'Sharpe

That's a quality idea Nathaniel. Would introduce a lot of fun to the game.

I don't think AKD is saying that player traders are everywhere now and the new system takes them away. He's saying that the idea of having NPC haulers on the OW, and having the ability to personally escort them, or attack those of other nations, would open up a whole new universe of fun and PvP. It seems the system is only half implemented now: we have AI hauling but there's no gameplay manifestation of it, aside from button clicking. The reason people like PvP is because there's real loss involved, and the stakes are high. Putting AI haulers in a position where they can be attacked and sunk seems like a no-brainer approach towards creating more of this high-stakes fun. I think we are all (I am at least) confused as to whether this is planned for the future, or if insta-no risk transport is the desired end state of this mechanic? I believe it would be a HUGE missed opportunity if so.

If AI haulers won't be represented on OW, will we at least have a chance to blockade ports or interdict "trade routes" to cause greater loss of goods? The ideal situation would be for the raiders to actually receive some of the goods being shipped along those routes. Or if interdiction just creates a greater chance of AI hauler loss, that would work too (to a lesser extent). It opens up a lot of gameplay opportunities, for both the player route planner and trade raider. If there is no way to disrupt hauling or create risk, the AI hauling system is just magic teleport by a different name.

If the player is that impatient that they're going to quit the game over getting lost at sea (which is actually quite a novel experience that most gamers of the genre would appreciate), then countless other things are going to turn them off. Long sails between ports, no wizards, etc. It's fruitless to try to cater to the World of Warcraft crowd, because once you make one concession you're going to have to make them all. If anything were to be instituted, it would maintain the integrity of the game far better if there was a one time "get unlost" ability...but we are going to have teleport to capital, so that takes care of that. Also you have to think, how is this glowing capital beacon on the horizon helpful in any way if you are across the map from your capital? I am a U.S. player...if I am sailing by, say, Vieux Fort, the direction of my capital Charleston on the horizon is going to tell me nothing more useful about my location than the compass itself. A beacon on the horizon would only be useful for new players sailing immediately around their capital, so it doesn't seem to make sense to institute this for everyone.

Admin has stated that teleports without ship will be possible.

Makes sense.

After all the work and effort putting into making this a "manual" navigation game, why would we add this element that completely nullifies all of that? Lost at sea? 1) player's own fault 2) sail west until you hit land. 3) or teleport. It's already easy enough.

Good critique Sandwich, You're correct that it seems somewhat backwards that a nation that is "doing well" would receive high interest rates. However from a game mechanic standpoint I included it that way so that it serves as a reward for players of a nation that is succeeding in RvR. Providing these players with lower interest rates would seem to undercut the premise of incentivizing success in RvR. I think the disconnect is assuming stability vs. risk. Your initial thought, which is very macroeconomically astute by the way, is that nations successful in RvR would be more stable, lowering interest rates. However my "historical" logic behind higher rates for successful nations is that large empires would likely finance inherently riskier ventures, since they have so much territory to defend and their rate of expansion so great. I could see either side having merit, which is problematic, because any game mechanic in an historical game should feel clearly representatives of the actors of the time. --------------------------------- Therefore, I started to think more about this concept of risk, and how it was almost completely absent from my original proposal, but, when harnessed, can actually provide a better game mechanic than the one I originally outlined. First, the historical context. When territory was captured, there would be a certain need for investments to flood into that territory. From new military installations for defense to replace the ones that were destroyed, to infrastructure that can accommodate the new captors and their equipment, to even property/land that was abandoned by the previous owners and now is available for purchase by the nobility of the invading nation. Conquest Bonds Here's how it would work in Naval Action: 1) When a port is taken, any player within the conquering nation has the ability to invest in the new territory. These investments can be called Conquest Bonds, Consols, or simply as such, investments - I will call them Conquest Bonds henceforth, but the name can be changed. 2) There are two classes of conquest bonds: defense bonds, and property bonds. Each bond type has two types: 7 days, and 14 days. 3) When you buy a conquest bond in a certain class, if your nation holds that port for the amount of time (7 or 14 days), you get your initial investment back, plus interest. If the port is recaptured or captured by any other nation before that time, you lose your initial investment and do not earn the interest. 4) After 14 days of continual port ownership, you can no longer buy Conquest Bonds for that port - the port has now been owned long enough that all new investment opportunities have been taken. Essentially what this means is that -- once your nation takes a new port -- you are placing an informed wager on whether or not your country will be able to hold that port in the near future. The gameplay benefits are voluminous: -A reward for players of a conquesting nation. The interest rates will be high, and a good opportunity to earn free money. Taking ports has more meaning when there is clear monetary incentive. -Will encourage the defense of ports where players have invested in conquest bonds. Nobody wants to lose a port they just took, but once they additionally each have 500k on the line earning them potentially 50% interest...you will really start to see defenders in numbers. -A natural counterbalance against chain port flipping, and zerg conquest. Conquest flags are expensive, and at some point the aggressors will reach an interesting choice: continue to expand, or focus on holding the new port for a week, two weeks, while investing enough in conquest bonds for that port to fund the next wave of conquest flags. -A natural counterbalance against exponential national dominance. Once ports are captured, the temptation will be high for captains of the "winning" nations to invest in Conquest Bonds, thus taking their money out of circulation for one or two weeks. This lowers their cashflow and gives some chance for the nations suffering port losses to outspend them on ships for the time being. -A fascinating "cat and mouse" game, on a national level. The losing nation will want to counter-attack and regain the ports they lost, but they will especially want to regain ports that enemy captains have purchased Conquest Bonds in, for that means the bond money is completely lost for enemy Captains. This will be completely blind to both sides of course - defenders/counter-attackers will need to take their best guess as to which ports the enemy has invested in defending, and the aggressor nation will need to hide whether or not they've invested, through their actions. -An ideal national player-only equivalent to Pirates' port raiding income. Remember, Pirates will have an income source (raiding) that national players do not have. There was much concern over this, and I believe Conquest Bonds provide that income equivalent, provided they are not available to Pirates (historically they should not be). More detail on bond types and classes Earlier I alluded to Conquest Bonds of the "Defense" and "Property" classes, and of 7 and 14 day types. Owning a Defense Bond for a certain port would allow you to teleport without ship to any defensive port battle during the time of your bond ownership, where you would be able to man a small gunboat or fort gun during the battle. (You can also of course participate with your ship like a regular participant if you are able to be present for the battle). This bond class type allows you to feel some type of ownership in the defense of the port since you will always be able to participate in the defensive port battles for it, but for this privilege this bond comes with a lower interest rate. Owning a Property Bond for a certain port is simply the 18th century equivalent of investing in an estate in the new territory. You don't have teleport privileges to participate in defensive port battles, and therefore this class carries the highest possible interest rate. (You can of course participate in defensive port battles if you happen to already be present). 7 Day Conquest Bonds versus 14 Day Conquest Bonds obviously has to do with the magnitude of the risk. 14 day bonds will carry a higher interest rate, since they are riskier; more of a chance of your nation losing that port before your bond matures. I would recommend something like the following: Defense Bond - 7 Days - 20% Interest Property Bond - 7 Days - 25% Interest Defense Bond - 14 Days - 45% Interest Property Bond - 14 Days - 50% Interest These values can obviously be tweaked to meet supply/demand, and in an ideal world would be relative to the risk of the newly-taken port. A captured port that is far from an already owned regional capital will be substantially more risky, and thus the interest rates even higher. -- Overall I believe that Conquest Bonds simplify the situation a bit from my initial post, while still providing an economic/strategic layer that the game really seems to need. It does so in a way that rewards the victors of port battles while also working towards slowing the pace of expansion & creating more incentive for strategic, measured RvR instead of zerg sprawl.

Followers of my forum canon are well aware that I've been beating the drum for some type of strategic rationale for port capture. Currently, we have a RvR game of mere denial of localized resources, in which too few people are reliant enough on any one given port to essentially care if it is taken. The stakes are simply not high enough, as is. I realize that the developers may have another layer in mind, to be introduced later. Blackjack Morgan has outlined a fantastic idea in which regional capitals become hubs for SOL building, and economic/capture ramifications radiate outwards from there. I fully endorse something such as that, however I still believe that even if we had such a system, players not engaged in SOL crafting or buying must still feel some connection to the wartime progress of their nation. One of the challenges of any incentivization system is avoiding the "spiral loop of despair" for factions that begin a streak of losing. If factions are incentivized by greater rewards for taking more ports, those factions who are victorious initially will become exponentially stronger as they are rewarded, making it increasingly difficult for "losing" factions to even-out the course of the war. My idea, outlined below, avoids the "spiral of despair", while providing a strong RvR-backed incentive to all players, regardless of play style or individual goals. In short, everyone will feel that they have a stake in the course of the war, as the economic impacts of capture and defense will be felt by every player. War Bonds Otherwise known as Consols, the earliest historical issuance of war bonds was by the Bank of England in 1751 at the behest of the British government, to help pay for war debts. While some may think of war bonds as exclusively a 20th century security, their issuance during the Age of Sail and subsequent Napoleonic period give them immediate credentials within the historical scope of this game. For those unfamiliar with bonds, the way it works is that a buyer purchases a bond with a fixed lifespan and a fixed interest rate. At the end of the bond's lifespan, the buyer receives their initial payment back, plus interest accumulated. Here's how it works in Naval Action: 1) Any player, at any time, may purchase a war bond of a fixed amount from their nation. Bonds may come in increments such as 5k, 20k, 100k, 500k, etc. 2) During the life of the bond, you cannot spend the money you've purchased the bond with. That money is essentially tied up in the bond. 3) Remember, the value in owning a bond is that after a pre-set period of time, you get your principal amount back, plus interest. Players will do this, as it's free money. 4) The interest rate is determined by RvR victory progress conditions at the time of bond purchase. Whatever the "victory" metric for factions may be (be it regional capitals owned, overall number of ports owned, or whatever the devs decide), this is what will directly influence the interest rate. Nations with favorable victory progress will receive a higher interest rate, and nations with poor victory progress will receive a lower rate. Why does this make sense for the game? Twofold: 1) A higher interest rate is a nice reward for successful national RvR that all players can feel the benefits of. The Dutch have taken most of the Spanish main? Every Dutch player will be able to purchase bonds with a higher interest rate than players of most other nations. This is a nice source of national pride, and profit: at a high rate of 25% interest, a 500k bond will yield the player 125k when the bond expires. That's 125k in free money. A player on a more hapless faction may only be offered a 3% interest rate, making them less likely to invest 2) This one is important. Remember, if you have 600k to your character's name, and you buy a 500k bond, you are down to only 100k until that bond expires. So while you receive free money (in interest) at the end of bond ownership, until the bond expires you have limited your spending power. This acts as a natural cap on nations becoming gradually too strong to defeat. Nations that are winning the map, and have higher interest rates, will likely have more players begin to invest their money, taking it out of circulation as a means to buy ships, for a duration of time. Conversely, nations that begin "losing" will be offered such low interest rates that their players will be more likely to pour all available money into ships, crafting, etc. This creates a form of balance, whereas weaker nations are more likely to strengthen their fleets at the same time as stronger nations are remaining stagnant, waiting for their bonds to mature. The end state is less chance of a runaway superpower, strengthened to no end by their RvR rewards. Fine tuning Obviously, the value of interest rates (from highest possible to lowest possible) can be changed at any time by the devs, to suit what they believe is best. The same goes for the bond ownership duration. I would recommend a bond ownership duration of 7 real life days, although only a day when you log into the game will count as a "day" towards your bond maturing. I would recommend a rate range of 1% (lowest) to 25% (highest), depending on victory conditions for a nation being met. I do not know yet what those victory conditions will be, but I do hope it has something to do with control of key regional capitals and trade routes. Additional layers An important thought for me is always: does this make sense within the "real" universe of the game? In other words, is it realistic to imagine that Age of Sail nations would use bonds during wartime in such a way? The answer, as I've thought about it, is yes. You can imagine your purchase in a war bond going towards your nation's military, for protecting and expanding the empire. The more territory your nation owns, the greater the risk that it will incur territorial losses. To entice investors into these riskier bonds, they must offer a higher interest rate. It's quite a logical way to think about why an expanding nation would offer a higher interest rate, and a smaller nation would offer a lower rate. On that very topic of risk, as any investor knows, there is another side of bonds which I have not mentioned, and that is the chance of default. If your bond provider claims bankruptcy, you may forfeit both your principal and any unrealized interest. If this system were to be truly detailed within Naval Action, we could have bonds whose possible default is tied to the loss of certain key ports. For example, if my nation has captured the far off enemy regional capital of Basse-Terre, I would be able to buy a "Basse-Terre Defense Bond", with a very high interest rate. However, if Basse-Terre were to fall back to the enemy before my bond matures, I lose the entire amount. This would encourage port defense on a level not yet seen, as players would be highly incentivized to keep their investments secure. Final thoughts I do not see War Bonds as the final RvR incentivization mechanic, but rather a useful piece of the puzzle. The puzzle is: how do we get players to care about the progress of the war, and feel like it directly impacts their game experience, other than simply counting who owns the most ports when you press 'M'? Given that War Bonds carry a unique balancing mechanic within their reward structure, it seems prudent to consider them as one of the many elements that will (hopefully) make Naval Action's RvR strategically appealing, thus ensuring we have a wide, active, and interested player base once this game launches.

We (team blue) look pretty badass through the spyglass at around the 6:30 mark, with two perfect columns advancing. Great sailing and cooperation between the Americans and Brits.

Not sure I see an issue here. Leaks above the waterline should be much easier to repair because there's not water gushing through them. If anything, I'd like to see a little more variability in below water line leaks. It seems like currently they all will get plugged, eventually, as long as you have some armor. Once in a while there should be some leaks that are just too large, or too entrenched, that will cause you to sink even if you still have a bit of armor, so that the game damage model doesn't feel so mechanical (eliminate all armor, only then will the enemy sink). It sounds like this is what happened to you Badas, I have just never seen this myself before.

You've certainly picked the right nation, you're already off to a good start.

Here's a problem with player contract fulfillment. If a noted shipbuilder puts up a contract for the transport of valuable goods, it becomes a target for someone's alt to accept the contract, and either delay delivery (do nothing), or worse, sail it into an enemy fleet for prompt sinking. Even if someone does not take those overt actions, publicly visible contracts reveal economic or strategic intentions to all players within a nation. If we allow no alts whatsoever, this problem may be ameliorated, but there still exists the possibility for spies and griefers, or just those with a personal grudge, to delay shipments by manipulating the system. For AI transport of goods I would much prefer a system where you can hire NPC traders and then you must escort them to the destination yourself. The system you described would be really entertaining for placing a bounty on killing an enemy player, but for economic or strategic contracts I would just imagine too much trouble with abuse.

If you reveal who's who in the battle marker, you'll almost never get PvP unless one side is sure the numbers will be in their favor. Fog of war is necessary here to keep battles feeling fresh and not numerically calculated so that one side is always assured a win. Also, it's a nice challenge to have to ascertain the battle situation from the marker. You have to know BR values for ships, think about player territory patterns, NPC routes, etc. It's another differentiator for those captains with experience versus those without, and those types of differentiators make a game's outcomes more variable (and hence more fun) over time.

Agreed with Sandwich. When you have a shared server, people gripe when they get attacked ("Come on, this is my last dura/I have my good mods/etc"). Once the server is named PvP, that goes away to an extent -- people know what they signed up for and more people will actually fight each other. This is what the PvPers want, and exactly what the PvEers don't want, so I don't see a problem with separating the servers.

I actually like the distance currently required to see the port name. It adds to the challenge of navigation and keeps long journeys interesting. If I could click on any port from afar and know exactly where I am, it's akin to having a GPS. It's far more rewarding to need to identify terrain features and harbor approaches, and also provides a nice natural advantage for captains familiar with a certain area.

Will we have the option to view wind direction relative to the direction we are looking? I have raised this issue twice before, and consider it essential to situational awareness -- I just can't get used to a compass that always has the wind relative to the ship, rather than relative to the direction of the camera. All other sailing games I've played allow this at least to be a toggle switch. For example, imagine my ship is traveling due north, 0 degrees, with the wind coming from 90 degrees. If I go look out of the port broadside (270 degrees) without touching the rudder, in current game state I would look at the compass/wind indicator and see an arrow pointing like this <---------------. Given that I am looking towards 270 degrees when I make this reading, my instinct is immediately that the wind is coming from due north!! I just can't shake this; years of actual sailing have made me always situationally aware of the wind as it relates to the direction I am looking, because that is how one's senses actually perceive it, in real life. A camera-relative wind meter would, in the same situation as described above, show the arrow now blowing from bottom to top. Which makes sense given that, as I look 270 degrees and the wind comes from 90 degrees, it is coming from directly behind me. Can we get this in game? Pretty please?

Would it not work to keep restarting the timer until you can get the target outside of the circle during one timer, and then let it elapse?

I agree with almost all of what akd said. Having that circle constrict during an otherwise fun Trafalgar was the single worst experience I've had in this game so far. Everyone was engaged and fighting, and yet about 50% of participants were killed by a game mechanic. I can't reconcile the direction of the devs on this: On one side of the spectrum, player ships within instances are allowed to repair sails 30% up to 3 times, vastly enhancing their ability to run from combat. On the other side of the spectrum, players participating in mass battles are corralled into an ahistorical battle royale circle, to promote close range pummeling at the expense of sailing acumen. I still believe Caldwell's suggestion of each ship having its own "battle activity timer" to be the cleanest solution, however if the devs insist on having a circle, may I suggest one of the following: ----- Proposal 1) A constricting circle exists, and if you are outside of it after the 5 minutes elapses you are considered "eliminated" from the BR calculations of who is surviving. You may still participate - but at a certain BR ratio, when one side achieves BR superiority, the battle is considered won. This marries the circle with another idea the admin mentioned here (a good one IMO) about a running BR calculation and declaring a winner at a certain point. Under this system, ships will still be highly incentivized to remain in the circle, as nobody wants to be "that guy" who costs his team valuable BR needed for the victory. However, the penalty is not as harsh and "gamey" as having one's ship sink magically and losing a durability. ----- Proposal 2) A constricting circle exists, however if your ship is outside the circle but making movement in a general direction towards the inside of the circle, the timer is paused. Players should not be punished for attempting to move back into the circle. If you watch the video of the last Traf, for 3 minutes I was beating upwind to try to get into the circle, which was moving at about 5 knots and I was moving at 6. The timer elapsed as I crossed into the circle and I was killed. Not only was I penalized for seemingly nothing in the first place (I was engaged with two enemy frigates when the circle started closing and decided I wasn't in the "action" enough), I remained penalized even as I did everything I could to rectify the situation. This is silly. ----- No matter what is chosen, admin is correct that the circle closes too fast, and begins closing too early. It also closes to an end state of far too small at the end of the battle. If the circle is to be kept (which I still argue is a huge mistake and will turn off many age of sail enthusiasts; Caldwell's proposal is the best to promote combat) then I would like to see something like Proposal 1, where the circle can influence the battle outcome, but not so directly influence the experience of a player actively engaged in combat. Or, not have the circle move at all, and have it remain at the dimensions present at the onset. This would not be so bad either, as at least maneuvers could be planned around something stationary.

This, sir, is brilliant. I've been trying to think of a way to promote combat that still allows the "remote" duels that can spawn from a larger encounter such as these. There are some great mini battles that occur off from the main action in larger engagements, and you can make some great impromptu allies and enemies. It's a terrible thing to penalize these players with a wizard MMO style constricting Ring of Magic Spell. Your suggestion would allow ships in combat to remain in combat, regardless of their distance from a contrived "center of battle." It's an elegant, organic solution. I can't think of a better way to promote action and still stay historical.

Suggestion: Whistles should be faction-unique I love the concept of whistles that signify a change in focus (Gunnery, Sailing, Survival), but it struck me suddenly as odd that every nation would have the exact same sounds associated with their actions. Historically, the Royal Navy would have different audible cues than the Spanish Navy, whose cues are different from the Dutch, etc. Allowing faction-unique whistles has two benefits: Battle experience of the captains matters more. If I've never fought against the Swedish before, for example, I'm at a disadvantage versus a captain who is familiar enough with what their overheard cues mean. It's cool for immersion. Currently, there's nothing that feels different about fighting a Dane versus a Pirate versus, anything. This unique audio for each nation would have the nice effect of making combat against an uncommon foe seem appropriately new and memorable.

Survival is already almost too good at fixing leaks below the waterline. I'd say no to any more in battle repairing, except, as one poster mentioned, gradual sail repairs while furled and in survival mode.

Good fun today, very evenly matched. Sorry to hear some couldn't make it in. NL team was stacked enough though

I would actually disagree here about quick shifting between sides, as I think the need to pan to each broadside adds a good deal of immersion and challenges one's situational awareness, especially if you play battle instances from only the ship's deck (as I think many of us do). It's unfortunate if this movement to each broadside causes motion sickness for some - maybe a snap to broadside button could be an option if it's on a slight delay, so as not to give a speed advantage over people still panning the view manually.