Musuko42

That sounds like a great idea! Having scheduled events like that would add some fun variety...and, behind the scenes, it could also be used by the developers to mix things up; say if nations got into a stalemate and it wasn't shifting, they could trigger some events that would have decisive outcomes one way or another to "unstick" the stalemate.

That sounds really familiar, and I'm not sure if you're quoting anything specific or not...but yes, that's exactly the kind of win condition I'm talking about.

Good! Battles in this era were fought at very close ranges. We shouldn't be able to do much damage to each-other at longer ranges.

A very rough suggestion: 1 The map is wiped. 2 Each nation starts with a capital in a random place on the map. 3 Each nation is given a unique win condition (such as "capture and hold x number of ports" or "be in control of these specific ports"), with the difficulty of accomplishing that victory being based on the relative strength of the nation (number of active players, BR total of all ships owned by that nation, etc). 4 When one nation hits that win condition, the players in that nation are given trophies to commemorate their win (a symbol in their player tag, or a limited-edition ship like the Yacht, or cosmetic trophies like special ship paintjobs or flags). 5 The game starts over from step one. Notes: The mechanics would be balanced so that each "round" should last something on the order of three to four months. Having randomised starting capitals would hopefully stop players being bored by sailing the same corner of the map all the time. Having specific, and changing, goals would liven up the strategies and the competition experienced in the game. Trophies would be a fun and harmless way for experienced players to show off. The mechanics of this system could ensure that nations that consistently win are given greater challenges in the next round; keeping it interesting and challenging for them, whilst giving players in the other nations a chance of victory...because nobody likes being steamrollered over and over. Caveats: I haven't fully thought out how things like ships, buildings, and resources would be carried over from round to round, if at all. That kind of thing would have to be worked out if and when the idea gets fleshed out further.

As far as I understand, smuggling is for buying and selling resources and materials in enemy ports. Buy your resources, and then sail them home to craft them there.

Port blockades were a real thing that happened. If that mechanic is making it into the game, then that's pretty cool, in my opinion.

It needs tweaking, certainly, but I like the fact that the larger ships actually FEEL larger now. I suspect a lot of the complaints about battles taking to long will die down once people learn the new tactics needed to fight effectively.

It's not just you. It's good old-fashioned bad sportsmanship.

Could it be the basic lack of sportsmanship? "A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well)."

Just because you can't imagine any other effects, doesn't mean there aren't any. An example of a possible effect; rain would adversely affect exposed deck guns, but not below-deck guns. Therefore, ships with more exposed deck guns would be put at a temporary disadvantage against those ships who have more of their cannons protected under the deck, thus altering the balance of strength in certain situations, and providing players with an extra tactical element. Likewise, rain could affect boarding; musketry would be hampered by rain.

As Lucien says, that only confirms that there will be a port wipe at some point. It doesn't confirm that there will be one with this next patch. Even though you didn't specifically say there would be a wipe in the next patch, the fact that you said "port wipe confirmed" in a thread about the next patch, it seemed to me that was your meaning.

Do you have a source for that? Link?

I think you're overstating your case, especially seeing as there already are shallows in other battles without any problems.

The only way to know that for sure is to test it.

Apologies if these ideas have been floated already (it's a very long thread). Wars should have a stated goal; a win condition. As an example, when declaring a war, three enemy ports are selected as the targets. These ports are then vulnerable for the duration of the war, using whatever port-battle mechanic is eventually implemented. Having stated war targets makes the wars more focussed, and also encourages players to gather at certain spots on the map for some lovely intense PVP. During the war period, the area around those three ports is marked. All PVP battles within those areas between the two warring factions will provide extra EXP (as an incentive for players to head there and join in), but will also provide effects for your side. As an example, if you are an attacking player and you win a PVP battle in that area, then you provide a boost to the morale of your leadership back home, and they'll extend the war period for a little more time, giving your faction more opportunity to meet its goals. Similarly, as a defender, winning PVP battles would boost the morale of your leadership, and they might send reinforcements in the shape of improved port defences, or ships available to buy at a discount rate to help defence, that sort of thing. The war would end if the attackers meet their goal (capture all three ports), or if the time runs out, in which case the attackers may have a partial victory (one or two ports captured), or a loss (none captured). Rewards can be provided to any players who participated in PVP within the war areas, or in capturing/defending the ports, based on whether their side won or lost.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the fates smile on my suggestion and the optimal configuration turns out to be roughly historically accurate; a few 1st rates, a majority of 3rds and large frigates, and a supporting smattering of speedy frigates and of mortar brigs. Let's also assume that you're right, and the same format is brought to every battle. 1: It'd be more historically accurate than 25 santis. 2: Even though the fleet composition would be the same each time, what each player gets to sail won't be; get bored of sailing a 1st rate and you can sail the next battle in a speedy frigate. 3: Turning up to the battle in a smaller ship won't be an automatic sentence to screening. 4: Someone joining in a cutter won't automatically keep another player out of the battle, stopping that particular trolling method. 5: Nations on the back foot would still be able to fight back; they may not be able to sail the optimal mixed fleet, but in the event of an emergency they could swarm a large fleet of smaller ships and fight a last-ditch battle that actually has a hope of winning.

Why not just do as others have suggested; replace the 25 player limit with a BR limit? BR limits are already used in other areas of the game. Not only could this allow more variation in fleets, but might also encourage it; if you know your enemy is going to burn their whole BR limit to send in eight first-rates, your side might elect to send in 15 frigates to swarm them...which might then encourage the enemy to diversify their fleets the next time around to defend against that sort of tactic...and bingo, the game ends up tending towards fleets of varied ship sizes, which improves realism and improves inclusion; players who turn up in smaller ships are no-longer seen as screening fodder, but now can be useful additions to the assault fleet.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I'll try to clarify what I was aiming at. In short, my answer is to make it almost impossible...or at the very least, extremely risky...to fill a port battle up entirely with first rates, encouraging players to use other ships types instead, hopefully meaning your frigate captain can join the battles without expecting to be hopelessly outclassed. I guess the flaw in this idea is there'll always be some super-motivated clans who won't let the additional cost and effort stop them, and will get their 25 first rates anyway.

Are you going to explain why not?

Goal: make 1st rates expensive to run (as real world), rare (as real world), and only used occasionally, and with great care (as real world) 1: Require crew to be hired, fed, and for widows to be paid when they die, meaning larger crews are expensive to maintain, and even more expensive to lose (as per the other thread about this subject). 2: This one seems unpopular when I've mentioned it before, so perhaps it only applies to line ships; cause players to lose XP if they lose a ship. The larger the ship lost, the greater the hit. Real captains who lost a first rate were, I imagine, less likely to be offered command of one again. If you lose a 1st rate in the game, you may lose ranks to the point where you'll need to work up to getting one again. 3: When officers are implemented, require numerous, or high-quality officers to run larger ships effectively. Without them, the ship's functions (sails, reloads, etc) will be slower. Perhaps, if you really skimp on officers, you may find the crew mutiny in the face of the enemy, stopping you dead in the water, surrendering, or turning the ship to flee. Those are my three suggestions.

I think that looks fantastic! It'd make tactics important; the attackers and defenders will need to choose where to concentrate their forces, and events would unfold fluidly throughout the course of the action. A few suggestions: Make the landing zones shallow only, giving those ships a vital role, increasing ship diversity, and forcing both sides to carefully decide the composition of their fleets. Similarly, the depth of the port entrance will vary depending on the type of port, as will the fort areas; some ports will have a mix (eg: two shallow, one deep). Remove the need for flag purchase and flag carriers altogether; any port can be blockaded at any time, and have a countdown meter that goes up when a port is blockaded, and diminishes slowly over time. Blockade a port for long enough and it'll become open for attack. All players within that faction will get a "port is being blockaded!" notification. If you require several hours' worth of blockading to open a port, then it'll give enough time for defenders to muster. So, as an example, for every minute a port is under blockade, one point is added to the meter. When the meter hits the threshold (which can vary depending on the type of port; capitals have a higher limit, shallow lower, etc), the port becomes open to attack. But, for every minute the port stops being under blockade, or for every attacking ship that is sunk, a point is deducted from the meter. Perhaps to count as blockaded, the areas need to contain a minimum BR of attackers, plus a minimum BR difference between attackers and defenders. So, a handful of ships would not be able to blockade a port; it'd take at least eight, say, to start the countdown, and defenders can nullify the blockade effect by having at least present at least half the BR of the attackers. Or, perhaps, the stronger the attacking force in the blockade areas, the faster the blockade meter fills. Something like that, anyway.

It's in early alpha. They're not trying to retain players. I doubt they're even trying to gain players. They're trying to finish the game. We're testers, helping them build it. Efforts to gain and retain players come AFTER the game has been made. To be honest, I doubt they'd want to even gain players right now, because those players might well be put off by all the work-in-progress flaws and never come back when it's complete. Perhaps this is also why the game is so high-priced for an early access game; so that it only attracts the properly-dedicated age-of-sail nerds like us, who'll stick through all the bugs and fight to help them build the game. Anyway, I vote yes on a server merge. It's a big map. Lots of room for us all. I think it'd be great if we were all playing together.

This is the exact reason why I think crew losses should be a setback regardless of the durability of your ship; the game should encourage players to want to avoid losing crew...or, at the very least, add cost to ramming tactics so it's a little less cheap to do. I could be wrong, but I think (and I hope) that the game is evolving towards the point where we won't all be sailing around in the massive 1st rates all the time. 1st rates, historically, were expensive and rare. So too should it be in the game. A fleet of 25 Santis in one battle is just plain silly (and pretty boring, I would think). They were flagships, not common brawlers. There should only ever be a handful of them in any given battle...let alone 25 of them.

1: Crew costs, as discussed here. 2: A constant cost to own the ship, even docked (needs maintainance, etc). 3: We gain XP and rank in the game...we should also be able to lose it too; lose a ship, for whatever reason, and you will lose XP. Lose a big ship and you lose a LOT of xp. Sinking a victory should be grounds for demotion. The bigger ships should be expensive to own, to run, to sail, and be more damaging to your reputation and rank if you lose them, and sensible captains should think carefully about bringing them out, reserving them only for the roles they were designed for; big fleet battles. Like, as I imagine, in my uneducated guesswork kind of way, they were in real life.

In addition to my previous post; I don't think crew should be a limited resource. There should always be crew available, so you're never stuck being unable to man your ship (which is a "turn off the game and do something else for a while" problem, if encountered). What COULD be limited is the quality of the crew, if such a thing is implemented. Every port would have an unlimited supply of really awful, untrained, unruly landlubbers, and a limited supply of good-quality crew, who are faster at reloading cannons, setting sails, etc, and whose morale is higher. How limited is something that can be controlled to help balance nations. Maybe a nation on the back foot in the caribbean sends more trained sailors over there (presumably weakening their strength in Europe and elsewhere, but we're not concerned with that). It wouldn't be the whole answer to the balance issue, but it could be part of it.