shaeberle84

This game is not comparable. A death in WoW and many other games means nothing. In Naval Action it is worth hours of grinding/trading.

Please do not compare your game to Wow. In WoW, a death means nothing. They even got resurrection abilities. In Naval Action as it is right now, a death means you have to waste 2-20 hours of gameplay to replace your 5-1st rate. This comparison is ridiculous and you know it.

We can still capture NPC ships, but have to pay marks if we want to sail them ourselves. Otherwhise they can be used as fleet or sold. That is the most elegant solution. No rewards is acutally a killer for newcomers. Totally agree.

Yes and we have to encourage them to continue playing. Losing (both in PVP and PVE) a very tight and hard-fought fight with 0 rewards is very frustrating and will lead new players to leave. Seriously, stop that crap. If a new player loses its Snow, Cerberus etc. and put up a decent fight, they should have enough money to buy a one-tier lower ship from the rewards to get back in the game. They should not be forced to PVE grind or trade them back into the game. That way you distract them from fun things into less-fun things and they leave. It is really simple. Just try it.

This is not EVE. Why do you always think you have the same players as EVE, the same mechanics, the same solutions to different problems? You said you want to do a realistic sailing game. 90% of sail battles ended in a draw. The captains got their reward anyway. Also: a lot of players have pointed out that they do not like having to grind PVE or trade in order to finance PVP. This could be easily fixed. Give assist rewards also when ships are not sunk or when they are boarded. Give assist rewards to mast and crew damage as well. It is a magical solution to most of the whines here, trust me, please.

Regarding the Testbed: there were too few people online, when I logged in; and I had some graphical difficulties. Regarding live server: 1) Cost of battles: We need assist rewards for damage, even when the ships are not sunk. 20% hull, 20% crew or a mast need to give assist rewards. Otherwhise long, indecisive battles are very frustrating and money-consuming. Also: assist rewards for people who have helped boarding a ship (not for the one actually getting the ship, this is fine). 2) Cost of ships: NPC (bought or captured) ships up to 5th rate are quite cheap. They are through-away ships and can be used to have fun in groups, mixed with some good ships. However, if you are alone, you need a good ship (fast ships with upgrades). Really good ships are expensive, you have to craft longs rather than using cheap mediums from the PVE grind, more repairs and, most importantly: upgrades. Upgrades are so darn expensive because the production of the ressources needed is capped. There are 5 cartahena tar a day and that is it. Why? If players are willing to pay about 10x the normal shop price, why would the city not increase its production? We need dynamic production of those ressources (we need dynamic prices overall, but that is another question). Sum up: With these fixed, I think PVP could be financed by average players.

That is not how it works right now, so why would we stick to a system that does not function!?

Okay sorry. I think forts are okay. If you have highly populated areas, there are many players, but also many forts. This is fine for me. If you want to hunt people in this areas, you just need more or harder ships. It is no problem to kill somebody under a fort with 3 connies.

I think rig repairs should be able to repairs masts and about 20-30% of sails, but the timer is way too short.

It is not balanced. Right now, hunting is far easier than defeding against hunting. Using the SPEED and INVIS after a battle, combined with DEFENSIVE TAGS and SUPER-FAST ships, you cannot really defend against a hunter pack. The balance was off directly after the wipe in favour of revenge fleets, now it is off in favour of gankers.

1) no. PVE reward is fine giving how easy mission grinding is. You could do more rewards for more challanging stuff, that would be okay. What is off balance is too little PVP rewards. They are way too low to be self-sustaining. Furthermore, you receive no rewards at all after hours of battle where you damage your enemy up to 300%, but he repairs and escapes. This is the problem. We need assist rewards even when enemies are not killed AND when they are captured as well. 2) Alliances only cover the root of the problem: too few players. The game needs to be more fun, less of a time-sink to attract more players. Then, nations can field port battles again. Finally: the hard-core games will stay with the game, no matter what. Because it's core is just too good to leave. So wait until new versions, and until the @admins come to see their fautls regarding (1).

We need a dynamic port production for these ressources. If the port is emptied all the time, it should produce more from that ressource, but for a higher price (simple rising supply curve, ECON 101).

Labour hours have implicit costs as well. If you look at labour contracts in capitals, for example Gustavia is 75k for 500 LH that cost 50k to make. So it is 25k for 500 LH, making one LH cost about 50g. So the real costs of a naked surprise is about 80k gold. I dont know if LH for materials are counted in already. Also, you need to supply cannons as well, and I am not talking about cheap mediums you get from missions, but crafted ones. So the final price for a 1 durability Surprise is even higher than it was for a 5 durability Suprise before the wipe patch. This makes the grind really unbearable.

You get cheap ships from the NPC, cheap cannons and repairs from PVE missions. However, the player based economy is so screwed up, you can never ever substain losses in PVP.

I get your point. Thing is that (1) yes there are guys that have multiple indiamans. (2) you can do this while being more or less AFK, so reading a book, watching a TV series or whatever. You cannot do this while grinding missions. (3) There are of course even more profitable ways of making money through trade, which however involve crafting (e.g. selling muskets to NPCs). As Labour Hours are restricted, I do not want to include these ways into my argumentation. (4) Your point even enhances my point that fixed prices are bad. Why should you be able to constantly make more profits selling Parisian Furniture? Why should be price in Gustavia not change if everyone delivers Parisian Furniture, but noone delivers Fine Fabics or Normandy Cider? So the point is not about the amount of money you can make, but (1) that you can make it quite riskless if you are clever and (2) that the economy does not work well with fixed prices and fixed supply and demand for everything except the player-based ressources.

Das wäre auch okay. Damit kann man Ganker mit Coastguard zumindest vertreiben für eine Weile. Und wenn sie zurückkommen ist man prepared. Kaum ein MMO ist vergleichbar, aber früher war es bei World of Warcraft auch so, dass du auf PVP Servern aus der Instanz gekommen bist und dort die Ganker der Horde standen. =) Nein das sehe ich auch so. Aber im Moment ist das Pendel zu weit in die andere Richtung geschwungen. Ich finde mit ein paar Anpassungen bekommt man beide Seiten ausbalanziert. Beispielsweise: - INVIS ja, wegen mit auch noch länger als 1 Minute (2-5, egal), aber kein SPEEDBUFF. Zu hohes Abuse-Potenzial. - Kein INVIS /SPEEDBUFF für Attacker um Defensive Tags zu vermeiden. Und gegen Abuse wenn Spieler aus zwei Nationen zusammenarbeiten. - Alternativ zu INVIS/SPEEDBUFF bekommt man ein "10 Minuten nicht angreifbar" nach einem Fight. Dann lohnt sich Revenge auch nicht.

Aber man kann ja als Spielerentwickler sein Spiel nicht auf die Top 10 Leute im Leaderboard ausrichten. Und nein, das stimmt so nicht. Es gibt viele die sich Sorgen um Casuals und Carebears machen, obwohl sie selbst keine Casuals sind und ggf. sogar Nachteile haben. Sie wollen dass das Spiel langfristig Erfolg hat. Aber wie schon gesagt, da gehörst du ja nicht dazu.

Ja oder 1.5 oder whatever, weil Trader ja zum BR zählen aber recht wertlos im Gefecht sind, aber das ist fair. Der alte Signaling Perk halt.

Du bist doch nicht der durchschnittliche Spieler, seh das bitte ein. Es kann sich doch nicht alles immer um dich drehen? Du willst das Spiel wie es dir gefällt. Aber das sollte nicht das Ziel einer Beta sein. Sondern das Spiel sollte alle möglichen Spieler ansprechen. Ein durchschnittlicher Spieler verliert 50% aller fairen Fights. Gewinnt er eines (bspw. Surprise), kann er capturen, dann hat er aber Gold veroren (Repairs, Crew) und muss das Geld wieder reinholen. Oder er versenkt und bekommt gerade mal seine Repairkosten wieder rein oder etwas mehr. Verliert er, sind mehrere Hundertausend Gold in der Regel weg mit Kanonen und Upgrades.

Wir hatten diese Diskussion schon auf Englisch. Deine Ziele sind ehrbar und du wirst deinen Spaß bei Naval Action Legends haben. Aber die gleichen Mechaniken, die dich schützen, schützen auch die 5vs1 ganker. Und die ruinieren das Spiel und insbesondere die Spielerzahlen. Nicht nur für Casuals, sondern auch für erfahrene Spieler, die dann vielleicht ein 8vs5 Coastguard machen wollen. Aber das bleibt ihnen verwehrt aufgrund der aktuellen Spielmechaniken. Gefechte, die offen bleiben, fände ich gut, ja. Wie gesagt: faire fights bekommst du in NA Legends.

It is a bad economy if riskless trade brings the same amount of profit than risky trade. Why should I risk to sail to La Orchila to buy Dutch trade goods, when I can flood the Swedish capital with French trade goods from La Desirade? I can do a risk-free trade run from La Desirade with some friends, 6 Indiamen and some frigates as guards, built a battlegroup, nobody can tag us. Gives millions of profits. Of course, missions are profitable as well. Or crafting can be profitable as well. Usually players do a mixture of everything, wich is okay. But the amount of time needed to fund PVP is rediculous. This is the real time sink. If I waste two hours chasing others in OW PVP, I am dissapointed, but that is okay. If I have to waste two hours for trading/missions to replace my losses from PVP, I am deeply annoyed. That is the difference here.

Mit dem Unterschied, dass die Schiffe früher 5 Duras hatten und damit fünfmal so günstig. Damit bekommnt der Sieger heute viel weniger und der Verlierer sehr viel weniger (nichts). PVP kann sich aktuell nicht selbst finanzieren und das ist das große Problem. Verlierst du eine PVP Surprise, musst du 5 Stunden PVE Missionen fahren um das Geld wieder reinzuholen (oder Trading oder ALT account, geschenkt.).

Weil du ALLEIN in feindliche Gewässer gesegelt bist vielleicht? *headbang*

Does not even has to be the capitol. Freetowns have their own "nationality". For example Les Desirade is French, producing French trade goods, which sell bad at Fort Royal, but sell very well in other capitols. Nowadays, Les Desirade is well inside the Swedish territory, making trips between this port and Gustavia an easy trip (as long as Moscalb and his ganking colleages are offline, of course). The same story can be told about other freetowns. Normally, such behaviour would simply reduce the prices for French trading goods in Gustavia to a point where it is not profitable any longer. But with rigid prices, this is not the case. Just wait until the port has consumed enough for prices to soar above 1g, and it will magically buy the trading goods for very high prices again. The economy part of the game is simply a joke. This has nothing to do with player numbers.

If you do that the game is dead with 90% of the guys gone you will never find PVP. Do you even listen to yourself?