Excelsior718

I am not arguing for your trade ships to be defended by the AI. Your trade ships would be sailed by the AI, and you would defend them yourself with your own man of war.

Now that (at long last) you can no longer teleport back to your capital with a hold full of cargo, it's time for the Developers to address trading. Currently, trade ships are way too vulnerable. If you are seen by an enemy warship, you will in all likelihood be captured. Running away is futile, and self defense is likewise futile. We need the ability to provide escort for trade ships. Allow a person to put trade ships into his fleet. That way, a captain can command a warship, and convoy his trade ships through hostile waters. This would make trading more viable and more interesting.

As long as you are required to sail a defenseless trade ship through enemy waters, teleporting with cargo is the only viable option for transporting goods. Everyone wants to do away with teleporting with cargo. That's fine PROVIDED that there is some realistic way for me to protect my trade ship. Trade ships should be part of your fleet. I should be able to sail my warship and be accompanied by my trade ship(s). Currently, a cargo ship is pretty much defenseless, so moving cargo around by actually sailing is pointless.

V10 or walk

I made a similar suggestion in this thread: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/10253-resolving-the-conflict-between-casual-and-hard-core-players/ A "sea trials" or "arcade" mode could be a lot of fun. I really think that XP and gold from sea trials should be separate from the open world, however.

I have collected a number of exceptional modules now. The only ones that have any practical value are the ones without penalties. This really makes no sense. Exceptional modules should not have such high penalties as to render them useless.

No. Fog is part of the ocean world. I like fog. It helps me hide from enemies. It adds some interest and mystery to the experience.

YESSSSS!! Please! So much common sense. Don't know why it's not yet implemented.

Sadly, rolling front to back doesn't work so well on a Renomme. Front to back broadsides begin with the rear quarterdeck guns.

I've had a ship explode when I was sailing it. Also low damage, and no fire (at least, I think it wasn't on fire, as I was aiming my guns at the time.) It's rare, but it happens. Sucks when it happens to an exceptional ship.

AWESOME. I didn't know. Thanks! Does it work in battles and in the open world?

In real life, I enjoy photography. In Naval Action, I enjoy taking screen shots. It would be great if you could enter a game as a non-combatant and maneuver your point of view all over the battle. This would allow for some awesome screen shots. Currently, your perspective is somewhat limited, as you are tied to your ship. Maybe allow ships that are sunk or surrender to continue on in free camera mode. If that option were there, I'd enter in my basic cutter, surrender immediately, and take some really awesome screen shots and video capture. It would be fun for the players, and it would generate a lot of really cool images and youtube videos.

Great idea. Provides more variety and fun, but doesn't upset game balance.

When naming ships becomes a thing, you will need to name your ship H.M.S. Hood.

We still do co-op with SOL from time to time. We are part of the diplomatic alliance with SOL and the major Pirate clans.

I don't believe that NPC ships bigger than a privateer should be available at all. There are plenty of crafters. Allow the market for ships to be filled by players, not NPC's

I "liked" this, but it is so spot-on that it bears quoting. We REALLY need variable wind and weather that matters.

Situation: I have a new ship with 5 durability, cargo in its hold, permanent and regular upgrades. What happens to this ship if it is captured by another player? Do I lose the entire ship, or just a single durability? What happens to the goods in the hold? Are they taken by the other player? What about the permanent and regular upgrades? Thanks

I am not a big fan of using names of specific ships at all. Would rather just call them all by generic names, like 38 gun frigate, or 44 gun frigate, or first rate, or 2nd rate, etc. Look at how ships were referred to during the time period. Nobody referred to a 44 gun heavy frigate as a "Constitution" (unless it was actually the Constitution.) Ships were usually referred to by the standard number of guns they carried. Every time I see a French or British "Constitution" it's somewhat incongruous.

I would like to be able to continue playing this game several years after release. Bottom line is that without some sort of funding model that allows for continued support of the game, that isn't going to happen. It doesn't have to be a subscription. It could be microtransactions, premium content or something else. If the financial model is just based on game sales, then the game will have a relatively short life, which would be sad.

I've already paid for this game (purchased 3 copies,) but I want to continue to pay for it once it goes into final release. I don't want to pay a lot, but I really want Game Labs to charge me a modest subscription fee. ($5 to $10 per month seems about right.) Why do I want to pay a subscription fee? It's because I want Game Labs to make this game something that will be attractive to long term players. If all of the revenue is earned on initial game sales, then the incentives are for Game Labs to dumb the game down and make it appealing to the broadest possible base. Financially, it won't matter if people get bored of the game after a month and stop playing, because there's no money to be made by keeping players interested and engaged long-term. There's also no incentive to keep supporting the game. (Remember Hellgate, London?) With a subscription model, there is a greater incentive to make the game interesting for long-term players and keep the game challenging and fresh. A subscription would also provide an income stream to fund improvements. So, please, take more of my money. I want Game Labs to work hard to keep the long term players happy, and without a subscription model, I don't think the incentives are correctly aligned.

This is an amazing game, even in the alpha stage. However, there is a conflict between the desires of the casual players and the long-term, hard core players. One of the attractive things about this game is the opportunity to sail a ship of the line into battle. Everyone, including the casual players, wants to do this. For a casual player, that just spent $40 on a game, it doesn't seem fair that in order to sail a Victory or Santissima Trinidad, you need to spend hundreds of hours online, saving and slaving to earn this ship. On the other hand, the long-term player doesn't want it to be so easy to obtain a ship of the line that everyone has them. To the long-term, more serious player, captaining a ship like the Victory is something that should be earned. How to reconcile these opposing desires? I suggest expanding and changing the current PVP battle instance missions. Currently, when in port, you have the option of entering a small battle or large battle. Why not make this "Arena" combat it's own game, separate from the Open World? Don't tie gold and XP earned in the Arena to the Open World. XP earned in the Arena would simply mean that you could use bigger Arena ships, and the progression would be very generous, so even a casual player would be able to sail a Victory or Santissima in the Arena without dedicating their life to the game. Arena gold would be used to purchase upgrades solely for use on your Arena ships. Arena ships would be used only in the Arena, and could not be sailed in the Open World. Having a separate PVP Arena would allow casual players to enjoy sailing the bigger ships, and keeping Arena XP and gold separate from Open World XP and gold means that the generous rewards in the Arena would not ruin the balance in the Open World. For some added excitement in the Arena, keep track of Arena rankings, so players would know who was tops in Arena PVP. For even more Arena excitement, allow teams to wager Open World gold on the outcome of Arena team battles (with a 20% cut for the house.) I could see clans betting millions in gold on the outcome of clan vs clan Arena battles. This proposal would go a long way to satisfying the desires of casual players, while preserving the Open World experience. In addition, it would add a whole new competitive dimension to the game.

I'd like to see a little bit more variability in wind direction. It pretty much just slowly rotates counter clockwise now. Would be nice to get a bit of randomness in how wind direction changes.