Anolytic

It is no secret that I and others with me are nostalgic about the good old days of 25v25 1st rate fights. This has two main reasons for me at least. First, with 25v25 1st rates, everything was equal at the start. Ships were equal, numbers were equal. It was all about what happened inside the battle instance, and all about sinking the opponent faster than they could sink you. Sure, we had kiting problems with the 1-circle system, but battles were at least decided on sinking or not sinking your enemy, not on passively acquired points. Secondly, screening. It took some effort and risk to screen a 25 first rate fleet. Screening 5000 BR port battle fleets is child’s play, and with hopefully 2000+ players after release, screening is going to be a huge issue in RvR when clashes happen between large and small nations. However, despite my nostalgia, I’m advocating to revise the current Port Battle BRs on the map. For a couple of reasons. First of all, everything is the same. With deep water ports being only 3 different sizes, 10k, 20k and 25k BR, out of hundreds of ports all over the map there will quickly become only 3 metas. One setup for each of those sizes, with little variety. Once someone finds a meta that works reliably, others will copy it. There will be no surprises, no strategising before PBs, and most importantly no variety. This does put us on a more even playing field in some regards. Some nations have leaders with more or less ability to innovate strategy. But it also takes away a huge element of RvR. An element which I was against when it was introduced, and never really developed a fondness for, but which I still think ads an important dimension to RvR, which should not be overlooked. For the purposes of this discussion, I am leaving aside the issue of screening, which is helped somewhat by the new BRs, as well as the fact that planning and organising PBs will now be significantly easier and that DLC-ships will be less of a deciding factor in Deep Water Port Battles. Speaking strictly about the experience within PB instances, I am advocating for more variety in BRs. As 25v25 1st rate clashes can occur in OW just as well as inside PBs, and there is nothing really special about having 25 1st rates on each side compared to 18 1st rates and a 6 2nd rates, I am suggesting that no Port Battle needs to have a BR limit higher than 20k. Why even have a BR limit on a port if there is so high that 27 1st rates would fit in, even though the instance can only take 25 players. This highest BR limit should only be in Regional Capitals, and the largest/most important County Capitals. Most County Capitals should have BR limit between 10k and 18k. Non-county Capitals should have an average BR Limit of about 8k, and a span from 4,5k to 12k allowing smaller fleets to take part in RvR for those ports. Historically some harbours, like Gustavia or Christiansted, were put under occupation by just a single frigate, but that would equate in-game to undefended port-battles. However, to accommodate participation of smaller fleets, some 5-10% of non-capital PBs should have a BR limit of 4,5-5k BR. Meaning they are small enough for small PB-fleets, without being so small that kiting is a default win option for defenders. Most importantly, variety. Instead of every port being X000k BR limit. Creating a limited number of meta PB setups that we will eventually get used to. Having port limits return to limits like 8500BR, and 5340BR, and 12400BR like we had before, will make sure that almost every port battle is fought with a unique fleet composition.

I have made this proposal before, but I want to repeat for emphasis: Please remove the frontlines mechanic from the Bahamas Region. Specifically the Counties of Grand Bahama, Abaco, Andros, New Providence, and Exuma. The ports in this region should be available for all nations to fight over at will. Missions for any port within the Bahamas, county capital or not, should be possible to take from Shroud Cay. Regardless of whether your nation holds any adjacent ports or regions. The Bahamas should be an active RvR-area, with ports constantly shifting hands, and individual ports PvP and piracy abounds. Not locked behind the bars of frontlines allowing one or a couple of nations to control the whole region by their ability to lock down Regional Capitals using numbers, and the construction of forts that will be more significant in Shallow PBs than anywhere else. I would consider also the option to not allow construction of forts in Shallow/Bahamas Ports (Shallow Ports elsewhere on the map, i.e. Pedro Cay, is a different story). The frontline-mechanic, is a good idea for the general map, but in the Bahamas it only serves to limit diversity, access and gameplay. Removing Frontlines from Bahamas will allow the «Strong» nations to fight over the ports perceived as important and valuable, because of strategic location, profit, resources, or proximity to Patrol Zones. While leaving «lesser» nations or clans to fight over ports with great value, though they are often overlooked or ignored by the powerful nations.

This wipe has made evident some notable problems with the current RvR-model. Especially about early expansion after release. One of the problems is the connection between regions putting unnatural restraints on the direction of expansion. Another problem is the rate of expansion. The map gets gobbled up by the nations with the most large clans that can fan out over the map and capture every region adjacent to default territories or Free-ports. Last but not least (of the problems addressed here) is the problem of no luck for the US-timezone. The first problem, created by the way hostility missions are now linked to the closest regions, was addressed somewhat by the expansion from 2 to 3 regions being available. But in return it created new problems and I plan to address this whole mechanic further elsewhere. However, the other two problems persist in full. That after wipe/release, it is first come-first serve, and since maintenance/wipe usually happens after US primetime and before EU primetime, by the time US players come online again after a wipe, the map is already divided between European clans. Every nation that has the ability, through sheer numbers, will fan out immediately after a map-wipe and grind everything that can be grinded. My suggestion consists of two recommended changes. First is a limitation on how many regions can be under attack at the same time by a nation, and the rate of outward expansion. What we are going to see clearly tomorrow, when nations for the first time take full possession of county capitals they have so far conquered. Is that it is strongly in the interest of clans and nations to largely ignore capturing ports that are not regional capitals, and instead to secure the largest territory possible by proceeding to attack the next county capital from where they have now reached with their expansion. We will see regions where a few, or even most, of the ports beyond the county capital, will not have the controlling faction even bothering to claim them. As long as they are within a region held by the nation, they are impossible to claim by other factions, and therefore can be left neutral with little threat save from enemies creating outposts and hunting there. Instead nations will be seeking to secure as many regional capitals as possible, and leave it to lesser clans to fill in the gaps of undesirable smaller ports. My suggestion is this: Allow each nation to only be engaged in the conquest of 2 regions per day. And also, make it so that until a nation controls at least 60% of the ports in a region, they cannot take hostility missions from that region to an adjacent region. So not only will you need to take a county capital anymore, a nation also needs to be in possession of most of the ports within that region before they can use that region as a staging ground to go for any adjacent region. And nations can only attack 2 regions at once, meaning that if they have attacked 2 regional capitals, they cannot attack any further regional capitals until they have control of those two regions. Meaning they should control a majority of ports (60%) in the regions. So for example if Pirates on day 1 attack Baracoa and Pitt’s Town. They cannot attack any third region until they have captured those regional capitals, plus 1 further port in Baracoa County and 2 further ports in Crooked County. This will slow down the initial expansion somewhat, and allow the map to develop at a more natural and steady pace in the beginning. With more nations being able to secure some initial territory, and with nations needing to cooperate to prioritise what counties they should attack first as well as in finishing up all of the smaller ports within each County. So what about the US timezone population? My opinion will always be that the game would benefit from having two regional servers. However, let us put the lid on that idea for the purposes of this discussion. My suggestion for the resolution of this issue is to consider each 24 hours as 2 12-hour days. One EU-timezone day, followed by one US-timezone day. The division being at, say, midnight UTC time (server time). Going by the system proposed above, that means that EU-timezone players would be able to attack 2 regions before midnight (server time), and US timezone players would be able to attack a further 2 regions after midnight (server time). Meaning also that in 24 hours a nation can engage in 4 different regions. So conquest will be slowed down a little bit, but not a lot and the division of the map not unnecessarily hampered. Nor will lack of coordination within a nation be too harshly punished with 4 chances to get the most important regions on the first day. Of course, SEA-timezone players will, given the current maintenance times, be caught somewhat in-between two chairs, neither being able to fully compete initially in the EU-timezone, nor the US-timezone. But if they were to find themselves in nations with less of a US-timezone contingent of players they would be able to take almost the same benefit from the proposed system. So in short: 2 regions attackable simultaneously per day per nation. 60% of ports in either regions needs to be controlled before the next regions can be assaulted. And divide the day into two 12-hour blocks to allow the US-timezone players to also attack 2 regions per day, even when the EU-timezone population used up the 2-region quota in their timezone.

I had to apply, even though my stealth game experience beyond Assassin's Creed is severely limited. Nice to see the progress on this game. All of the footage looks just beautiful.

I get your point, but I disagree. Making ports attractive to take (i.e. profitable) is the best way to entice and drive RVR without "RvR-Importance"-features (like rare woods/rare resources) that force RvR but also pushes a winner-takes-all mentality that drives players from the game when they can't catch up. Any clan that makes less reals from their ports can simply recruit a few more traders to stay afloat, while a strong clan can capture profitable ports to save time on trading. Rare woods and such features on the other hand puts strong clans/nations on a irrevocable long-term advantage over less successful clans, which is ruinous to motivation of both strong and weaker clans.

Now that clans with the next update will be able to expand their ports with more industry opportunities, in return for an investment, and as both clan-members and friendly clans will be able to benefit from this. It is high time that Resource extraction from industry buildings should require taxes paid to the port owner. The port owner has facilitated that this port is available to you and expanded with the resources that you need, and hence they should be entitled to some taxes from everyone who benefits from these facilities. This would also make tax rate a factor in where some players/clans would set up their industry. If a clan sets a lower tax rate they could entice more players to make their crafting bases in their port. Obviously the base daily cost of upkeep of a port should also increase in relation to how many port expansions and defence options are enabled for the port. Taxes from industry would help pay for this increased cost.

Please add a name change history. If a captain has changed names there should be a drop-down or similar in the player info card (when you search for someone or right click them in your friend list), listing previous names. Forged Papers should allow you to change the name you go by, or how it is spelled, but not for players caught exploiting or spying to become anonymous again. It is annoying when some players change name every 30 days, and there is no way you can keep track of them. And many people have forged papers on their alts to move them around between nations as needed. But this also allows them to change name if they are found out. There should be a way to find out that the new name you see pop up in nation chat is actually the same player you had a confrontation with earlier, or that was called out for cheating somebody in a trade transaction. For anyone changing name because they got tired of their old name, or because they have grown some creativity since they bought the game and named themselves "Captain J4ck Sparrow III», this change should be inconsequential. For anyone using name-change to escape notoriety, this should make it harder. The only way to wipe your name-change history clean should be to delete and recreate your character and regrind. Since we should all start with a clean sheet at release, name change history should be wiped with the rest in the final wipe.

The issue of timers has been litigated and re-litigated ad nauseam. But I will not let it go yet. I have read both that the basic ROE and join timers are now settled, and also that they are still under review. Which of them that is true I don’t know. I have already offered my opinion on timers, but I want to come with a suggestion as well. We currently have 20 minute join timer - if the BR is uneven, and let’s face it, it usually is. Many players in my clan loves this ROE. Others, like me personally I hate it and I miss the good old 2-minute join timer. What I call the WYSIWYG ROE, because what-you-see-is-what-you-get. With the current ROE, I get attacked in my heavy frigate by a light frigate, far out to sea and with no land in sight. And then, just as I am about to get him low enough on sails that he can no longer outmaneuver me, a Bucentaure might join on his side and completely change the situation in battle, even after 15 minutes. What I don’t like about this ROE is: The uncertainty. Never knowing if someone will jump your battle, completely shifting the balance in an instance, or not. The small battles that grow larger incrementally. You may have a battle where your BR is higher, so your opponent calls for reinforcements. And they bring a big ship, which opens up the battle for your side again, you call reinforcements and it switches sides again. False security. Big battles are still uneven. In the highest BR-battles, even when one side is outmatched and calls for reinforcements, this only helps them to a degree. In the highest BR battles, <13% BR difference is still a lot. Even after getting reinforcements you may still be several lineships down compared to the opposing side. Gamey tactics. Like small ships tagging and getting bigger ships as reinforcements after 10 minutes, turning it into a gank. Like ships dragging a fight towards the join area for their side so that their reinforcements can join on top of you. Like dragging the initial stages of fights out past the 20 minute mark to be sure of no interference. Split the Map What if we could have parts of the map with 20 minutes automatic 2-sided signalling ROE like now, and other parts of the map with the good old WYSIWYG ROE? We already have special zones of the map with a special Patrol Zone ROE, so it should be possible to implement. We could of course do this by simply dividing the map into an East ROE and West ROE (or South and North), with one ROE in one half of the map and the other ROE in the other half, but my idea would be different. I would have the main ROE be WYSIWYG - 2 minute timers. In open sea, far from land the timer would be 2 minutes. And in the shallow regions of Bahamas it would be 2 minutes. However, in the waters of any county/region containing either A, a National Capital, or B, a fully upgraded (in the new port management) Regional Capital, the 20 minute automatic 2-sided signalling ROE would apply. Thus, near all capitals, as well as some portion of other coastal areas, typically where clans have settled their crafting areas, the 20 minute ROE would apply, while more remote coasts, as well as the Bahamas and all stretches of Ocean would have the WYSIWYG ROE. Alternatively the 20-minute reinforcement ROE could be applied not automatically to fully upgraded cities, but be a defensive option that the clan owning a regional Capital could apply (with a weeks cooldown) to the whole County/region. There should be an indication on the screen when sailing in open world if you are in the coastal waters of a region/county where 20-minute ROE is applied. This in my view could work to some degree to appease those that preferred the old ROE, and at the same time keep any benefits that is intended to PvP from the current ROE. It would mean that near capitals there would be 20 minutes reinforcements (for both sides) until even BR, and the same in other highly populated coastal waters. At the same time you could attack someone in the middle of the open sea, or in lower populated regions, without magical reinforcements jumping in 15 minutes into the battle.

With the changes of Battle Ratings for ships, it is time to look again at the Battle Rating limits of Port Battles. For one thing with the increased BR of 1st rates those highest BR ports on the map should have their BR increased as well, to allow for truly massive fights over those ports. 11 000 BR is not enough as the highest BR. The biggest ports, like San Juan and Cartagena de Indias should give room for full 25 man fleets of 1st and 2nd rates to engage. I am not asking for mono fleets of 1st rates again, though I do miss those days and would happily take them back. But we don’t have to go quite so far as 22500 BR Ports, but 15 000-18 000 BR as the upper limit would be suitable if applied to a few ports. Even more importantly however, the lowest BR ports need an increase in BR. There are a lot of deep water ports with less than 3000 BR. With the current damage model it is simply impossible for attackers to bring enough ships AND firepower to capture and defend 2 circles for long enough to accumulate 1000 points when the defender can just kite and use small ships to deny points. When the BR of ports is a little higher there will be enough ships in the battle for each side that they have to engage each other and fight for the circles, because any part of the fleet will be able to cover a single circle sufficiently together to keep Le Requins or Niagaras out of it. But in Ports with 2800 BR and less this is not possible. These fights inevitably devolve into kiting, preventing which was the entire reason for creating the 3-circle PB system to begin with. There is nothing realistic or historical about defending a city by running away from the enemy. Kiting is gamey and boring gameplay and should be eliminated as best as possible from conquest. Port battles should be about engaging the enemy. The reason for these low BR PBs working before the new damage model, is that more ships would participate on each side as smaller ships, like 3rd rate, could deal with a small number of 1st rates. This is not the case anymore. There should be no Ports that are so small that they have Port Battles with a BR limit less than 5 000. Or kiting will continue to destroy RvR and make players leave from sheer boredom.

Battle in the Windward Passage yesterday:

Sabicu and Mahogany would be cheaper for one thing. Besides, in the last week I've sunk more sabicu/white oak and caguairan/white oak Rättvisans than teak/teak ones, so there's clearly some that prefer those woods even when they can choose exactly what woods they like. Even then it was a lot of useless afk-sailing in trader-lynxes that was easier to do with alts, was a time-sink and yet contributed nothing to the open world. The prices are the problem, not the supply of doubloons. I refer to that in my OP too, but I also offer some other alternatives to consider if we don't want to go back to the good old basics that worked in the past. The other options I suggest have their benefits too, and they would work much better than what we have now.

I know your concern. However ANY game with an interactive economy "promotes" the use of alts by that standard. ANY system that promotes the interaction and collaboration of players will by default be possible to cheat by players willing to invest in alts. We simply cannot let this stop us. The proposal will make hoarding easy for big cooperative clans and/or players with alts, sure. But most importantly it makes things possible for the average and casual player. If some power-gamer with alts is swimming in crafting logs because he spends 4 hours a day hauling woods and trading resources, that doesn't hurt or affect the affect the average player who spends 2 hours in-game per night - as long as he has just enough woods himself to cover his needs. This game has plenty of alts in part because at multiple times in the past we tweaked the game-mechanics so far into the hard-core extreme that the only way the game was playable was with alts. Some players left the game then, others gave in and bought alts in the hope to push through until things evened out for the better. I don't want that to be the state of the game still when the game is released. I want the game to be playable for all the average players in my clan, and others, with only a single account. No. That is why I said there should be 4-5 ports that drop each wood. That way hunters cannot simply camp just one single city to catch all traders going in and out. They have to cover multiple ports and multiple approaches. It also means that there will drop 200k-250k logs of each type each day. Even if somebody could manage to empty out one port every day for a week before running out of money, there would be 3-4 other ports where there would be guaranteed stocks of the woods. I also forgot to mention in the OP that for this proposal also, the prices of Live Oak and White Oak, and Teak, should be comparatively multiple times the price of the "lesser" woods. I'm thinking 20-50 reals per log for the "lesser woods" and 100-250 reals per log for the "finer" wood types. However there should be NO TAXATION on purchasing woods in this model, as the nation that happens to start closest to where a popular wood spawns should not be able to earn money on owning those resources by default.

This suggestion is part of a comprehensive review I have attempted on the Crafting and Economy currently in Naval Action. This part is where I address crafting woods. You can find my topics on Currencies and the Economy here, and my suggestion on Labour Hours here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Currently most players barely craft any ships. Of course this has a lot to do with the impending wipes and release of the game, and that many players have a good amount of ships already stored up, enough to keep them probably till the next wipe. It also has to do with the (horrible) permit prices situation. But most of all, in my opinion, it has to do with how rare woods are now implemented and distributed in the game. Even if you have access to a clan-mission for the wood type you need, 50k doubloons for 5k white oak is just an abysmal amount of grinding for what amounts to enough wood for barely a couple of first-rates. The clan missions have so far to my knowledge not caused a single conflict over access to rare wood forests. No ports attacked because they had a clan-mission. All they do is lock down what are essential crafting resources, behind a wall of grinding, as well as a restricting them to a subset of the game population with the restrictions that are placed on withdrawing rare woods (i.e. members and friends of a clan where the mission happens to spawn). But there are exceptions to the clan-mission exclusivity. The rare woods are accessible to buy directly from the AI in some select few ports. You can even buy them on contracts, for reals. You can buy Live Oak (only) in San Augustin, White Oak (only) in Nouvelle Orleans, Teak in Bridgetown, and Mahogany in Santo Domingo to mention some. This is great for people with a French alt… And even better if you also have a Russian alt. With only two alts you can have access to teak, live oak (french) and White oak (russian). (/sarcasm) For everyone else it’s just a punch in the face knowing that it’s even there. There are always contracts for these woods, so good luck collecting any if you don’t have an alt to set the contracts with. As they are currently, the alt-friendly wood spawns on the map only compound the issue with clan-missions for woods. These are huge issues. With the current distribution of non-basic crafting resources the game is barely playable for most average players. There is no point in even trying to craft good ships. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clan-missions and "RvR-Importance" With the forthcoming Frontlines conquest system, Clan-missions as they are now simply will not work. Rare woods forests could spawn miles behind a frontline, and simple RNG would determine that some nations would simply have no chance to compete in RvR. The nation for whom the RNG is lucky, will have strong ships to defend their forests, and the unlucky nation will be lacking strong ships to conquer the port that they need in order to build strong ships. It’s a problem that’s there already but for the fact that we have ships stored from before the system was introduced, but one that will be aggravated infinitely by the introduction of Frontlines. Port-Drops and Alts-importance The way that the map now has some very few ports that drop certain woods, and they can be bought on contracts, does not work for the simple reason that it HUGELY advantages alts. This system practically forces the usage of alts for the game to be even playable. This HAS to change. Grinding Lastly, the grinding needed to be able to afford woods from the Clan-missions is unsustainable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Suggested Solutions I have 2 solutions in mind for how to make woods work. Neither is fully refined, but other solutions to replace the current system may be suggested by others. The most important thing is that the current system is completely scrapped. Short Distance Hauling The first alternative is to revert back to the good old days when crafting woods were easily available near capitals. Make sure that wood spawns, in the form either of ports selling the woods to the NPC-market or ports where forests can be built, are spread around the map so that each and every nation has all the important woods (live oak, white oak, teak, mahogany, caguairan, sabicu) available in ports within 1-2 regions from their capital. This way, as long as a nation can conquer their own immediate home-waters they always have access to the woods needed to craft the ships they need to defend them. There should also be other clusters of woods around the map for clans to make their base near, or for the three impossible nations to settle near. This model would encourage trading and hauling between the wood-spawns and the clan/national capitals, in turn encouraging hunting of those traders. At the same time as it would give all players equal access to equal woods for crafting vessels. Making RvR more fair. As previously brought up, I would shift the bottleneck in crafting from woods and permits, towards labour hours and labour contracts. But the amount of wood spawning, or possible to extract, depending on the approach, could be limited, creating the need to conquer more ports around the map with the same woods spawning in order to fully match demand with supply. If woods were extracted from buildings, we could be limited to 300 logs per day (and only one forest building per port per character), enough for a couple of frigates, but needing many days to make a 1st rate unless several people collaborated by all producing the same woods. Or if the logs were dropped in port the supply each day would be limited. Though I prefer the forest factory model over the port-drop approach which will be hugged by those able to set up the highest contracts. Also, the price of the woods would distinguish different ship-builds from each other. The base price for extracting/buying live oak and white oak would be multiple times higher than extracting/buying mahogany. Long Distance Hauling My other idea is this: To spread the woods out across the map and make it necessary for players and crafters to haul the woods back to where they craft from each corner of the map. It would look something like this: 4 or 5 ports on the East Coast of Florida would spawn Live Oak. Regardless of who owned each port, anyone would be able to go there, purchase all the Live Oak they could carry, and bring it back to wherever on the map they craft their ships. This would be possible because the port would always be stocked. The stock would either be literally infinite, or 50 000 logs would spawn each day after maintenance in each of the 4-5 ports. And it would be impossible to set contracts for the logs in those ports, so nobody could buy up all the stocks by contracts. It would allow any player to go there and get Live Oak, and at the same time it would be a paradise for raiders and hunters patrolling the area looking for traders coming and leaving carrying Live Oak. Clans would be organising convoys to go there and pick up enough stocks to last them for weeks, and even nations would organise hauling runs for non-clanned players to go together and collect their own supply of logs, as well as a supply of logs to sell in home harbours to those players unwilling to make the sail. Likewise, there would be 4-5 ports, spread around for instance the Gulf of Mexico, where similarly White Oak would be available to anyone who would go there to pick it up and haul it home to their base. Mahogany could be found, for instance in 4-5 ports in Panama. Caguairan could be found for instance near Orinoco. Sabicu on South-East Cuba. And Teak, as the preeminent PvP-wood should be found pretty centrally, and be spread to both south AND north of Hispaniola, or alternatively be found in 2-4 clusters around the map, including the Bahamas. There is a third solution: That rare woods forests are simply yet another expansion that can be applied to upgrade cities for a price. Say for instance that you can choose only one forest for each city, either Teak, white oak, live oak, mahogany, caguairan or sabicu. So to get all woods you have to upgrade six cities. I will not expand more on this approach, as it has already been mentioned by others elsewhere.

None of this addresses anything of what I write about in the OP. Of course an important aspect of Patrol Zones and even PvP in general on the OW is contingent on people going there for PvE and finding PvP when they are there. This doesn't change anything about my analysis or my suggestion. This doesn't make sense though. You can't say that you agree with me, yet in the very same sentence disagree with me. Sorry that I used a lot of words. I've tried cutting it into manageable portions. But I'd still ask that you try to read what I wrote before commenting, otherwise you might as well post in another topic or create your own. Rather than posting off topic here.

Permits and PvP-rewards economy Given that the circulation of Combat Medals would be much less than it is now, I would drastically change prices, something which is needed regardless. The other issue to address is what specific rewards can be exchanged for Combat medals in the admiralty shop. With PvP-marks we had the problem that very upgrades and books, that greatly advantaged the someone in combat, were only accessible for PvP-marks. Hence to be able to compete in PvP you needed to farm enough PvP-marks to buy those best tools. And this is a system that encourages farming - alt-farming and friend-farming. We had this issue massively after the introduction of PvP-Marks. I’ve had enlightening discussions about this with @HachiRokuand others, and you cannot base a system to prevent alt-farming and the like on players «snitching» on each other. You have to design a system that does not encourage exploitation, and the only way to do that is to make the rewards purchaseable for PvP-marks mostly cosmetic. So that great PvP-players get something they can show off, and less successful PvP-players have something they can work towards, but do not feel they need to acquire right now in order to be even competitive with the elite. I remember from when we had PvP-Marks, that those players who were the most successful PvP-players advocated for this, despite that the system as it was, greatly advantaged themselves. Therefore I would shift the currencies in the admiralty shop towards more rewards costing doubloons and Victory Marks, and fewer costing Combat Medals. Combat Medals should be used to purchase cosmetic upgrades, certain Upgrades that are equivalent to the upgrades that PvE-players and traders can collect, and convenience items. That is to say that with Combat Medals you should be able to buy: Special PvP-flags such as the Second Muscovy Flag in Russia, for 50 Combat Medals, instead of 50 000 doubloons as you do now. All of the upgrades that are roughly equal to other upgrades collected in-game. So for, say, 1-2 CMs you could buy Navy Planking or Navy Gunpowder, rather than trading and PvE-ing to collect Cartagena Tar, Guacata Gunpowder and Treatise on Saltpetre to create the roughly equal upgrades. All Lineship permits that as previously mentioned would should be available for Victory Marks, should also be available, at a very slightly higher price, for Combat Medals. That way captains who do not participate in RvR could still earn the right from the admiralty to sail Lineships through PvP, by exchanging their Combat Medals. So a permit to build a Lineship would cost maybe 3 CMs. Shipnotes should be reintroduced. And some few ships should be redeemable from the admiralty shop in exchange for some amount of Combat Medals (say 5 per note). Just like players were previously able to redeem L’Hermione and Bellona Notes for PvP-marks. This would be another great way to reward active PvP-players with a convenience feature that would allow them to spend a little less time crafting, and sometimes go out immediately again in a redeemed ship when they sunk. Even if they do not own the DLCs. Special Paints could also be added to the Admiralty shop for Combat Medals. On the other hand, all standard and mainstream upgrades that every captain should be able to, and afford to, equip their ship with, should be priced in Doubloons in the admiralty store rather than Combat Medals. That goes for all Bowfigures for instance.

My Suggestion First of all, when there are so many currencies, they should each have a distinct use and purpose. Secondly prices need to be within reasonable bounds, or nobody is going to feel they can afford spending them. When it comes to woods, I plan to address that elsewhere, but the short of it is to get rid of the clan-missions idea altogether. Reals They work pretty well as they are. The currency for trading on the market, and acquired mainly through trading with ports or with players. My only suggestion for change would be to slightly reduce the profits on the best trade-goods. Maybe reduce the base price of any trade goods worth more than 6k reals ( based on lowest buy price) by up to 20%, and increase the base prices of trade goods worth less than 5k accordingly. To reduce the largest profits and distribute profits more evenly. Doubloons I think looting is a mechanic that really need to be fixed, and I think PvP should reward more doubloons. Currently I end up leaving most PvP-battles with little or no doubloons, compared to easy thousands of doubloons if I resort to doing some PvE. You rarely can loot in chaotic and heavy PvP-battles, and even if you are free to do so, chances are low that enemies die in a position where you can get to them. As a currency, doubloons could make a lot of sense as the main reward for interaction. Reals can be accumulated fairly passively by trading, but doubloons are rewarded for interacting with the world of Naval Action. By doing PvE or doing PvP. If only the reward for PvP was higher, or less reliant on the flawed loot mechanic, then doubloons would be a very good mechanic. Victory Marks Victory Marks should be the valuable RvR-reward as they used to be. They should be exchangeable for permits for all RvR-ships. As they used to be. Prices per permit should be severely reduced. It should not be more than 2 Victory marks for a 1st rate permit. And one Victory Mark for 2nd rates. 3rd rates should not require any marks for permits. On the other hand, the ability to hoard Victory Marks through accumulation of Lord Protectorates should be limited. At the moment you can earn up to 5 victory marks per week by having enough Lord Protectorates. You should not be able to earn more than 3 victory Marks per week per character. Combat Medals Combat Medals should revert back to the PvP-mark offspring they were. They should again become a PvP-exclusive reward. However, the rewarding of them should change drastically. When Combat Medals were introduced I thought the name made sense, and my connotation is some collective terms for diploma or medals received by the captain and crew for bravery in battle. Hence it makes no sense to me how we can get so many medals for single actions like sinking a single ship? How much bravery can be shown by a captain in just a single battle. My idea would be to stop rewarding Combat Medals for individual kills. And there should be no Combat Medals rewards for PvE on the War Server. Instead, combat medals should be rewarded through these methods: PvP Hunt-Missions: Where you get from the Admiralty, say, 20 combat medals for accumulating 10 player kills AND/OR assists on 1st-3rd rates (in any ship). 15 combat medals for accumulating 10 player kills AND/OR assists on 4-5th rates - provided that you are in a 3rd rate or lesser rate when doing the kill. 10 combat medals for accumulating 10 kills AND/OR assists on 5-6th rates - where you have to be in a 5th rate or less for it to register. Why should assists count? Because the player who got only an assist could have shown more bravery with his ship than the one who got the kill. Daily PvP-leaderboard The top 15 players on the PvP-leaderboard every day should be rewarded for their prowess and fame by the admiralty with a payment of combat medals. 3 for top 5, 2 for top 10 and 1 for top 15. Weekly events Similarly there should be a weekly events for Lineships, Light ships and Frigates respectively where 10 player kills in a category within a week would give X combat medal, 20 player kills would give 1.5X combat medals, etc. I think Patrol Zone rewards should be given in Doubloons, not Combat Medals, but they would still be a good place to go in order to complete PvP Hunt-Missions and the weekly events.

This suggestion is part of a comprehensive review I have attempted on the Crafting and Economy currently in Naval Action. This part is where I address the Economy and Currencies. You can find my topics on Crafting Woods here, and my suggestion on Labour Hours here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have two main concerns with the current state of the Naval Action Sandbox. Currencies and «rare woods». Given the knowledge that devs are currently working on changes to crafting, they may already be in the process of addressing all or some of my concerns, I still feel the need to give feedback on the current state of things as they are now. I know there are other topics also addressing permit prices as they are, but in this topic I try to look broadly at of all the currencies in the game. First of all, we now have 4 currencies in-game: Reals, Doubloons, Victory Marks, Combat Medals. Reals This currency is pretty straight forward. You earn them from trading, missions/battles (limited), and from selling stuff (upgrades, books, repairs, guns) on the market to other players. You use them to buy/extract crafting resources, and to buy upgrades, books, ships, repairs, cannons on the market from other players. Even to buy other currencies. So this is sort of the base currency. Doubloons You get them from PvE or PvP, and you use them for buying upgrades, books, labour contracts, and in ship-building. You also use them to extract essential woods for ship-building from clan-missions. They are more of a PvE-reward, but you can also get a fair amount of them from PvP - if you are lucky enough to be in a situation to actually loot. Because of their use in ship-building they push some grinding on players interested in participating in end-game content. But because of their use in extracting rare woods - also for shipbuilding - they force egregious amounts of grinding on players looking to participate even moderately in end-game content, i.e. RvR. Victory Marks Victory marks are gotten from participation in (successful) RvR. They are spent on permits for some RvR-ships. But a lot of important RvR-ships, including L’Ocean now require only other currencies and no Victory Marks at all. On the whole, Victory Marks seem to have lost their place. They are not a specialised currency anymore, but just a weird supplement. RvR-players hardly even need them. Even more, some important RvR-ships are now without obtainable permits except through RNG-drops from chests. Combat Medals You get them from PvP - AND from PvE… Even combat medals are no longer a specialised currency. And you spend them on almost everything. From upgrades, to ship permits, to books, to figureheads. Combat medals need to be grinded, and the typical players would need to spend 2-3 evenings in the patrol zone to buy a surprise permit. So some players farm them in patrol zones, others in PvE-missions, and yet again others in front of Mortimer Town or KPR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exchanges The only one of these currencies that are somewhat exclusive now is Victory Marks. They are acquired only through participation in RvR and no other way. They used to also be the exclusive currency to buy permits for RvR-ships. Now none of the most commonly used ships in RvR are purchased with Victory Marks. Only Victory, 3rd rate, USS United States and St. Pavel are bought with Victory Marks. In other words, the currency you are rewarded for participation in RvR no longer lets you replace the ships you loose in RvR. Two of the most commonly used ships being L’Ocean and Bucentaure, which cost Combat Medals. Not to mention Santisima which is now a rare drop RNG-permit and cannot be bought for any currency. In the current system, Victory Marks serve no meaningful role. They have become an utterly useless reward for anyone interested in RvR. Combat medals on the other hand need to be farmed. Because they are used for everything, and the prices are ridiculous. But even they have lost their place. Because it is much more effective farming combat medals through PvE than PvP. What seemed to be introduced as the new PvP Marks and a PvP-exclusive reward, has morphed into just a new type of Doubloons. When we had Combat Medals as the PvP-exclusive currency, it made sense that Doubloons was something in-between. Now doubloons is the less valuable sibling of Combat Medals. However, the problem with doubloons is mainly their uses. For woods and in lineship recipes. Leaving alone the fact that this means we seem to be paying twice (why not only use doubloons for the woods, or only in the crafting receipe?), the prices of 50 000 doubloons for 5000 white oak are ludicrous. That’s days and days and days of grinding PvE to build just a couple of ships, or weeks and weeks of PvP. Prices The wood prices are not the only problem. All the prices in the admiralty are heavily inflated. 15 combat medals for a surprise permit. In practical terms that means anyone who wants to craft a surprise has to buy the Hercules DLC and do patrol zones for three days. Or do approximately 2 PvE search and destroy missions. For L’Ocean permits it is 50 Combat Medals, which compared to Surprise permits doesn’t seem that unreasonable, but considering the effort needed to gather that, it is. The current price of woods, even through clan-missions, are such that gathering resources is meaningless. And the prices of permits on top of that means that for most players crafting ships is out of the question. If it wasn’t for all the ships that we had stored up from before these changes were made, and the knowledge that all will be wiped soon anyway, nobody would be sailing anything but DLC-ships now - if they bought those. On the other hand, I know many players that refuse to buy the DLCs now, simply because they believe unless prices for permits are completely overhauled and significantly lessened, the game will not succeed past launch. I do not disagree with them.

Please consider my previous proposal and make the Bahamas regions of Grand Bahama, Abaco, Andros, New Providence and Exuma an exception to the Frontlines mechanic and allow us to take missions for any port in any of those regions, regional capital or not, from Shroud Cay. Otherwise you are neglecting your previous idea that small clans should be able to go grab a small port somewhere for their own. Bahamas is better served being a free-for-all chaotic area where territories are constantly shifting, than being locked off behind someone's frontline. Thanks.

Some of us actually care about this game and make suggestions based on what we think would advantage the game, not just our own side. This post has absolutely nothing to do with Nassau, and nothing I mentioned here would have affected the outcome at Nassau, in fact we would have lost bigger, and with less ships surviving if any of my suggestions were applied. Please stop making insinuations about other peoples' motives when you have no insight whatsoever No need to call names - staff.

Forts now give only 1 point. Something which seems like a bug. They may have given too many points previously, and in some ports worked as an advantage to attackers. So they should maybe be worth less points than before. PBs are already skewed too much in favour of defenders, and points from towers and forts were one way to give attackers a chance to slow down the accumulation of points for defenders and give them time to engage. PBs are currently ended too quickly on mere points accumulation alone. Frequently there is not enough time for a serious engagement or any substantial amount of ships to sink. Therefore I propose to slow down the accumulation of points, especially for defenders. Since all the have to do to win is to prevent attackers from getting 1000 points. I think points accumulation for holding circles should be slowed down somewhat, particularly for defenders - maybe more than for attackers - and on the other hand kills should give more points in PBs than they do now. To increase the importance of engaging and sinking the enemy, rather than kiting. Circles should also be somewhat reduced in size to lessen the chances for small ships to kite on the edges of a circle to prevent points without actually fighting for control of the circle.

Killing forts and towers now give only 1 point in PBs. @Captain Reverse reported this already in the last La Navasse PB, and we noticed it again in Nassau. I find no indication that this was changed deliberately, and it seriously affects the flow of PBs as they are so heavily skewed in favour of defenders already that killing forts was an important way to slow down the defenders from accumulating 1000 points before engagements could even start. Another bug that happened at Nassau btw, was that the TAB screen completely stopped working for everyone (on the Russian side at least).

It looks so beautiful - and deceptively peaceful. Is "Spring 2019" release time or Early Access?

This is a useful tool, but not really what he asked for. You don't have to set up an outpost to find this out. When you are in the port, without an outpost, you can see what production options are available by clicking on the town name in the upper left corner.

This is a common issue. For the first battle all information about the battle instance needs to be loaded, but for subsequent battles a lot of information can be loaded from cache. I know several players with slow computers/slow hard drives (or who always play multiple accounts simultaneously) who will start they game sessions always by attacking an AI cutter fleet just so they can load the battle instance once before going out looking for PvP. I recommend upgrading to an SSD.

Alternative title: Make Labour Contracts Great Again Remember when your whole clan had to come together to share their labour hours in order to build ships? Clan officers had to call players to the capital to use their labour hours to convert raw resources into materials, so that high level crafters could use all their labour ours on producing ships. This could be hugely inconvenient and required logistics, but it was a system that involved great solidarity and collaboration, as well as the buying and selling of labour hours, and the trust it took to hand over resources and hoping that you got them back again as materials for a fee. Since then labour contracts have been implemented in the game, potentially streamlining this process greatly. However labour hours need and availability has also greatly changed and the crafting process greatly simplified, to go a long way towards removing this collaborative effort that crafting especially big ships used to be. The introduction of labour contracts is a great advancement, to streamline the sharing of labour hours. But the removal of collaborative effort is a big negative. I would wish that labour hours for ship-building would again become a bottleneck. That is, for ships bigger than 5th rates. Lineships could even require labour contracts in their crafting recipe, in addition to an almost full labour hours account. In return the collaborative effort of producing and sharing labour contracts should be simplified and emphasised. The recipe for making a labour contract should be simplified to include some limited reals cost (maybe 10k), the 500 labour hours (1-to-1, labour hours discount upgrade in a port should not apply to the production of labour contracts), and tools. Tools should be available for mining, exclusively, but readily, in any captureable, non-capital, port that is upgraded to the highest level under the new town upgrade system that you are planning to introduce. This should also be the only way to produce labour contracts (on war server). There should be no doubloons to labour contract conversion. This would create a market for labour contracts. And it would create collaboration within clans where members would use their labour hours to help produce labour contracts and put them in the clan warehouse for the clan crafters to use. Edit: Alternate method for tools production is production in forge building from iron, coal and oak. Labour contracts item should be made in workshop building rather than Academy.