Dharus

Is this a Pirate Faction only mechanic? If not, is there going to be any different playing mechanic (other than the free for all battles) distinguishing pirates from nations? Are the raids going to be pitched battles on OW or port battles with port guns included?

One problem I have with some of these questions (and players in general) is when asked if they want "more" of something, they'll pretty much always say yes. "You want more xp?" - yes. "Gold" - yes. "You want more outposts?" - Yes. "More production buildings?" - Yes. Personally, I like games that require a player to make choices, sometimes hard ones, versus games that make it easy. Other than that opinion, its a decent poll.

I like the idea of connecting screening outside battles to the port battles but at a reduced rate. However playerbase size will affect it especially with allies. There needs to be some "underdog" mechanic i think. I'd suggest that traders ships could carry "troop", "extra cannons", or "whatever" items during the pb window to generate points. Obviously the amount is questionable but the idea is that even if the enemy has sea control the defender has fortified the port from invasion to prevent capture for a "pb reset" time delaying port capture. This would be a defender only option and coded through missions. This would add a "run the blockade" mechanic. I see it doing a few things: 1) gives screeners something to hunt 2) gives underdogs a strategic option to a zerg attack 3) separate forces between pb and OW which could lead to strategic events (ei 25 in PB, but screeners get overwhelmed and traders add points OR most attackers blockade outside allowing defender to generate points inside PB through smaller engagements, Etc). This might also stop PB login too fight too as now the OW area could swarm with traders transporting troops to counter.

While I'm not a huge fan of arena PvP fighting, my experience wasn't bad. What I'd like to see is points based on damage though instead of kills, assists. This would give solo players (like I was) some credit for showing up and doing something if they 1v1 someone and they run away.

I like the main crafting changes. Its true that people really try and get the "perfect" ship. So having regular, gold, and special seems fine. Special makes me worried a little about it unbalancing PvP but the way the ship tuning has gone I'm less worried than if this was another game. The changes make me question way have so many crafting levels? Are level 30 crafters going to be crafting ships equal to level 50 now as long as they have the BPs or are the ships still going to be level capped? I wasn't a fan of the level progression setup in this game because it's pretty old school and grinding. I still like the game so I just didn't bother maxing levels quickly. I'd suggest toning down the grind per level. If I were to redo from scratch though, I'd make the level reputation dependent (much like I'd do with combat levels in general) and crafters who make goods that are used somehow* gain reputation that could be applied to getting BPs. Then you've solved the random BP dropping and change the feel of being a crafter from a grinding planks 24/7 to max level to more market savvy challenge. *Gaining reputation could be similar to ships used by players gain xp. In addition, each crafted item might be tagged as well and allow them to generate reputation xp when used in a recipe. Though I think this might tax the server item table a bit. ------------- I'm not sure about those additional changes. It seems like its developer work that could be better spent on something else.

As a Vet player who loves Pickles, I can tell you even one Pickle, handled by a Vet, could probably seal club his way to infamy in this new zone. Two Pickles and we'll see "ganking" along with seal clubbing complaints. If this was common place within the zone, then really its no different from the "real" OW. I guess it would prevent through hardcoding less hardship due to losing which is good. I do think the zone will provide a false sense of security for many new players. In the end, it's worth a shot. I like that it opens up a relatively empty area to players and that reduces server strain. I'm not sure it'll solve problems though.

Dear traders, If you see me, surrender. You have a very little chance to escape. Resistance means my crew will use your ship and crew as target practice. I don't care if you have only one measly tuna. I'll sell what is left of your boat or scrap it for parts. I'm more inclined to make your boat a floating hulk with blood running from the scuppers if you bitch and still capture it. I'm that good with aiming. Dharus

One critique of this game is "why fight?" While most of us enjoy PvP, fighting for no purpose other than just fight can lose its appeal. Fighting for ports or resources, while somewhat meaningful, isn't enough of a "carrot" for players and even more independent players.What you guys have is a sandbox game but with RvR mechanics. What was interesting in the "such is a lord" idea is that players, independently or as a group, could gain prestige through pvp and RvR. I think this idea should somehow be expanded. Right now in this system, its based on level. Levels are boring. They don't represent actual player ability or worth but their ability to "grind xp". While granting land may not be ideal, some idea of prestige might be worth exploring. Leaderboards of some sort come into play but they typically are abused with alt play. If you can answer, "why fight?" on a personal level and reward that effort with some sort of prestige, then i think you give the "carrot" for the players. Endless war isn't that carrot.

By the way, I do like the battle marker's sound of echoing gunfire. Although I'd suggest it travels a bit further than it currently does.

Several comments: 1) If you code in Leeway, this will officially be the best Age of Sail game perhaps the best sailing game ever. This makes being on a leeshore that much more dangerous! 2) I like the new perk idea. It gives more reason to be in a ship without a chaser. It creates chases and not turn and tag which usually leads to people running away only to be re-tagged and complainants about "trolling". An example would be a lynx chasing a trader lynx. The lynx wouldn't have to turn giving up valuable speed and position to "tag" every minute because the trader has the "coward" perk. 3) I'm okay with the cannonball damaging crew. Its really about hitbox and penetration values and pretty straight forward. Leaks might need a little adjustment but the combat of putting leaks into someone requires to close with a distance that also could affect you. Having a test bed is good idea.

Personally, i don't see a problem. I was ganged up by 4 others trying to circle around me on OW. I gave them a little rope a dope and when they popped a battle i found the weakest upwind ship (downwind was open but obviously a trap) and put holes in him. A lot of ships have upwind speed and angles that allow escape or isolation of an opponent possible. Using an envelopement is risky in this regard. But anyways, the larger battle circle lower join timer solves this too.

Personally the suggestion by admin isn't terrible although it is basically a tax on ship loss. I'm not sure how useful it would be overall. It being a national resource is a neat idea although it'll probably be painful if players struggle to crew ships. This could be adjusted of course. I'm also okay with crew loss in battles as well. The change I'd suggest would be to change "repair" kits to "heal" crew as well. Maybe 1/2 healed per repair that way crew loss is still felt but its negative is reduced quickly. It would also mean extra hammocks could be more tactically helpful. Otherwise, the idea of crew would just boil down to an occasional gold sink. It'll affect losers of ships and have no affect on winners which also isn't ideal. Sometimes victory has a human cost too.

The most efficient way is as i said small battles, large battles, and duels. Sandbox gameplay is completely different than arena fights right? OW sailing should NOT be the substitute a matchmaking system. In essence, that is exactly what is being asked for. Matchmaking by OW battle calculator vs arena battle UI. Nothing is sandbox or open world about that. Anyway, that's my two cents. Unfortunately, a lot of mmos advertise using these terms but they fall very short of reality.

1) If you want a fair fight, we have large battles, small battles, and duel. Overlapping fair fighting vs a wargame game design on an MMO is not a realistic development goal.2) In Risk, the boardgame, all players can gank one player. It's a game so being beaten by numberous players happens. Sometimes being outnumbered is fun too and revenge is even sweeter. 3) It work but there are some serious problems. Mostly, teammates being left out of battles. PotBS had the same issue before they started fairness calculations. If you had 7 players, you couldn't pvp in 6v6s. Someone would be left out. Then they did BR calculations, then more friends got left out because they ran into a smaller group. Eventually red zones were dueling zones and not dynamic. 4) Your statement here conflicts with your 1) statement. If people want to gank but its easy to get away from ganks, then is there really a problem? If your time is valuable and you're looking for a fair fight, then log in and sign into a small battle, large battle, or duel.

There were scouts. It fell usually to smaller ships who could claw upwind better than rated ships. After all, you didn't really want to lose wind advantage by blindly sailing around. Scouts were also used to look into ports and pop away faster than any response. Fleets were spread out in huge areas (blockading of France for example) covering lots of miles. Smaller ships helped relay messages between squadrons.Second, tackling is a gaming tactic. We don't sail in a permanent battle instance. If we did, tackling would be the same as historical combat...very long chases. Shoot at sails hoping for something to cripple the ship. Instead, tackling is to warp a player into an instance so that the slower folks can catchup. Unless you changed instancing (and development some good tech), tackling will exist.

Nor were there time space bubble battle instances, 2 min battle join timers, or battle fairness ratings either. The rule doesn't reduce ganking as its goal but it does separate people from helping each other along with other things.

If a gank group is spread out, one can tag while the rest surround the circle. That poor 1 gankee cannot even defensive tag because now there is a ganker at every exit point in battle. Defensive tagging now is less effective so it favors the ganking group. Tagging someone hold them in place while the rest swarm to the location, can be also used to gank after the exit timer. Does it really matter if it's a 10v1 vs 11v1? It's still a gank. Only thing it does is bore the 11th player or allow him to get ganked by someone else. The battle popping is a problem but solvable by timers or autopopping people out while they have timers. Personally this change isn't effective to its goals. It limits the sandbox, makes OW a calculator game, and maybe addresses 1% of the encounters on the OW. It also gives more tools to people to surround and kill, limits defensive tagging to a degree, and now allows splitting because BR limitations. Seems a more problematic change than beneficial.

Well, I do like a challenge. I could argue that Pedernales was pretty hopeless... However, I think a lot of players carry PotBS Metagaming into NA. Sure death stacks of 1st rates are pretty unstoppable except for other 1st rate death stacks but OS is dynamic enough that smaller ships can serve. The BIG thing that may or may not happen is this idea of land inclusion into battles and that's actually really going to favor the smaller ships or ships that can work upwind. Trapping a group of 1st rates on shallows could be a huge change in how people metagame both OW and within PBs. I can't wait to test it and see.

Part of the problem was the early consolidation and opening moves. Pirates went mostly east and southeast in masses, US crushed Spain and Pirate areas, Brits gobbled up Spanish and French ports and basically had a NAP with US. That's a whole lot of territory in the middle with nothing happening. Boring. Pvp1 has a better layout currently with possibly better nation populations being equal. But these things are corrected by players decisions. I'm glad some pirates split up. Seems the US and Brit populations did as well (poor Spain though). However, blaming population ruining the pvp is just pathetic. You have arena combat that nobody uses, you have outposts and a teleport to use every 4 hrs (4 fights roughly), you've got obvious contested areas, you've got obvious trading areas, you've got unpopulated nation (spain, danes) that could use bodies to fight, and people still complain. Sure go ahead and jump servers. Hopefully you guys don't bore them out.

In related news: In a mocking response to the British "Pickle Night", several French captain's sailed out to harrass shipping near Jamaica. Official estimates was: 1 Snow (sunk?) (PC) 1 Cerberus (captured)(PC) 4 Escort Cutters (sunk) (AI) 1 heroic basic cutter (captured) (PC) 1 Trader's Brig (captured, 43 Bavarian spices seized)(PC) 1 Privateer (exploded, sunk) (PC) 1 Navy Brig (captured) (PC) All with no losses. After much drinking of wine, the French captains were heard joking about enemy captains large ship obsession being a compensation. "...it's all on how you use your Pickle..." *laughter*

Of historical note, when the Pirate invasion of the French happen, WIS had ships in the area. We even had a few skirmishes around Bridgetown. Instead of helping us when the pirates landed, they gobbled up the ports in the area that were not defended and continued to PvE north of St George. I thought there was some outreach to them for help but we did not get any from the British nation until the fated Battle of Aves. WIS then couldn't stop the tide of pirates which flowed into the ports they had captured. No French help could be given because we were "all hands on deck" at Pedernales. In this French captain's opinion, WIS missed an opportunity with the French and the British nation missed a opportunity for a valuable ally. PS. PORT TIMERS. Set your port timers if you want a Port Battle fight even if you are outnumbered. Prime French Example: Pedernales.

Don't forget the battle of Aves. Where the opportunity of a great European Alliance between France, Britain, and Dutch against the pirates sailed away on British cries of "we need to PvE more" never to be seen again. Many battle hardened French witnessed this flight and haven't forgotten...

Remember, this game is still in development. They had much of it closed out until this year but there was a big push to open it up along with other things. So, while on one hand a population helps a game stay healthy, a low population (especially for a alpha) isn't all bad. It reduces overheard for servers for example. Additionally, if a higher population is present but 95% of them are docked up with nothing to do, that's also not going to help make the game "fun" nor would it seem like a PvP game. Conversely, that 5% could make the game feel well populated if it was concentrated in a localized "hot zone". Sometimes maps (especially this one) being huge make the world seem empty. That's always a good and bad thing. However, if we are talking player based economics, then yes population could be a problem. The people in the population could also be a problem. Too many attitudes can ruin games. That sort of thing needs policing and there again is another level of overheard needed by Game Labs. Give it time. Let the devs work on the mechanics and then once its near a Beta stage then we can start thinking population problems. I wouldn't mind a single server but they may not have the backbone code, optimization, or hardware. Then there is dealing with port capture windows ect.

Its not all doom and gloom. Star Citizen has the same issue. After their arena battle came out, it was busy then it slowly faded as well as the persist universe stuff. So, honestly there is a happy middle ground here. On one side, we are testers that need to give feedback on problems in gameplay. Winning by BR without a fight is a problem. We are probably going to run into other issues too. Our job is to suggest better solutions. If people can't handle playing an unfinished game, then they can leave. Nobody should be forced to play something that isn't fun. If the devs resolve these issues, then people will come back. Let's be honest, even now this is the best age of sail combat on the market. Unlike the previous mentioned game, i think these devs are really working hard to solve problems.

If you are gonna have to "grind" in a PvP game, it should be PvP. I'd actually understand if they flip floped the rewards for NPCs with the small/large battles. Or give normal for that small/large battles, 25% for OW NPCs, and 150% for PvP. I dont know. You can't create incentives to PvP if players don't want to PvP. There are plenty of people who'd go to a PvP server and grind PvE ships even if the rewards were 25% of everything else.