William Death

Merry Christmas & happy new year to everyone! I'm looking forward to seeing these new cannons, upgrades, and paints

+1 The flag doesn't make the skipper good, the skipper makes the flag good. I'd also like to stay Pirate, but at the moment, there are no noteworthy advantages to weight Pirates over another faction. Ultimately, you can be a Pirate in any nation...and "Its a Pirate's life for me"...and other such piratey phrases So.... AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

So, as much as I enjoy sailing my 14.6kn Victory (thats loaded with tons of repairs, if I lighten it up some, I can easily go over 15kn), something needs to be done about the silly speed-cap we have. Easy fix: Remove speed cap completely. It is silly and as long as it is in place, people will be gunning for that cap. Pre-wipe, I had a Renomme doing over 17 knots, but I rarely sailed it because my 13.8 knot Live Oak Constitution or 14.2 knot Cedar Bellona was more than adequate for me to catch or out-run the average ship I'd find. Now if my ship doesn't do 15+ knots or have a super-awesome sailing profile, I might as well forget trying to hunt with that: should I manage to run down a target, I'll have half a dozen 15+ knot Wasas, Pavels, Santis, Renommes, Endymions, Trincomalees, etc. waiting for me outside the battle. Reduce the % amount that wood type affects speed (historically, it would have no effect). Going fir/fir should give just a small benefit to speed over the tougher builds, with significant drawbacks to HP and thickness. Don't make it so ridiculous that it becomes unusable, just make it bad enough that it is no longer the go-to "PvP build" (read that as "ganking build"). Reduce the number of speed modules and the amounts they affect speed. Pre-wipe we had 2 craftable speed modules and 2 RNG sailing profile modules, with refits and wood types only affecting speed by a little bit. That worked so much better (besides the RNG part) than this crazy mod-dependant system we have now. Then you'd have room for light, fast fifth and sixth rates like Endymion, Renomme, and Rattlesnake that will be, by nature of their high base speeds, the fastest ships afloat. You'll also have some quick first, second, and third rates, but they still won't be as fast as the fastest fifth rates and sixth rates. If you're going for historical realism while we don't have variable winds, then you wouldn't see much of a difference in speeds between all the ship rates, since the small ships are going to be at a disadvantage in heavy winds, and the large ships are at an advantage. People get the idea that second and third rates were built by navies because they were faster or more maneuverable than first rates. The reality of it is, in many cases, much simpler: they were generally cheaper to build, equip, crew, supply, maintain, and replace; being faster and more maneuverable (in some cases) was a useful side effect of that. Basically, if you want historical realism, the best ship for most situations is almost always going to be a first rate, and that simply won't work well in a video game where we are seeking balance between the rates. So for balance reasons, we should have average speed (not super tanky modded builds) first and second rates be about as fast as the slower fourth and fifth rates, while the faster first, second, and third rates will be a match for the average-speed fourth and fifth rates. The fastest fourth and fifth rates should be able to outrun almost anything in the game, besides another super fast fourth or fifth rate.

Islamorada Port Battle: 1 December, 2017 3:01 Server Time United States attacking Pirates. Starting wind: S I had the honor of leading the Pirate side of the PB along with help from Doug Maoz and our other officers. Our defending fleet consisted mainly of first rates, with two Wasa's as support. The Wasas were in charge of capturing the circles, and the main Port Battle fleet was positioned centrally to have the best chance of favorably engaging the US fleet before they could reach our circles. The US fleet consisted of a mix of clans, bringing a number of Wasas, with 3 Bucentaures, 2 Victories, 1 Surprise, and 1 Mortar Brig. The US started the battle well to the south of our fleet, with good wind to head toward us. Circles changed hands several times throughout the battle, but no appreciable point gain occurred until near the end of the battle. After exchanging broadsides at range, and doing a bit of rigging damage on both sides, the fleets began to converge offshore and to the west of A. We closed with the enemy fleet just outside of circle A, and the fighting was intense. The fleets continued to weave between each other and eventually we found ourselves engaged in a massive brawl in circle A; Pirates still controlled one circle at this point, with the US holding another and controlling A with their greater numbers, but not gaining any points from it. Several US ships sunk relatively quickly under our focused fire, while others were severely damaged. Privateer's Santisima was focused by the US throughout much of the battle, and sunk under the combined firepower of several enemies (take a look at all the assists on the US side!!). As the battle wore on, the toughness and greater firepower of our first rates proved more than a match for the Wasas and Bucentaures that the US brought. A US fireship detonated in the midst of both fleets, inflicting heavy rigging damage and crew loss to both sides. After that, the US fleet scattered and we were able to single out their weakest ships and make short work of them. Their first rates went down and the rest of the Wasas followed suit not long after. The Mortar Brig was captured. A Bucentaure managed to spend the last twenty or thirty minutes running and finally escaped. The Surprise was the last ship to sink. Though the Bucentaure managed to escape from the Port Battle, I had been communicating with our fleet outside of the battle and they were able to run down the Bucentaure and either captured it or sank it. This means that the US PB fleet brought to Islamorada was 100% destroyed with only 1 ship lost on the Pirate side. A very nice battle. It was a fun fight, and I hope the US enjoyed the battle as much as we did, although the double-flip by the French/US alliance wasn't too fun. Guibara, to my knowledge, was undefended.

x1000 this^ The best thing to tune demasting with is mast HP. Cannon accuracy, as you said, is something that you don't want to mess with. Nerf it too much and everyone will just go with carronades, since they will have to be up close to hit anything anyways, they might as well have some extra damage at those close ranges. Limit the rig repairs to once or twice per battle and you can then increase mast HP. Till then, just run elite French rig refit if demasting bothers you. Mast thickness is too much as it is already on some ships, especially if you add in a mast thickness mod.

What about USS Constitution vs HMS Java? Check out the Constitution's logs and the historical records. Java tried repeatedly to stern rake Constitution. In return, Constitution removed nearly all of Java's masts in short order. What about all of the lineship battles that resulted in multiple demastings? Stop with the made-up idea that demasting is not a historical tactic. Our guns may be more accurate in game than in real life, but I'd like to remind everyone that this is a game where some levels of historical accuracy are sacrifiiced for gameplay. Look at our insanely fast reload times, the instant movement of yards, magic mast re-growing, concepts such as HP and magic figureheads, etc. The game is not a simulator. If you don't want to be demasted, throw an elite French rig refit on and be done with it. Then you only have to worry about larger ships taking your masts, or dedicated demasting built ships.

Seems ok, but honestly, I don't care at all about whatever cargo the ship is carrying. Unless he has a load of cartagena tar or something like that, what does it matter? I'm not interested in loading my fast and agile hunting ship with iron ingots or coal. For that reason, I'd much rather run across a nice 5th rate to tangle with rather than a trader. Don't get me wrong, I'll board and then scuttle a trader when I see it, but I prefer fighting targets that can fight back and give me more PvP and combat marks. Basically: I want the PvP marks 100% of the time. As an example: last night, I captured 2 L'Oceans in a gank. I really, really, really wanted to sink them for the PvP marks, but I didn't since a few of the others who were with me apparently don't have at least 2 or 3 first rates for some reason...but it took all my will power to remove the mouse pointer from the sink button . Anyways, since PvP marks for sinking ships is the real prize you get for doing PvP....I'm not sure how often the surrender mechanic would realistically be used. I doubt I'd ever accept the surrender of an enemy trader: PvP marks are just too important and materials are almost worthless. Besides all that: if I simply capture the ship, I can get 100% of the cargo and the PvP marks or the ship itself .

I think Wapen is OK as it is, assuming we ignor the OP Wasa with the 4th rate BR (discussed plenty in other threads). Wapen has super good turn rate, good HP, good thickness, decent speed, and a very nice chaser setup. Sailing profile is not too horrible either. Basically, Wapen is a dueller's 4th rate, and it does a great job as a SOL hunter with a frigate for support (you'll be able to stern camp the larger SOLs with it). Inger is the one that needs some real buffs: speed and turn rate (and maybe a little HP buff) especially. Give her back the old speed that was nearly as fast as Connie and a decent turn rate to boot. She was supposed to be the glass cannon of the 4th rates: 32pdrs to pen those Wapens and Agas, but not much staying power when it comes time to brawl. It used to be one of my favorite ships, now its been nerfed and other ships have gotten so much better that I don't have much of a reason to sail Inger now...

I agree with limiting chainshot to 2 rounds per gun (6 broadsides) and limit repairs to 2 hull, 2 rig, and 1 rum repair per battle. A captain perk (not an upgrade) to allow 4 broadsides of chain per gun would be neat. Add a restriction to this perk so that you cannot combine double shot/charge with it. Chainshot damage needs to be reduced to what it used to be a long time ago. It is a little too powerful right now I think, especially at range. The accuracy seems to be about right. In my opinion, rig repairs should not repair masts at all. However, people complain about being demasted; so in-game, the repairs actually do repair the masts. Lets strike a balance between the two by doing this: you can gain some masts back using one of your rig repairs. If you are demasted again after that, you don't get those masts back, even if you have your 2nd rig repair still.

There's no PvP on Global Server?! Nobody told me! I better return those ships that I helped capture and rebuild the ones I sunk. I wouldn't want to break the rules and be caught pvping on a pve server. There is PvP on global. If you don't like the way we PvP over here, there is always another PvP server to play on. -- player ships captured or sunk in battles I participated in over the weekend (excluding PBs): 2x Victory 1x L'Ocean 1x Pavel 1x Wasa This was all done in 3 hunting trips. Ships sunk in the few weekend PBs I was in: More than I care to count up, but I'd guess around 20 or so. Yep. PvE server is definitely the name for it LOL

There should be a chat function that allows allied clans to type to each other. This will simplify group-making and clan-communication. It could be labelled "Allied Clan Chat." Think its a good idea?

Exactly. Think about it, what frigates do you see most in OW PvP? Surprise, Trinc, Endy, Connie, PFrig, L'Hermione, and Renom. All of those have bow chasers except for Renom, which makes up for her lack of those with the very high speed. When was the last time you saw an Essex or Belle Poule or Cerberus out hunting alone? Or even in a group for that matter...sure, Cerb makes for a dirt cheap support ship but would be used an awful lot more if it had chasers I bet. I think giving all of the frigates bow and stern chasers would really add a nice spread of ships to the OW.

You are right. In fact, any frigate or larger could have a bow chaser or two. All the crew had to do is move one broadside cannon to the bow. Most ships were fitted with bridle ports for this or else had their railings modified to allow a gun to shoot forward. There really is no science to it: a gun isn't that heavy (think about how many sailors [and how much they weigh] could move around freely to stand near the rails without negatively affecting the ship's trim or falling through the deck) and the recoil is easy to account for with the proper gun tackle. I made a suggestion a while ago to give all ships bow and stern chasers to add more diversity to ships you see being sailed in OW. Right now there are loads of nice ships in the game that rarely are taken into OW except by new players who don't know that the ship they are in is no good for PvP, or the players who only care about PvE. You don't *need* bow chasers to PvP with a ship, but they sure do help when everybody you tag tries to run. Here is the old thread: In that thread, I made another related suggestion regarding control/escaping battles in the last post in that thread. I thought it was pretty clever since it involved a modified "area control" function and precise tagging ranges so that bow chasers aren't needed to keep an enemy in battle. Anyways, I hope we see some chasers added to these ships eventually. Maybe you'd see people sailing the Essex or Belle Poule to hunt with if they had chasers...

So, I've addressed the important stuff I think. The rest of your reply is discussing playerbase levels (which is well covered in other threads and mostly irrelevant here) and categorizing PvP and PvE and RvR (again, other threads do that well too). I will say this much about PvE content on the PvP server. That is fine. I even enjoy some PvE once in a while. The difference between me and the kind of player who would leave the game after being sunk while they were trying to PvE is this: I signed into the PvP server fully knowing that anytime I press "Sail" I'm putting my ship at risk. I may go and do a mission and be fine, or I may be ganked and lose everything I had in my trader. It happens. Giving a small safe zone to do risk free missions for people starting out is fine; see what I wrote earlier in this thread about keeping the protected zone around the capital that we already have: it works great. What I don't like is a reinforcement zone large enough to fully supply all needs for shipbuilding, PvE battles, and trading. If a player is that focused on PvE content, then maybe the PvE server is the better one for him, or maybe a character on both servers so that he can PvP when he wants to and PvE absolutely risk free when he wants to.

I resent that!!! Also you better know that whatever map you use, you are still going to get one that is all scribbled on from me just for laughs. And I'll have you know my battle strategy works just fine: those AI Vics and Santis don't stand a chance with my special battle plans! In all seriousness...the plan is, was, and always will be...SINK EVERYONE! You have to go into the PB with your main focus being sinking enemies, and a secondary (but still important) focus on getting 1000 points. If you focus only on circles, you might realize too late that your force is spread too thinly and you have ships sinking left and right. I'll echo what @Sir Texas Sir said: you can't go into a port battle planning on escaping it if things go wrong. Get in there and FIGHT. If you sink, so be it; but you better sink fighting with the group not by yourself and surrounded by 7 enemies (if you do that, you are just hurting your team by giving the enemy points). Some of the long-time US players probably remember the US vs Pirate war for the gulf and east coast last summer/early fall before the mega alliance between US and GB: those were some fun PBs and we (the US) had a couple decent battle commanders then. I don't think many of them are playing (or at least not in that nation anymore) often still, but those that are still around and remember the tactics of fighting with them should be able to offer some decent advice. The best advice I can give the battle commander is this: when you elect a battle commander, you can't have 12 other guys talking and barking out orders that contradict his. Whenever I am the battle commander, I designate 2-4 others who I know can be professional and quickly analyze situations and give the right orders. I can't look at the map and fight my ship and worry about 3 guys who are screaming about losing HP all at the same time. If I try to do that, the PB won't have the leadership it deserves, I won't be sailing my ship to maximum efficiency, and I won't be able to give enough orders fast enough to the people who are being focused by the enemy. So, because I have to primarily focus on the overall situation of the PB and what my ship is doing in relation to the ships around me, I have to be able to rely on those other 2-4 officers in the battle to keep order around them. Know your ships: I saw some ships that were extremely tough and hard to damage (thats good) and I saw a few that melted under enemy fire (thats bad). My build is a secret blend of Iron Frames and BLACK Ironwood Planking . LOL Seriously though, make sure the first rate skippers know how to fight a first rate: just because you are Rear Admiral doesn't mean you are qualified to sail a first rate. As an example, my alt is almost Commodore (800 crew) and I haven't had him in more than a handful of missions since he was a Captain. Almost all of his XP since then has been from sailing around. Anyways thanks for the fight. o7 p.s.: @Sir Texas Sir you are going to really like the next scribbled map I draw for you. Its going to say "Sink Texas" across the top of it in big letters. Nonetheless, the wind prediction will be accurate and the fleet positioning will be as well.

I'd like to make it known, again, that my suggestion in the OP is NOT to REMOVE the protected zones, but to ADJUST the amount of protection they give to players. The zones should be set up to help new players, players in small ships, traders, and people sailing to and from missions. The safe zone should not be designed to give them an overwhelming AI fleet to fight for them, and it certainly shouldn't provide the offensive patrols in the area with a fleet either: the purpose of the AI reinforcements should be defensive and not used as an offensive tool. It comes down to this: if you call in reinforcements, you still have to fight your enemy if he doesn't leave: you can't rely on AI to do the whole fight for you, it is only there to help you. With my suggestion, if a player wants the best protection from being attacked by enemies, they can take missions within the capital protected area where they cannot be attacked by an enemy, and where no enemy would dare to venture since he cannot get help from anyone on his team if he is pulled into combat by the nationals. If you leave that protected zone and are simply in your reinforcement zone, you are still guaranteed to get help from AI if you are attacked by a superior force, but you are not in a magic safe zone to trade and PvE in without much threat of an enemy joining.

I see it like this: PROBLEM1 New players (and the more casual players) get "ganked," "seal-clubbed," or otherwise sunk by an enemy(s) and leave the game. Population drops, there are less targets for hunters, hunters begin to leave the game, we have a "dead server" (or one where PvP can only be found by those who already know where it is [clan affiliations, experience, etc.], and not the average player). SOLUTION1 Safe Zones!! Big protected areas where you can call in the mega bot fleet as soon as the battle starts to save you from the certain loss of your Insert random ship here to my paper-thin hunting Endymion. Sailing in these waters is almost guaranteed safety. That kind of works, but introduces... PROBLEM2! The majority of players won't leave the safe zones. And why should they when they can get every resource and do all their missions right outside their capital. Talk to players and I bet you'll hear a story similar to this: I haven't left the safe zone alone for any reason since the map-wipe except to hunt PvP, set up PvP outposts, or to sail to my alt's outpost (about 20 minutes from my main character's capital). I have no reason to leave the safe zone other than those or some clan-affiliated action. Think about it: I can get every resource that I need right there in the protected zone, or else from my alt; I can do all the combat missions I would want to right there as well, why leave it? To be a target for some other PvPer? No way, I like to be the hunter not the hunted, I will go out of my way to not be a target for enemies any more than I have to be. This causes an equally bad problem: PvP goes down, player population goes down, hunters stop playing, we might as well re-name the server PvP light (mostly PvE but some PvP occasionally). OVERALL SOLUTION Maybe its been suggested before or maybe it hasn't (I don't recall seeing it yet, but if you came up with it before me, say something so I can give credit where credit is due), but here is my suggestion to fix the problem. Assume all other ROE stay the same (3 minute join, invisibility, cooldowns, etc.) BR-based reinforcements in the safe-zone: If you are the defender in your home safe-zone (did not press "attack") and you have less than 1.5x the BR of your attacker, you can call in AI reinforcements to give you up to 1.5x the BR of the attacker. You can only call those reinforcements after 3 minutes and the battle is closed, preventing teammates from joining your side, but no later than 4 minutes into the battle (so you have a 1 minute opportunity to call AI reinforcements). This gives defenders a chance to call on AI to help them if their fellow captains cannot assist them in time, but it still encourages players to sail with others so that you aren't working with a 1.5x BR AI limitation in the battle. If you are the attacker in your home safe zone (you pressed "attack") you do not get any AI reinforcements, no matter what the BR is. If you cannot fight that enemy, then you should not be attacking it. The Admiralty frowns upon incompetence and does not intend to supply you with a fleet to attack enemies near your capital. AI reinforcements are for defensive purposes of weaker targets only. If you are the defender in your home waters (did not press attack) and you have more than 1.5x the BR of your attacker, you cannot call in AI reinforcements. The Admiralty frowns upon incompetence. AI reinforcements are for defensive purposes of weaker targets only, and the Admiralty hopes that you can handle a ship that you out-rate by more than 1.5x BR. Lets see a few examples of this: Pirate in Surprise at Charleston (US): 140 BR attacks US in Endymion 225 BR. No reinforcement available, since the Endymion has more than 210 BR (1.5x the BR of the Surprise). Pirate in Surprise at Port Royale (GB): 140 BR attacks GB in Trader's Brig 10 BR. 200 BR of reinforcements available to the British captain, since 210 BR - 10 BR = 200 BR (the difference between the defender's BR and 1.5x the attacker's BR). In this case, the British skipper may get any combination of ships (AI gets to decide by using the lowest number [therefore, largest ships] of ships that will reach that BR [maybe there can be some kind of allowance for + or - 10 BR either way on the AI reinforcements, with the decision being made by using the least number, but largest size of AI ship that will fit the requirement]) that add to 200 BR. In this instance, he would get an Essex and a Lynx (180+20BR). Pirate in Surprise 140 BR attacks French Bellona 400 BR in the Mortimer Protected zone (Pirate). No reinforcements available: don't attack what you cannot fight and then expect the admiralty to save you. With that system: You protect the defenders in their home waters (as long as they are in a ship that needs additional protecting from their attacker). You allow the attackers to still have their PvP if they are a bit more cautious. You encourage players to work together and help each other out, but provide protection for when they don't (most people would prefer to have unlimited player reinforcements jump in within that 3 minute time that the battle is open rather than deal with the "creative" AI on their side). You prevent the griefing that would arise if a home-waters captain could use a smaller ship to tag a larger enemy in the protected zones and call on AI reinforcements to waste the hunter's time. You discourage the PvP hunters from attacking new players because those new players can call on heavy reinforcements to combat their attackers. Possible tweaks: if 1.5x BR proves too little, or too much BR, then it may need adjusting. I think the "sweet spot" would be between 1.5x BR and 2x BR of the attacker. I'm sure there are a lot of threads about this, I've read a few of them, but I don't recall seeing a suggestion quite like this. Lets try to keep this thread civil and not start calling each other noobs or "bad at the game because you can't handle AI" or "killing the game because you PvP near capitals" or anything like that. I have noticed that quite a few of these combat mechanics suggestions regarding PvP near capitals often devolve to that kind of discussion. Lets do our best to avoid that in this discussion. Thoughts?

I can agree with some of your post, especially the part about trading being the way to make money to go PvP and RvR. However, the problem as I see it, with the logic of "more traders=more PvP" is that that is not always the case. Here's why: If a player is forced to spend time in a trader (because he needs money to go fight and afford gear) and they'd rather be fighting, that player will either quit (and then you'll never get PvP from him), or buy an alt and use it for trading (as I do) Think about when you sail a trader, I highly doubt you (or anyone) think "Hey, I've got several million gold worth of stuff in my hold, I really hope a couple of enemy skippers find me and generate some PvP!" most likely, you are timing your entry and exit from ports with good wind, watching your back, using "tow to port" when you can, and making your trade runs in secluded areas where finding enemy players is not likely. I know I use many of those strategies. This is an extension of the second point: when you make risky trade runs, you plan them for a time of day when PvP activities near your trade run are at their lowest (or the lowest that you get in your playtime). For most players, trading boils down to this: when you are trader hunting, you want loads of slow, loaded, and poorly defended traders to capture before the enemy fleet gets its act together to chase you away; when you are trading, you want an empty ocean with safe sailing. My opinion on contracts is simple: they work as-intended. If I have more gold than you, you'll need to go through me if you want whatever we are bidding on. Who knows, maybe I'll give you 20 of [insert rare NPC-only made item] for 3000 teak logs delivered to [insert port here]. It works well for me because I value the game-time I would have spent sailing to get that teak more than the gold I lose by buying 1 mil (example) worth of rare item and trading it for 700k worth of teak logs. Its harsh when you get in that 1 gold more bidding war, but in the end, the goal is for you to get the item and ultimately drive the other player bankrupt or away from that port. Whether we like it or not, running a monopoly is part of the game. Just to clarify though, I'm 100% against ALL limited-quantity NPC-only produced rare-upgrade-making materials (ex.: cartagena tar, crooked cedar, et.) Many won't agree with me here, but I honestly miss the days of easy trading when I could harvest my tobacco, sugar, or compass wood plantation every few days, sail 15 minutes and make enough gold to go PvP and lose loads of ships without worrying about replacing them. Money was easy, and buying materials to make ships was easy. Nobody worried about losing ships because they could replace them no problem. I think the reason I prefer that system is because, ultimately, I'm not a trader, I'm a fighter. When the trading changed and required me to spend more than 1-2 hours each week in a trader to keep up with my PvP/RvR expenses, I bought an alt so I don't have to waste my hunting time sailing in a trader. Now I have my alt making money and moving materials while I go fight. Once or twice a week, I go meet my alt somewhere and get the necessary amount of money and materials from him. That's my opinion on traders in the game, perhaps its a bit narrow, but again: I'm a fighter first, a trader second. I'd rather engage a warship than a trader when I'm hunting.

No. It displays the correct information for cannon type, projectile, and gives confirmation about whether or not the cannon hit did damage. The specific numbers for damage may not be exact, but it gives you a good enough idea (EX: "Cannon 9pd long [bullet_default] 1 penetrated for 1.2 damage" means you did a little damage with your regular ball at that range; "Cannon 9pd long [bullet_charge] 1 penetrated for 16.9 damage" means you did a lot more damage with double charge at that range [not necessarily the same range, just an example]). Do your own testing on the shotlogger before you say it is bugged. Unfortunately, this Belle Poule AI bug will probably go ignored just as the reports many of us sent about AI shooting double shot/charge through carronades. So, I guess we just need to get used to AI being able to do things with their ship's cannon loadouts that players cannot do...makes for a little bit more challenging bot-shooting in missions though I guess.

Bingo! Its all in how your ship is positioned relative to the enemy ship, as well as your heading. I had it explained to me by another PvPer one day, and I still didn't understand it completely... However, the best way I can think of to learn it is to make a tag (an AI trader works well, since it will escape on its own and you can repeat the tag a few more times pretty quickly) and have someone outside the battle screenshot it as you do the tag. There is usually about a 5-10 second delay where you can see the battle cross swords, the ships that were pulled in, and the join circles all at the same time. Have someone with the free camera flying about ready to capture a screenshot at that time. Do the process a few times, varying your tags, and you'll get a feel for the approximate location of the join circles. Also when I'm hunting in a group, I try to ask clan mates who are outside the battle when I tag something if the join circle was decent or not. I wish I could explain it in a way that makes more sense, but every way I can think of still sounds pretty confusing...sometimes the friendly join circle will be behind you if you tag a ship a certain way, sometimes it will be beside you, I think I've even seen them spawn ahead of you (although that takes some dancing by both parties inside the pull circle). Of course, the enemy join circle is always on the opposite side of the crossed swords as the friendly circle. That is probably all about as clear as mud...but maybe it helps you a little bit...or it might confuse you more. Honestly, after reading it, I'm not sure if it makes sense at all LOL. It doesn't need a fix IMO: it is a game mechanic that has distinct advantages and disadvantages for every player at some time or another. I don't think that it is a broken mechanic if I can trick someone into letting me tag them against a beach, thus ruining their join circles: they shouldn't have been hugging the coast like a landlubber. AAARRRGGGHHH! Historically, of course, any passing ship could stumble across that battle and begin fighting (assuming you are not in 7th rates fighting amidst the shoals), but that brings us back to the problems associated with instanced battles and compressed OW with increased speed. Any "solution" to those problems is going to have drawbacks. As it is, the join circle placement having the ability to spawn on land is a problem at times, and a help at times. I link again the topic that @Skully referenced earlier, specifically this post by @admin regarding using land as a tactic to engage the enemy. Make sure to note what admin suggest about engaging near land: basically, don't do it if you are not confident in your abilities to get a decent tag--to engage blindly near the beach is risky.

It is a feature/tactic, not a bug. I always try to make my tags have the join circles spawn in a beneficial area to me. Sometimes it works, sometimes I have no choice in the matter. If I can, I try to put the enemy circle on land/in shallows so that my target can't get reinforcements. Another tactic when further out to sea is to put their join circle far upwind so that any enemy ships that were chasing behind me have to run upwind slowly in OW, either causing them to not be able to join at all; or, at the very least, give me a decent amount of time to get my sails hoisted and build up some speed running away (assuming I did a defensive/counter tag). I've even used the join circles to put the spawn point for friendlies ahead of a fleeing target (when you tag an Endymion with a Surprise, his only choice of escape is downwind, so if I put my friendly circle downwind and I have people join, they will spawn ahead of the fleeing Endymion, setting up a perfect "gank" to get the Endy). Learn how to make proper tags and you will quickly see that join circle placement is a good tactic for the OW PvPer to learn.

This was happening a few hours ago (it may be happening now still) on the Global server. There was a neutral player outside Georgetown (North of Charleston on the East coast) in a Victory. The ship popped in and out of port repeatedly. Here is a screenshot. I also sent an F11 report.

From a realism perspective, I think that mast repairs should not happen at all in the fight, there is no way you could jury rig a lower mast in a battle. Perhaps you could jury rig an upper mast (topmast or topgallant) if you pulled away from the combat long enough.... As a demaster, and to balance gameplay, I think that mast repairs should be limited to 1 time per fight: if you get demasted, you can select "repair sails" and you will get some masts back, and maybe some sails back. If you lose masts again, you can't repair them. You can repair sails again, but not masts. Currently, I'll choose demasting over chaining sometimes if I can snap the masts relatively easily, since you can take down sail % faster that way (if you can demast efficiently).

One each I think is good. Two at the most. It would be hard to enforce the "vanilla" options, so might as well use whatever upgrades you have...