Eldberg

I've been around since Sea Trials, with almost 3,000 hours in the game. The below is simply a summary that scratches the surface of the problems faced by Naval Action. I absolutely loved the game, and met some incredible people that I will continue to be friends with, and thank the development team for providing a platform to allow that. 1. The game focuses on community created content (wars, skirmishes, grudges etc), which is not entirely bad (see next point)... However after a while, with the limited community, the fights more often than not become stagnant and toxic. The content becomes a chore, which is too close a parallel to reality for most... After all, games are a temporary escape from the harshness of reality. 2. There is a lack of "PVE" missions / side missions. Additional missions need creating, and I'm not talking about the simple "go to X, kill stuff" or "go to X and get Y, deliver to Z". They need to be more complex, dynamic, with a (limited) story line that can progress. While this will not occupy all the vacant content space, it will contribute to giving casual players, which would seriously bulk the player population, a viable game to play not entirely focused on grinding and port battles. 3. Economy is for the most part player driven, however is not a true global market. Trade is restricted to ports, personal messages, or the forums. Link the port markets, essentially a port wide auction house, implement trade agreements for cross faction (country) trading, and add delivery times for cargo (possible players can pay more for quicker delivery, cargo split between several faster ships etc). 4. Game UI, which we have been told in the past is the last thing on the list of "things to do" is incredibly basic. It is the first thing a player sees when they start the game, and for many it is a big turn off. A dock view with your selected ship bobbing up and down, perhaps cranes loading goods / cannons etc would be simple to implement and great for visuals. Reorganise the UI and improve its aesthetic qualities, it doesn't have to be the iteration of the UI, but the visuals drastically need to be improved to encourage new players to continue playing. 5. The big sweeping back and forth changes to find the "goldielocks" balance is an atrocious development method and logically does not make sense, especially with such an asymmetric quality. With every broad sweep of the scales, players left, many never to return. In the past we have seen changes going from A, to Z, to B, to Y, to C, to X and so on... While I am somewhat out the loop I've been informed this is still the same as it ever was. It is an excruciatingly slow way to determine balance, even the triple taping method games of old used to use to establish a happy medium would be a better alternative. 6. This unfortunately moves me on to the last point, the public face of the development team. All too frequently players have been insulted and even punished for criticising the development team and its decisions, leaving a sour taste in many mouths. The exchanges can somewhat by understood, a small team of passionate devs have worked on this game for a long time and it is part of their lives, it is their child. The knee jerk reactions and harsh words defending the development team are akin to vehemently defend your child if it were under attack (but not necessarily justified). With that said, I think that perhaps it is not fully recognised that the decisions, methods, and communication between the development team and the players IS part of the game. I personally have watched at least a dozen of players, who have been members of the community from the beginning, walk away from the game purely down to the relationship between the players and the development team. Regrettably, this does not appear to be isolated, and is far too evident in a sizeable quantity of the steam reviews; which in summary commend the game for its potential, however criticise the relationship between the development team and the players. Overall: A wonderful game with great potential once you get past the antique UI and purely player driven content. However, as time grows so does the commitment, what was once fun becomes a chore and the attachment to the game becomes all to similar to reality.

I believe YOHOHO is the leader of CCCP? This battle for the most part was 1vs1, myself and YOHOHO. It was only after 20-25 mins of running that the two ships in our fleet caught up by which point I was poised for boarding and turning him in to the wind.

In theory a great idea, another option would be readjust the price of cannons to make the lower tier cannons that would be used be newbs cheaper, with an exponential rise in price for the higher tiers. There is a little bit of that at the moment, but it could be improved.

That was an entirely different situation, you should know that of all people. Time after time the US offered Spain peace, time after time it was rejected. We drew borders, offered ports, offered amnesty and promise of a wide berth around their capital etc. Ultimately it was rejected because Spain did not see it right for the US to hold the East and and West coast of Florida, one of the few places the US could expand in to. If I remember correctly, Spain wanted the entire Gulf, West of Florida, South of Florida, as well as Cuba. There was simply no negotiating with them. We fought them in the day, the afternoon, and the night. They never defended with any force, even their ports surrounding their capital, they just tried to take them back them back while US players were asleep or at work.

And you didn't think that it would be wise to include this information in your announcement? Either you are back peddling another half baked idea due to the responses from the community, or you yet again have failed to provide clear and concise information. Whether it be the first or the latter, it only illustrates a big problem that has dissuaded so many from continuing to play this game.

Overall some pretty interesting changes. Some good, some not so good, but I do see one problem. Ships, Gold, Resources and Ship Modules all go hand in hand. My meaning is that they are all economy based and are all intertwined with each other, you cannot change one without effecting the others. If you are removing mods and changing ship durability, a full wipe (of everything but xp) will be required to provide a stable baseline for testing. Only wiping one aspect, or multiple but not all, will have a knock on effect, for example. Player A purchased Mod X for 10,000,000 from Player B. Mods get removed, Player A loses mod, but Player B retains gold from sale. Player A ultimately looses out, Player B remains unchanged. Unless you do what you did with the removal of Fine Woods, where shops buy gold mods for large amounts of gold, then this problem will remain. However, by doing this (like with the fine woods), you will have many players instantly wealthy overnight... Which in turn will unbalance the economy again. TLDR: Wipe everything but XP to prevent economic instability.

At least half the Danish nation then...

Ink, By doing this you would actively divide the player base from each other, pulling apart multi nation clans and alliances that are over 2 and a half years old! This is not a fix, even a temporary one, and I am pleading with you, do not do this. In all likelihood the fallout from taking such action like this will drive hoards of players to leave the game, as well as leave negative steam reviews. It has potential to destroy the game you guys have worked so hard to produce. I implore you, seek and work on alternative options... Sincerly, An (almost) 4 year veteran of your game

Easiest way to combat that is to introduce an exponential crew maintenance cost. Captains usually did not pay their crew, but the government/military did. Due to this being a game it would be incredibly difficult to have a central pot that everyone draws from for crew costs, so instead the cost goes to the captain. Essentially, the bigger the ship, the more more you pay per in game day to sail it. Add maintenance cost for the ships as well as a degradation on ships that are anchored that again is exponential on the ships size. This way, players will simply not be able to afford to have 5-6 1st rates in dock while sailing a 7th. They will become a rarity, something you only pull out for the defence of the most valuable ports.

"Just a game" is a term that has now aged beyond suitable terms of its use. Games used to be a novelty, something done to pass the time for a quick shot of enjoyment and not too be taken seriously, however now it is a multi billion dollar/pound/euro industry with billions of players worldwide. Ultimately they provide an escape, a second life, a chance to be something you're not. Online games take it a step further, people from all around the world playing together, forming friendships in virtual realities that go beyond the realms of "just a game". All of a sudden those virtual realities become second realities, real people with real feelings and thoughts, but sadly there are individuals who see the distance and anonymity in the online aspect of games as a free pass to act without consequence.

Either way, let us put our collective minds together and try and come up with a viable scheme that seeks to improve PVP, increase the value of port battles, and overall balance out the current system. Tear it apart, offer your own ideas, let's see where it gets us.

A 3 stage port conquest system that aides to improve PVP, increase the value of port battles, and overall balance out the current system. It is a work in progress, any feedback would be wonderful. I will be editing the post as necessary to include improvements and alternatives. Raiding: Started by planting a flag (with a 24 hour cooldown after every attempt) at the enemy port to designate the target, this like the old system will be announced globally, offering the enemy a chance to respond and block the flag. To progress on to the next stage (blockading), a port must be raided 3 times within a 7 day period that begins once the first raid has been completed. Note: As the developers have not made clear the combat system or the rewards for raiding, I will leave this particular stage open. Blockading: Once a port has been successfully raided 3 times within a 7 day period, a 48 hour blockading stage commences once the 3rd raid has been successfully completed. Once this stage has started, an area around the port is marked where allied captains must combat enemy ships to build up points represented by a blockade percentage (essentially similar to the current hostility system). During the blockade stage AI ships belonging to the attacking nation (and their allies) will spawn in the area, giving the chance for the defenders to reduce the blockading percentage if no enemy players are present. The difference at this stage is that a minimum blockade percentage must be reached within the 48 hour period to proceed to the next stage. Starving the port will diminish its defences ability to fire at attacking forces during the port battle. The more successful your blockade, the less supplies such as black powder and cannonballs the defences have. Securing the minimum blockade percentage should be relatively difficult, almost guaranteeing a port battle, however achieving 100% blockading percentage should be VERY difficult. On average you should be able to attain around 75-80%. The Port Battle: Influence by how effective the blockade has been, fortifications will have limited fire (and potentially range). Other than that, the port battle will continue as the current system stands.

Will and when will you merge the servers to increase population, diversify the nations, and drastically increase player based content?

What a load of puerile gibberish. The arrogance of this sort of post is beyond belief, it is absolute rubbish. 1. There is no such thing as a "Night Flip", it is simply a port battle that YOU can not attend. 2. While the server is named "PVP One EU", it was not always so. Once upon a time, there was just one server, and it is where hundreds of American players made their home. We were here from the beginning, we supported and helped build the mould of the game for years before most of you even started playing. 3. This is an open world, persistent sandbox game. If you can't take the fact that the servers run 24/7 (not including maintenance), you are playing the wrong sort of game. I am from the U.K and played as United States for almost 2 years. I was at university doing my masters degree while working a job on the side, later I gained full time employment once I graduated, yet I woke up or stayed on late to attend port battles. When the United States were under attack, I would wake up and defend as best as I could. Is it hard? Yes! But that is the game that this is... If you can't take it, go play minecraft. By declaring you will not respond to port battles at a certain time and throwing a tantrum over it, yet attacking ports at a time you know your enemy cannot respond to, you are the definition of hypocrites, It goes both ways.

Britain you have my condolences

Perhaps there is a better server location that could be explored that would lower the impact on players if the servers were merged. Personally I do not buy in to the excuse of lag spikes and high ping. Having played Naval Action when there was only one server, that people from all over the world played on, I can attest that it was never a regular issue that was raised. At the moment the simple fact is that population has been in decline for a while, more recently it has dropped more rapidly. Finding PVP is as much of a challenge as it is fighting said PVP... Merging the servers would certainly assist (as well as relaxing some of the new crafting changes) in increasing activity.

It seems... Big. Like someone with poor eyesight would use this skin.

Greetings Captain Admin, Just for your record, so you know exactly who I am, I was Stephen Decatur. I'm going to take this open letter to the community as an opportunity to respond to some of your concerns, take it as you like, but it is all meant with good will. Statement 1: “constructive criticism is not welcome”. There are of course always people who will shout "Your game is rubbish (choose whatever word you want here" while providing no reasons as to why. This of course is not useful in any way as it gives your team no indication in to what areas need to be improved. As someone who has been on the end of your whacking stick as well as your good side at some point, I might have a unique light to shine on this statement. There have been times, when perhaps you were upset over something, that you have responded to valid constructive criticism with a heavy hand. I can understand that this is your baby and you care about it very much, but sometimes it may be wise to take a breather, think about your response, type it out, then read it with your feet in the public's shoes. Sometimes it is not what you say, but HOW you say it. Sadly, there are many players and ex-players in the community that feel that you are not an approachable person. This is not a one off comment, there are many people who feel that the way developer/public relations are bad. Perhaps there is something you can do to change that over time? Statement 2. Exclusive special ships for moderators and testers There have been times in the past where specific individuals have been given access to ships, the latest example being the Heavy Rattlesnake. I know there were a fair amount of people upset over, perhaps this is what he is talking about? Statement 3: False steam reviews and developer bribery I believe your words were along the lines of "If the bad reviews continue, the music will stop playing". There have been several posts you've made that have inferred more content, but you have never confirmed anything. Perhaps this is just down to a poor choice of words? Statement 4: Bans for trolling new players in help chat. Again, you were perhaps a little upset over the reception of the latest patch, and lashed out a little hastily? Not everyone is on the forums, not everyone can see this warning, and you would have them banned for speculating over a mechanic that you did not verify to the users? Wait, think, write, think again. Statement 5: On the removal of the feature based on comments You threatened the delaying of content to a player who made a comment regarding their displeasure for the content included in a patch. Wait, think, write, think again. To conclude, what I see here is a developer who is very passionate about his game. On occasion, you have allowed emotion to sometimes overcome sense, which in some cases has led to a very public ugly mess (A few Spanish players are still incredibly angry about some rather tongue in cheek comments you made last year and didn't apologise). You are the face of Naval Action, you are the person that players look to on the forums for sound advice and updates for a game that they love to play. Like a politician, if you say something bad out of emotion, people will remember it. My only advice to you is grin through the anger or sadness when someone criticises your game, respond calmly, in a non emotional written post. You have a game with big potential, and listening to what your community wants and interpretation feedback will help your game reach that potential. While you set out with something specific in mind, remember plans always change, if you have to change something or remove it entirely because it doesn't work, then it was a part of the game that was never destined to be. Keep up the hard work!

It's been almost 2 years, yet we still have to suffer with bad module descriptions. I know it's just another little thing that needs changing, but surely it won't take that long to do? If you are really that tight on time, then I will do it for you, just give me a full comprehensive list of the mods you have and I will write a brief description for all of them.

You are kidding me right? The price for ships at the moment in ridiculously cheap! When I started playing, an exceptional frigate was 600-700k. We didn't have missions that paid out gold and xp, we just had the grind. A new player can sell their crafting hours for 200-300 gold each, every day, making them enough money to buy a very good ship straight away. They will most likely have exceptional ships, as opposed to us who had to make do with fine or common. New players have it easy.

Pellasgos, I don't care if you are our ally or not, you are better than this... Don't gloat.

Looking to be shaping up nicely! This will be an interesting change. For the purpose of this patch, would it not be a good idea to open up trading between ports (any ports, not just free) and have some sort of ship delivery service? Some of us have a lot of ships and resources in various places that need moving. Personally I do not want to spend my entire weekend moving all my ships/resources. http://i.imgur.com/LLEfN29.jpg Admin: Might be worth changing your link to this one: http://i.imgur.com/LLEfN29.jpg

Screenshot of ingame PM removed The sharing of ingame and in forum PMs is not allowed without permission from both parties -Moderator team

I never said it was a bug. 0 crew is 0 crew (and by default 0 morale as there is no crew to have any morale). 0 willing to fight means 0 morale, but that does not mean 0 crew. Simply put, your argument is completely illogical and is wrong. Get angry at me if you want, but this is constructive criticism from a player who has put in almost 2,000 hours. Why do I expect them to join my crew? Perhaps that is because that is EXACTLY what impressment is. Colloquially known as "the press" or "press gang", it refers to the act of taking men in to a military/naval force by force. If they did not, they would be severely punished (flogging, lashed to the mast, left out at sea, walking the plank etc). I understand your goals here, you want to prevent what I think you refer to as "chain boarding", the act of boarding multiple ships back to back. However this is a cheap and easy fix. At this point you might as well remove Press Gang and Morale during boarding, because at the moment it means sweet feck all.

I see that I am not alone in this then. The admins reply is an expected response considering the history of development decisions.