitations.

Oh boy, so we can enjoy them for a couple of months before they go poof.

The usual suspects are like:

This isn't really a problem. Ranks don't have to carefully follow real-life naval structures. For example, the real-life pirate nation's real-life pirate navy didn't even have Marauders and Demons. 🙄

My main issue with the skillbooks is that people who have the best ones were able to obtain them when a) mission were much more farmable than they are now and b) enemy AI fleets regularly visited every port. It creates a huge gap that can't be closed by a skilled captain putting in the same amount of time and effort as people who have been around for a couple of years. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't think ship XP should even be a thing. Just about everyone seems to hate it, anyway. All ships should have all slots for all captains. We already have haves and have-nots with the books, don't we?

And the testbed rewards?

It's bad enough how condescending your other posts are, but do I have to read crap like this while viewing a news and announcements thread? Mods? Anyone? I see a lot of fuss being made of whether someone chooses to say "lie" or "unintentionally misled," but it would be nice if moderation could be used to improve the forum experience for other users, and not just as a means of managing criticism, deserved or not. @admin As someone else already asked, how does this affect testbed rewards? Kind of takes the wind out of the paint and Santa Cecilia sails if we only get them for a few months/weeks. I have more to say regarding the wipes, and the way they are being announced, but you have a tendency to only reply to the parts of my post you take exception with, while ignoring the rest, and I'd really appreciate it if you could answer the question.

Not sure what's gained from making smaller cannons "stronger" (physical damage doesn't really scale linearly, as-is, so do you mean penetration???). I'm just sort of confused because in the first couple of paragraphs, you suggest making heavier cannons weaker, but then in the last paragraph you say you want them to be expensive, rare, and dangerous. Maybe something is being lost in translation. As far as allowing heavier guns on smaller ships, I think we would need a more dynamic model for ship weight and boyancy. Sure, you can put those 32 lbers on Endymion, but don't get mad when it capsizes during a hard turn, can't slow down to save its life, or loses 2 knots of top end speed, or whatever would be appropriate for a severely overloaded and unbalanced ship. Crew requirements aside, there were physical constraints that limited what guns could be on what ships IRL, so lines have to be drawn somewhere in the absence of those physical constraints. Some of those lines can appear a little arbitrary, but they can always be fine-tuned.

I could be wrong here, but I feel like all OP was asking for was a more streamlined way to do what can already do right now, so less clicks and time are wasted, which is something that seems entirely reasonable to me. Quality of life features are rarely a bad idea. I'm also pretty sure that his intent wasn't to start off-topic discussions about the patently stupid, anti-fun idea of not allowing any amount of dubs in the captain's chest.

I agree. I took a pretty big break between early 2017 and mid 2018, and I think removing OW comms between enemy nations is the single worst change made during that time. At least colossal blunders like 8 knot boarding were quickly reverted. This and the blink-and-you'll-miss-it join timers are easily my biggest gripes with the current game.

I really don't mean this to come off as rude as it's probably gonna sound, but this doesn't sound that much like an "improvement" to me as much as a way for people who hit 9 way too late to punish people who are good at forcing a boarding action with high prep, which already risks taking crew damage if you don't know what you are doing. I'd rather see a big rework to the whole system, or simply no change at all, than see bad crew management rewarded. I'm not a big fan of boarding, by the way, and avoid it as much as I possibly can, so don't take this as criticism coming form somebody that doesn't want their preferred playstyle nerfed.

Until/unless we get more dynamic wind, it should just be shown somewhere on the main map, which should also be accessible in battle with an additional button press while in the battle map.

Pretty hard to do that when your green zones extend right up the edge of enemy ports. Some of them are so close to enemy docks that if you were standing on one in real-life, you could skip rocks into your guys' reinforcement zones. It makes solo hunting more difficult. Ganking fleets will remain unaffected, or will even screen and kite AI fleets if they have to.

Will this be the entirety of the game, outside of set-piece "custom" battles? Just wondering if there will be something a little more dynamic/sandboxy than the UG:CW experience, for replayability's sake. Still excited, either way.