Snoopy

Yes this works for square riggers as well.. you can squeeze a bit more out of them if you fiddle with your yards but there is more leeway. It's useful for running away sometimes >)

I complained from day 1 and when I played for a small nation, everyone will be affected at some point.

That's the thing: if the three top dogs stop defending their ports after a couple of weeks because they are fed up with it and their lands return neutral, the npc armada will come for the smaller nations that are now top dogs. This downward spiral is damaging. The actual battle is fun and a good addition but the repetitiveness of it might just kill the game.

The feature itself is great - for the PvE server. Just like the Loki Rune and it's nonconsensual PvP has no place on the PvE server, nonconsensual PvE to keep a port has no place on the PvP server.

It will balance server pop at 0

My intent was to provide an unconquerable base for a nation to fall back on, which is why I believe the need to have the full amount of bonuses is there (mind you the actual layout might still end up not being efficient or meta or FoM, you might for example end up with full bonuses for masts on sols). Even small things like missing out on 1 or 2 port upgrade unlocks that have practically no impact can weigh on morale. The nation needs to be able to stay in 'we can manage' mode rather than 'we need to rebuild from scratch' because that is when you lose players. Every time a nation has been 'destroyed' we have lost players. I would like to minimize the times this happens.

A fee is fine with me, although this is perhaps a doublication of effort with the port tax mechanic, the clan still gets to collect this and could adjust it. The important bit to me would be that clans should not be able to prevent payment nor deny crafting as is the case with the friends list.

Greetingses The introduction of Port Investments meant that one of the intended components and motivators of RvR is loss. We can see how this riles up the masses with the mini-EVE 'writes-itself' movie script playing out at San Juan at the moment, so in that sense it has worked - but should it? In my view, I feel that the negative impact of (potential) loss of access to crafting bonuses/assets outweighs the positives. It's great entertainment for the RvR crowd like myself but in essence there are too many people negatively affected by it who did not opt in. Even just threatening the French crafting base had a lasting impact on that nation's playerbase. Denmark has no crafting port now and even with new investments in another port will no longer be able to build ships of the same quality. This is allright for people like myself who have decided to be part of RvR and accept the risk, I/we can deal with this. But running roughshod over the game assets of other players and their time invested in the game is damaging, losing access to a level 3 shipyard incurs a pretty hefty regrind and I just don't see the upside of this. Imposing negative outcomes for players who had no part in what happened should simply not be in the hand of other players. I do not have a silver bullet here. Some changes to reduce drama could be: friends list mechanic no longer controls access to port features, all nationals have access allow investments to be made in all captured ports by everyone in the nation. only the conquering clan can 'open up' the investment slots with an initial deposit (and thus gets to decide how the port is to be developed, preventing troll investments) All conquerable ports are 55pt regardless of BR Unconquerable ports get no access to investments but will start with a fixed port bonus layout pattern Example: Fort Royal: 4/4/4/3/2 Saint-Pierre: 4/2/3/4/4 Marin: 2/3/4/4/4 etc At the moment some nations have fewer starting ports (including zero), perhaps justifying their difficulty rating. Under my proposals you still need to get out in the OW for wood types other than fir/oak but the loss of wood investments is far easier to stomach, and even fully developed crafting ports can now be replaced. Picking the right bonus for the job should be part of player skill not content gating like now where at least half of the server does not have direct access to full bonus ships. Ports are now interchangeable which means RvR can now switch to a higher gear without always having to tread carefully in order to avoid screwing other players over.

I fully agree (see above) that Pavel needs help, my point is this: It can still be worse than the others in her class and not be useless: you can fit 5 Bucs into a fight vs 6 Pavels for the same BR. It is a bit moot because the leak thing is such a hard counter but suppose this was fixed - this kind of balancing would allow more variety. Bellona vs Pavel, well Pavel still carries 36/42s and they are a pretty big advantage and are paid for in BR. Of course Christian is the real outlier and in need of the nerf bat, it's straight up the best second rate without paying anything for it.

This is actually good balancing: It's highly likely that Bucentaure was a much better ship than Pavel in RL With it's 570 BR Pavel is pretty efficient at combat capability per BR, its just not a great ship to sail.. the leak issue, the awkward gun deck layout, ..

I agree about the first rate spam, BR cap on ports is too high. But it's wrong to say they only participated in 3-4 real battles. Ideally the fleet compositions we have should reflect RL fleets, two deckers mostly, with three decker SoL sprinkled in.

On topic: The clone 74 is very uncompetitive at its price tag. I'd even try the experiment and make her free of CM cost. Pavel can be made interesting by giving her access to Edinorogs (as the only ship in the game). She'd still not be meta but at least she'd have teeth and she carried a handfull of them in RL.

Time to bring out my favorite statistic about this: if you join the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars, you have a 2/3 chance to end up on a 1-3rate. Not rare. Frigates were the sought-after commands.

Thank you! Awesome news

Non-consensual PvP .. on the PvP server? Contradiction of terms. The rune is amazing fun once in a while.

You know you want it! (Sorry for duplicate topic, didn't see the other one)

I'm sorry but this seems very incoherent to me.. How would getting the game as it was in 2016 bring players back when the current version can't? What was more PvP oriented in the 2016 version? the current version has less grind when crafting (massive cut in needed parts and hauling requirements), players even have some control over where specific resources are available to group ports together easier economy (delivery mission = helicopter money) crew is dirt cheap now the flags were abused thats why they had to be pulled ship capturing can still be done, npc traders will drop building materials and you keep every ship now, even ai captured first rates To me, the current version has all the things you want for the game as of 2016, and tournaments is kinda on us players to organize. (the loss of the duel rooms hurts, sure) As far as skill is concerned, if anything, the current repairs allow a more skilled player to fight against worse odds. I agree that 2016 combat was easier for smaller ships against heavier vessels than today but I don't think combat is a problem. It always was (and is) the one thing Naval Action is amazing at.

"Copper plating should be rare" + "Copper plating is too expensive". Limitations should only ever apply to others, right?

Indeed, I will buy those juicy Navy Guns (and Blomefields..) for those prices, perhaps even higher for the bigger calibers or 24pdr.

The other PZones need their BR limits back, too.

The way this seems to be working now is that if you receive further incoming enemy broadsides you will simply go into crew shock straight away and explode. Not sure if intended but it sure feels very rapid.

This sounds like fun, we'll see how us players will ruin it

I like the (in battle) mechanics, sounds interesting I don't like the fact that instead of positive reinforcement by buffing smaller nations a punishment for big nations is introduced. A 'keep your ports alive' PvE tax .. they now have an appointment every week to defend their ports, or lose them. I genuinely hope this works out and doesn't kill the fun for everyone. No nation had top dog status forever, so this can affect smaller nations, too.

It'll be another 'pray' button and the devs will have a giggle at our expense

This is such a beautiful model. French Temeraire class 74. I want one in the game