Tiedemann

We where there helping out. 1. mission we joined Russians side and shot AI and generating hostility for Spain. This was not ideal so the next mission we joined pirate side, but realizing there is not much to do there other than shot the guys your there to help we left. 3. mission we all stayed outside. Consider it an learning curve. I was not aware other nations could join these hostility missions until yesterday and yes I think is has the potential of being an exploit, but there where no Pirate fleet present at Portilo. So no real harm was done. I wrote a bug report in game after the 1. and 2. mission that should backup my statements.

As a minimum I agree, but I think it is boring that what we see when we tag = what we get for the next 1,5 hour.

I would appreciate it if the players I have chosen to ignore in nation/global chat, also where ignored when they posted in battle chat.

I have been in OW battles with rain/fog where view is limited and we can't not see much. I think it is very cool, but the main issue is that players can disengage and escape.. In PB this will not be an issue! So please give me storms in battle Looks so awesome when you can see a ship kinda far way in the fog or when it appears like a ghost ship 😍 And we can all access the map, so we are not really blind anyway..!

I you can enlighten me please do.

I think we should avoid having multiple zones open at the same time, but one for each free port could be cool.. I would also like to see a zone reserved for 4.rates and up. Maybe exclude 1. rates? Reserving a patrol zone for just one line ship rating would be to limiting imo and I fear the result would be an empty Patrol zone. Sorry for dragging this in: But as long as ROE does not change, I'm not dedicating an outpost to any patrol zone. And if we in the future would get less outpost slots (admin posted this), then I do not see the the future for patrol zones at all. Maybe the current patrol zones where just added to test the reward system and how much it would be exploited. I don't know.. 🙁

I like OP suggestion, but I would like it more if it was directional. So at the BOW and stern the effect of this suggestion should be reduced compared to on the broadsides. Then small ships still pose a threat. Damage difference between a 42 pd and a 9 pd is imo ridiculous low when you consider the difference in size and that the 9 pd has a faster reload. 42 pounder is more than 4+ times larger than a 9 pounder, so for me it makes sense if the 42 pounder cannon ball would do 4+ times the damage. 1 good broadside from a 1. rate should destroy a small ship. I also think we should get the ability to board at speed at when ships are hugging and the speed difference is low. Both of these inputs will probably require a lot of work and re balancing so nm xD

I recommend doing epic events, but I know it is not always easy to get 6 players together..

Give crew weight! xD

Could introduce a vote in battle like "Ask for 5 minute time out". If a certain amount off players agree then the clock and players are frozen for 5 minutes. This option should only be available for players that have resonantly been in a 60+ minutes fight and after the current battle is closed for entry. I see the use for this, but for me there are so many other things I would rather have the devs focus on. When I have to go afk I just go afk. If I have to do something in real life I log out. The ships are just pixels in a game..

So they are 33% then, not 20%. Can you get this data per nation?

I do not see/understand the need to change this. Mission for gold is not the most efficient method of earning gold in this game and you get much less gold from missions than you do for equal OW AI fleets already. But everything else I totally agree on!

Funny!

Many of us have played this game for a long time, so we know how "night flips" effect this game. Now most of the US time zone RvR players are in France and there are some in the Pirate nation. But in sted of fighting each other they are allied! So then almost a 100% of the active US time zone RvR players are allied or consider each other neutral so they do not attack each other... <- ZERG! We have had this problem before. Last time the US time zone players (US nation and GB nations 1 year ago) painted the map by doing uncontested PBs in the middle of the night. They did not do it for fun or content, just to destroy the game for the EU time zone players. Do you guys remember who cried their eyes out with walls of text on this forum back then? French nation..! The end result was a server split.. And EU server survived on it own, but that was not the case for the US server.. So now we are merged back together, and history is repeating its self.. When 3/4 of the total server population is EU time zone and France has a majority of EU time zone players and clans, but most of the French ports have defense timer in the middle of the night (for EU time zone players), then GJ France you have uncovered a way to exploit the mechanic. BEcause there is nobody to attack those ports with those timers when all US time zone RvR players are working together.. So good for France, but they are avoiding RvR = avoiding PvP = avoiding Combat. And this should create a response!

Patch today!? 😍

Brilliant! Seriously, why not just do this!?!?!!? If that is true, then ffs the current mechanic ONLY do harm and no good..! This should be raising a lot of red flags for all argumenting against this..

I support removing OR making it totally impossible to perform PvP in them.The compromise we now have is unfortunate imo.

Your one of those forum members I can't connect to a real player in game. So normally I just ignore statements form what I consider to be devious characters, because you guys might just be professional forum trolls that don't even play this game..! But I do make exceptions when you guys are being funny. So if you can give me the name of your character in game, I'll share with you the nicks of the 7UP members that I know are Spanish in real life. How about that? 😊

"Artistic liberties" = my partial opinion. This is not based on anything except my opinion right here and now. It changes every minute, so if you expect some well thought formula considering dps, crew and speed then go make your own spreadsheet! 😆

I took a lot of "artistic liberties" with this one, but it's a start! BR is based on Wiki and my memory, so it's guaranteed to have some mistakes in it. Ship BR now 160 limit Deep *1.3 Lynx 45 40 40 Basic Cutter 50 30 30 Cutter 50 30 30 Privateer 55 55 55 Pickle 60 60 60 Brig 80 80 80 Prince de Neufchatel 80 80 80 Snow 80 80 80 Navy Brig 80 100 100 Rattlesnake Heavy 80 110 110 Mercury 80 110 110 Niagara 80 120 120 Mortar Brig 80 80 80 Le Requin 80 150 150 Hercules 100 160 160 Cerberus 140 140 180 Renommee 150 150 195 Surprise 155 155 200 Frigate 175 175 230 Pirate Frigate 180 180 235 Belle Poule 185 185 240 L'Hermione 190 190 245 Essex 200 200 260 Trincomalee 230 230 300 Endymion 235 235 305 Indefatigable 250 250 325 Ingermanland 275 275 360 Wapen von Hamburg 285 285 370 Constitution 290 290 375 Agamemnon 300 300 390 Wasa 305 305 395 3rd Rate 355 355 460 Bellona 365 365 475 St. Pavel 395 395 515 Bucentaure 450 450 585 Victory 515 515 670 L'Ocean 580 580 755 Santisima 605 605 785

I strongly agree with OP, but the constant focus to prevent exploiting has had and will continue to have a negative effect on the game experience for honest players. The old damage reward system was reworked to promote PvP - giving 10x more reward for damage done in PvP compared to damage done in PvE. It was awesome, but it had to be reworked to counter alt farming..! For now I understand that preventing serious exploiting for release of the game is more important than giving more rewards for doing PvP successfully or not. But IMO for the long term survival of the game players need better rewards for doing PvP, just like the OP suggestion. Because getting nothing for an undecisive battle result and nothing when you just lose in a PvP is just not an incentive to try PvP. I also think ganking became a larger issue because of the current reward system. If you do not succeed you get nothing in sinking the enemy you get NOTHING. Therefor it makes much more sense to go in larger group to help increase the chance for decisive battle result for most players new to PvP. I believe/hope that if we have enough transparency in who earns PvP marks, we as players can report suspicious PvP activity. So in global combat news we should be able to see who sank who, nation and player names for both. We should also all have access to the battle report, time it took, damage etc. The main issue here is that those reports demand that someone review them and investigate.. So I'm not sure how realistic this is as a long term solution 🙁

Malachi posted this in another thread.

Great ideas! 1. This is logical and would make battle sails more used and ships running less able to put up heavy resistance while running away in full sails. 2. I like it a lot and I'm not sure why we did not go this way with repairs. If it is a locked rate of repair that repairs a lot slower than what we currently have now it would be brilliant! It could work just like the [Survival] does. So crew are moved here automatically when the ship is damaged and repairs are needed. But it would consume repairs while ongoing and you can disable it if you want. I believe this would boost the effect of focusing fire and prevent sinking ships from being magically resurrected by insane repair mods. Repair mods could still be used to buff the repair rate, but if the rate is like 1/10 of what we have now it would remove the "New ship" in 5 minutes repair we have now. NB! I do not see the need to replace the current hull and rig repairs with oak planks and canvas, because this is what we use to craft the repairs. Look at the repairs as crates full of planks, canvas, iron inguts etc.

I don't care.. I would like to see the Danish-Norwegian Line ship - Norge (1801) 74 cannons, captured by GB in 1807. I know nothing about ships, but I found this ship thanks to springby's post. I only found some basic info about history and armament, but no ship plans.. https://milhist.dk/life-steen-bille-hohlenberg-norge-norges-sea-trials-danmark/ https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=5577

So a modifier that changes for each maneuver a ship does and adds a penalty to the Sail/yard turning speed, maybe also the rudder turn speed? And then after a period with no huge sail maneuvers then it would recover the crew energy and be back to normal..? I it if the intention is reduce the stern camping advantage little ships has on larger ships, then this has my support and I think it is brilliant. But if this is not a mechanic intended to balance the smalls ships advantage on larger ships, it could have the opposite effect. Line ships with even more speed reduction on the sail and rudder movement would make them more vulnerable to stern camping.. So it would be important that smaller ships suffer more from this than larger ships imo.