Random

Something of note that I found in my playing time: I currently play for France on PvP1 after leaving Spain on PvP1. Before this I played as a Pirate and French on PvP2. When I transferred to France on PvP1 the ports that I visited as a Spaniard became unvisited, however, the ports that I visited on PvP2 both as a pirate and later as a Frenchman became visited.

Just had the same thing happen in a solo fleet mission, reported via F11

He is referring to the "put on sale" feature in the home screen. It does not allow to place ships with upgrades on sale (to the players, not AI). That is causing players to destroy upgrades if they do not know that they can sell ships from the "ships" screen.

Warm greetings to both the developers and the community. I would like to offer several suggestions that I have been mulling over in my head for a while now. Captain Lord Cochrane beat me to the officers' suggestion, so here're a couple more regarding morale, NPC pirates and finding crew on open seas, and potentially dealing with the “surrender issue”. Since we already have morale play a role in boarding, I would suggest implementing the general morale system that would in effect produce morale for boarding actions. I envision a simple system of morale status from “joyous” to “mutiny” with minor bonuses/penalties in crew transfer speed, sail raising speed, etc... As I see it, crew morale should decrease following a defeat and increase following a victory. Several factors can be implemented that would affect the degree to which it would either increase or decrease, so that, for example, being ganked would result in a minor loss of morale, losing a closely matched PB would moderately decrease morale, and winning a fair PvP fight or PB would significantly increase morale. Other factors that would influence morale could include number of crew lost in the battle, profits made from a voyage (especially for pirates for whom that could be one of the main factors), successful escape from overwhelming forces, etc... This system could also solve the “surrender issue” by penalizing surrendering with a moral decrease. This way, since sinking is already punished by a durability loss and crew loss, surrendering would be similarly penalized by two factors: durability loss and morale decrease. In essence this would enable the transition from monetary rewards for damage to rewards based solely on ship destruction/capture from the admiralty and prevent exploits with people surrendering to each other to grind cash as their morale will plummet and they will face high risk of mutiny (more on it in follows) and decreased crew performance for any real battle. I would also love to see lower levels of morale progressively increase a chance of mutiny (which can be decreased by the presence of Marines on board and officers' perks). In the case of mutiny, however, I would want to see a captain lose his ship and be left in a rowboat (perhaps with a makeshift sail to facilitate faster return to nearest friendly port). This rowboat model could also be used to generate random shipwreck survivors that could be found in the open seas and picked up as free crew; this will help to liven up the seas and provide some free crew on occasion. The mutinied ship, would become NPC pirate ship and could be programmed to actively seek out and attack trader ships while avoiding and actively trying to escape battle with warships (perhaps admiralty rewards for capture of such ships could be introduced as well). Of course, mutiny and low morale levels should be extremely rare occurrences that would not deter players from enjoying the game. It can, however, add a bit of flavor and serve to prevent exploits. One should be able to increase morale from low to neutral levels through token “tavern expenditures” in port and victories over AI, so that high chances of mutiny will be attained only through neglect or extreme folly such as losing a warship to a trader in a botched attack. Essentially this system would provide minor bonuses (1-5 % range at most) to captains that take care of their crew and create a remote possibility of mutinies that would produce Pirate NPC ships and extra content. Ideas to improve these suggestions or potential problems/reasons for not implementing them are, of course, welcome.

Both Captain Lord Cochrane and Rikard Frederiksen have beaten me to the punch as I was preparing to post similar suggestions that I was mulling over in my head the last few days. The few minor changes that I would add to the proposed system would be to have a total of 7 officers that could be hired (with number of officers available increasing with player's level and with the cost of hiring an officer increasing similar to the outposts). I would also suggest that all 7 officers can be hired but the number of officers on each ship should be limited by available "officer quarters" that could be added as a ship build and would increase officers' slots but slightly decrease crew (for balance). Only officers who are currently equipped would gain experience and it would be split equally among them so that the more officers one has, the longer it would take for them to level up. Other than that, I believe that the aforementioned gentlemen have proposed a fantastic system that I would wholeheartedly support and promote.

I think this is a good start, but I would also like to see limitations on resource and harbor buildings in ports as this would not only equalize national resource pools, but also provide balance in economies and ship building capabilities. After all, how much sense does it make to have unlimited number of shipyards and mines/forests in one city, where do they all physically fit within the limited confines of a particular land area?

Awesome, some testing and hard data would be most welcome and help people figure out exact advantages and trade-offs of various set ups. o7

I agree with the proposed change with one caveat, it has to be Cherub, not Cherubim. The Russian name of the ship (Херувим) is singular, while Cherubim is plural, hence it would have to be Cherub.

Why do you get to add speed upgrades in this scenario and I don't? I just checked on one of my capped LGVs and adding med cannons reduces speed from 11.90 to 11.72 with no upgrades installed. Why am I losing nearly 3 knots to you in your calculations?

On LGV guns can save you in SOME situations. If you manage to string out your gankers due to speed advantage, LGV is very capable of downing a Reno and escaping from the rest (provided that the rest don't include another Reno or Trinco).

Isn't the new duel mechanic and the old small/large battle mechanic supposed to take care of that problem? If it doesn't, shouldn't you be raising concerns about it instead of arguing against OP's point of view? If you want a BR restriction, it follows that you are willing to venture out to sea and seek an engagement with an enemy (which - the engagement - you'd like to have limited to 1.5BR at the most). It doesn't stack up well with your "not all of us have time" argument...

Please read the whole thread. I know it's rather long and oftentimes repetitive, but you are missing the point that a lot of people are making - it's not about ganking, it's about negative drawbacks of this feature that prevent antiganking measures and actually help those who do gank.

Reading what other people write and trying to understand their point of view - try it, it might grow on you and you might come to find yourself contributing to the discussion.

Perhaps if "raiding a port" mechanic was introduced where the port wouldn't flip but docks and other buildings were damaged, the raid would preclude deliveries (since the port would be considered unsafe) until the port was reinforced by manually sailing an X BR of ships there? Some sort of a cooldown timer for the "unsafety" of the port could be introduced as well.

Why is it so hard for you to reject the false dichotomy of gankers vs gankees? Is it really that hard to understand the fact that people who are not gankers might have a problem with a particular feature not because they are gankers but because the feature is flawed? The people posting here about gankers wanting to gank would be hilarious if it wasn't so obtuse, unproductive and detrimental to the discussion of the game that we are supposed to test and discuss...

I'll thank whatever gods may be then that we have you alone to test this game and new mechanics. Could you please stop posting nonsense such as "people crying", you haven't read the posts - you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with such contradictions and only insult people who are posting valid concerns with new mechanics.

As I posted in another thread on this topic: Today I was cruising in my trader in friendly Spanish waters surrounded by friendly Spanish cities and somewhat spread out, but still plentiful friendly Spanish captains. I came across 4 Sverige ships (who would have thought to find them at Mantua) and before I could find out if they are friendly or not they attacked me. I couldn't escape because one of them was in front of me and I was by the coast and by the city of Mantua. While I was putting up a valiant fight and almost ended up sinking a Reno (he had to escape to avoid sinking), a whole town of Mantua was watching the fight and the large group of friendly Spanish captains circling around waiting for the fight to be over. I don't know what exactly surrendering does, but I was told it would piss my attackers off, so I surrendered after I had barely any crew left and they were ready to board me. I continued to observe the fight as there was still an AI Trinco left in it. While Reno had to escape to avoid sinking and fell into the lap of the justice posse, the rest of my assailants remained in the fight to avoid their just punishment. Pray tell, what ganking problem was solved with the 2 minute timer? How much sense does it make to insist on the efficacy of the "visibility" issue when I was in the plain sight of my friendly city and could not be joined by my compatriots? So much for anti-ganking features... How about coming up with something that prevents people from hiding from fights rather than getting into them? Suppose Spanish nation wanted to discourage gankers from attacking Spanish ships in Spanish territory. Why are they now precluded from administering a beatdown on actual gankers? Because now, to catch them coming out of the fight (after waiting for them to finally come out), Spanish captains have to spread out and keep an eye on where they pop out (especially if the gankers split up after coming out of the fight). Given the fact that Spanish captains are now spread out, they won't be able to all get into the initial attack circle and won't be able to join the fight and punish the gankers. So, who is benefited by this new anti-gank mechanic?

Today I was cruising in my trader in friendly Spanish waters surrounded by friendly Spanish cities and somewhat spread out, but still plentiful friendly Spanish captains. I came across 4 Sverige ships (who would have thought to find them at Mantua) and before I could find out if they are friendly or not they attacked me. I couldn't escape because one of them was in front of me and I was by the coast and by the city of Mantua. While I was putting up a valiant fight and almost ended up sinking a Reno (he had to escape to avoid sinking), a whole town of Mantua was watching the fight and the large group of friendly Spanish captains circling around waiting for the fight to be over. I don't know what exactly surrendering does, but I was told it would piss my attackers off, so I surrendered after I had barely any crew left and they were ready to board me. I continued to observe the fight as there was still an AI Trinco left in it. While Reno had to escape to avoid sinking and fell into the lap of the justice posse, the rest of my assailants remained in the fight to avoid their just punishment. Pray tell, what ganking problem was solved with the 2 minute timer? How much sense does it make to insist on the efficacy of the "visibility" issue when I was in the plain sight of my friendly city and could not be joined by my compatriots? So much for anti-ganking features... How about coming up with something that prevents people from hiding from fights rather than getting into them? Edit: Suppose Spanish nation wanted to discourage gankers from attacking Spanish ships in Spanish territory. Why are they now precluded from administering a beatdown on actual gankers? Because now, to catch them coming out of the fight (after waiting for them to finally come out), Spanish captains have to spread out and keep an eye on where they pop out (especially if the gankers split up after coming out of the fight). Given the fact that Spanish captains are now spread out, they won't be able to all get into the initial attack circle and won't be able to join the fight and punish the gankers. So, who is benefited by this new anti-gank mechanic?

Ok, you go ahead and sail downwind, while those who see flaws with implemented features will continue to point them out in a constructive way with a goal of improving the gameplay for all. How many bizarre scenarios does it take for them to become a myriad of possibilities that need to be addressed? Please let us know, we'll try to satisfy your requirement. All you are doing is dismissing arguments without providing a rationale for why you think they are invalid or a counterargument that justifies your support for the new features. That's not constructive, please offer something more than "sailing downwind" as that could have been done before the changes.

Not all frigates are created equal and your logic eliminates solo sailing in live oak frigates (trust me, those can't even walk, much less run).

First of all, players reinforcing ganked players beyond 1.5 BR are not necessarily gankers, they might be sending a strong message to gankers by not giving them a fighting chance when they come to gank - that is a good anti-gank mechanic that discourages gank squads from prowling the area. Second, let's forget about lonely 3rd rates being ganked by small ships for the moment (otherwise we'll descend into the whole "sail closer together" argument). A frigate (170BR) can be attacked by 4 cutters (120BR) and will not receive any reinforcements as 120x1.5=180. While this is less of a problem than a 3rd rate facing a swarm of snows, 4 cutters can still demast the frigate with long cannons and sink/cap it while being rather hard to hit at long range. Even though such scenario might be unlikely, it is not improbable and presents a problem that in the eyes of many requires a solution.

Given the fact that ships already carry up to 27 repair kits on them, why not let them use all of them? It seems highly unrealistic to not be able to use repair kit when you definitely have one. If that can potentially solve the problem, perhaps it is worth testing.

This here is a good example of why we are all playing this game in Early Access - testing features and suggesting better ones. As I posted in another thread regarding this issue, PURGE members (Bach, Vllad, Slamz, and others) know a great deal about ganks and fighting them. Please don't discard their opinions as those of gankers who just want to gank. These guys have been very consistent with their desire to improve the game and see it thrive. They have also been very consistent with thoughtful criticism and suggestions. I would recommend others to similarly test these new mechanics and see if they can find similar flaws and unintended consequences that affect the game in a negative way. I think that it is safe to say that most people on this thread want the same thing - limit bully-type ganking and improve the game and gaming experience for all, so let's abandon our initial impressions on how these features will protect us from gankers and see if they have a downside that can be solved by tweaking these features or replacing them with better ones. Let's test these features further and continue to have a conversation about our findings and concerns to help the devs find a better solution to this problem.

Absolutely not. In the game that is heavily oriented towards socialization and teamwork, however, inability to help friends who are engaged by the enemy just doesn't fit the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie. Perhaps a good solution to "feeling safe" would be implementing previously suggested "circles" solution and implementing random attacks by large patrolling NPC fleets that would automatically be dispatched to target a group of a particular size (randomly, as in it is not guaranteed that such a fleet will be dispatched, but there is a chance). That way those who are looking for fights can find themselves in one, while those looking to gank will have to risk being chased off by large NPC fleet, and we will all be able to help out our friends when they are in need of our help. Edit: this intercept mechanic will also help to distinguish pirates as a more difficult faction to play for as they will not enjoy such possible protection from invading forces.

A certain individual not to be named here asked a question (prior to being reprimanded for lack of decorum) that does bear some measure of relevance to this topic. I do feel the need to address it as it could potentially broaden people's understanding of the issue at hand. The question asked how many gangs I participated in. The answer is 1. That gang took place when I was playing as a pirate on PvP2 and it's lack of fun and bully-like nature forced me to re-evaluate the team I was playing on. I then joined the French team that among many other thoughtfull and well-mannered people featured Slamz, Vllad and Bach who are very active in this thread. At that time they were actively fighting the pirate zerg and developing their own anti-gank tactics (that ultimately succeeded at ruining the gank for pirates and contributed to pirate clans abandoning the faction and in some cases the server. I mention this for two reasons: 1) these guys know a thing or two about ganks and fighting them. As such their opinion on issues involving ganking should not be discarded lightly. Rather, engage in a thoughtful conversation with them and see where they are coming from and what they would suggest as meaningful changes to various in-game features. 2) there seems to exist a certain barrier that many people are incapable of overcoming when it comes to issues related to anti-gank features in this game. People seem to assume that those who oppose such features are gankers and therefore they only want to gank without limits. I am not a ganker and neither are individuals mentioned above. We want to have a discussion of potentially unforeseen and unwelcome consequences of developers' attempts to address the gank problem. Such discussions can weed out bad features and lead to the development of better ones that would make this game better for all. Please stop accusing people of being gankers and engage in a thoughtful discussion about recent changes and how they affect the game. Thank you.