Macjimm

Mr UnicornBuster, The times for travel seem to be inaccurate. My results indicate that your map shows the time as far less that what it takes in game. The BurningSails map is reasonably accurate.

Cheers lad, your improvements are coming along nicely. You are on the right path with allowing variable speeds.

Great idea. I can just not look at the coords on the map but it adds to the game if all players are required to have a small degree of skill at navigating. And perhaps we could also add a short term feature for newbies. There could be an GPS option that can be toggled but disappears when you have 100hrs in game.

I hope that someday there will be a way to identify a ship's nationallity by it's markings. (static flag or paint). That way I can turn off the screen text and still be able to spot enemy. I like dagdriver's idea but agree with Sir Blaine. The rapid velocity of our little speedboats racing around in OW leaves precious little time to react.

Interesting that we are considering using Zulu time. I always thought that it makes sense. Especially in Naval game. I thought that the NA community had become fixated on CET. Never understood why.

You're mistaken if you think that eliminating a server will significantly increase the population on the remaining server. That logic suggests that because the population was highest when we had three PvP servers we should have 3 servers. We do not have low population because we have more than one server.

doh!

nvm

If it is possible I would like to be able to set my Max speed but have your map adjust the speed based on the effect of the wind. My max speed would be 5Kn in my Trader brig 8Kn in my Trader Lynx. Sounds like Rediii would set it at 27Kn

I misunderstood, I thought that there are two choices now. first choice; accept a faster max speed and your map will allow for the changes in speed due to the direction of the wind (in RT). The direction of the wind at the start of the journey can be selected. second choice; select a lower max speed but the speed for the journey will not vary. I see that the speed will always be an average. you are allowing players to select the average speed by two methods. I was hoping that we might select a max speed and the direction of the wind at the start and your map could calculate the total time with allowance for the reduced speed due to sailing close hauled and in irons. But surely that would be much too complex given the variation between vessels.

I tried testing the speed to see if it was accurate. On the first leg it was a few minutes slow over 17 min. The second leg was less than half the length. It was supposed to take 7 min but took 16 min. This could be due to the difficulty picking points when zoomed in and accounting for the speed reduction with heading into the wind. I like that you are allowing for speed changes due to wind. Could you do that with selected speeds also?

UnicornBuster, Thanks for your improvements. Will be nice when you are happy enough with this map to create PvP2 and PvE1. I've noticed that the map gets a little difficult to read when zooming in. The city icons and shorelines are fairly thick. End up having to guess at the location of the selection points.

Mr UnicornBuster, Thanks for the response. I really enjoy sailing if I use the camera view at the deck level and sail a dead slow or battle speed (top speed of about 8 knots in a T Brig). I am unable to set a false wind between 2-10 knots. When sailing at higher speeds the ship feels like a high powered speed boat. I liked the previous version of your map when I could set the speed. Not sure if it is worth adding this feature as I may be the only player in Naval Action who sails slowly. Most players don't like sailing in open world. I can use the Burning Sail map or I can always chart my own course manually if you choose to exclude a speed input option.

I use to be able to set the speed. I can't seem to find how to set the speed with the new update.

Adding the ability to control the ship from the camera view is one of the most important changes that should be made. I enjoy sailing in OW. It is nice to adopt a postion on the deck where I can see past the sail. I must switch between camera view to control view constantly. It would be enormously helpful if I was able to control the ship from any position on the deck.

Thanks for trying to explain this. I'm trying, but do not understand what you mean. Is this a communications issue? The removal of global chat? I thought the OP infered that players will not be able to trade goods for goods. I didn't understand that either because we can currently trade goods for goods with the token single gold mechanic. I assume we will alway be able to. Anyway, thanks for the effort to express the issue. Could be beyond me.

My point is that we can trade good for goods at a meeting now. We just have to use 1 gold to do so. I can't see what I'm missing here.

The game will sell itself when it is complete. People will find out about it if it is well made and fun to play. Many players are probably waiting for the wipe to be complete. There were lots of copies sold and when it is released a bunch of them may come back. I remember some time ago there was a nasty backlash directed at people who did not recommend NA on steam. Perhaps right now while we are waiting for the wipe and release it is okay to suggest that people wait a little bit, if they thinking of purchasing. Afterall there are not very many players on line and it seems very important for many people to have a larger population.

Fenris, I've read through your posts but don't understand what you are saying. Why does money nullify trading ? Suppose I want to trade 100 ton of Iron for 50 pounds of pudding. You have the pudding. I have iron and a shiney tolken. I give you a single shiney silver tolken in exchange for your pudding. We agree the 50 lbs of pudding is worth 1 tolken but only if you will exchange the same tolken for my iron. After I have your pudding and you accept the tolken you give the tolken back to me for 100 ton of iron. In the end I have 1 silver tolken and 50 pounds of pudding. You have 100 tons of iron. I don't understand the difference between this form of barter and exchange with the ritual tolken and ... trading goods.

I don't think we need the latin. The abreviations look good

Thanks for your effort. For the sake of consistency you might want to consider the compass nomenclature. The directions are based on a 24 Point compass. Vitruvius's 24-wind rose Roman This compass could have been invented by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born c. 80–70 BC, died after c. 15 BC), commonly known as Vitruvius or Vitruvi or Vitruvio, was a author, architect, civil engineer and military engineer during the 1st century BC.

You make sense Farrago, I kept track of the players on each server during January until April before the big population drop from the wipe announcement. Some players imagine that there are far more players if we combined both servers. This is a faulty logic because when one server is at its peak the other server is at it's lowest. You don't end up with the peak of both servers playing simultaneously. Combining may raise the populations, but insignificantly. The averages for January to the end of March show PvP1= 260 PvP2 = 75 and if by some miracle we could force everyone into a single server we would average about 340 The maximum I saw during the same time period was PvP1 = 560 PvP2 = 120 and the highest combined population was = 660 But if we are rude and stuff the idea of a single server down people's throats we will loose players (probably from both). I don't know how many would quit if we start forcing people to play in a manner they detest but at the very best we could hope to increase the server by 80 players for an average. With about 660 max and 120 min. Those are the best case scenarios. The numbers will be less because of the players who will refuse to participate in forced play. In the past we had to implement timers to kick idle players from the 3 servers. With thousands playing these minor changes are really insignificant. Combining Servers (not accounting for loss of players who prefer 2 server option) Peak = +80 Average =+80 Minimum = +60 An additional 60-80 players spread out across the Caribbean, trading, crafting, sailing will not provide enough PvP opponents to keep the warriors happy. At least not those who are impatient for lots of fights without any waiting.

Mr. OneEyedSnake I think that you are mistaken when you assume forcing everyone onto one server will result in a significant increase to the number of players. For a long time there have only been hundreds of players and when one server is busiest the other server is the least active. At any given time the peak will not likely be much more than the peaks we have now. You may get a couple dozen more players on at any one time. Given that some will be sailing, doing PvE, trading, crafting you will have very few players available who will fight you at the location you have chosen to hunt. Plus if you force players onto a single server you will lose some players who disagree with your logic and see removing the option to choose a server as ineffective. Final release with solid content and popularity will provide higher numbers.

Good point. That sounds magical alright.