Nalyd

Same goes for the Food supplies too. 250 to produce and 250 to buy from the NPC

all this concerns the PvP server 1 EU

And what prevents me from making 2 accounts to farm hostility point near a port I want to attack with this new system ? Now about the new design and the things that need improvement : This need to be changed, imagine that everybody is fighting around 18-20h, at the end of the day where most activities stopped the hostility level reaches 98%, then at 5AM, there is a dude that log into the game and finish the remaining 2% with PvE missions. At this point everybody will be forced to fight at the port battle at 5AM because the hostility level happened to reach 100% while most of them were playing between 18-20h. Keep the "2 days later" concept without the "in 48 hours exactly", so that if the hostility level reaches 100% the 24th, the port battle will happen the 26th. But for the port attack timer, just select the timer in which most of the points have been accumulated. If the majority of the hostility points happened to be earned between 18-20h, then the port battle should be set between 18-20h. Those port should be limited by nation. let say only 3 ports can reach the port battle state for each nation, so it prevents all the port battle to happen at the other end of the map where 2 big nations are fighting leaving the others smaller nations with nothing to do. I sincerely hope that the port battle didn't already begun for the first 10-20mins in which only people with war effort commendations can enter. If it's the case it's a very bad system because you won't be able to fight fully for the first 20 minutes and elaborate a strategy if all 25 people with a war commendation don't show up. The solution for that is to make a lobby system within the port battle. When the port battle is launched and people can enter, you would have 2 sections : -The usual one with the front/middle/rear where you can decide where you'll be at the launch of the fight. -At the bottom, a lobby section where everybody who enter the port battle will be placed. -During the first 10 minutes, only people with a war commendation will be able to move from the lobby to the front/middle/rear sections and participate to the fight. -After those 10 minutes, everybody can switch from the lobby to the front/middle/rear sections, as long as there are still open slots obviously. -5 minutes later, the battle start. So basically you'd have 15 minutes of preparation time before the fight begun. People who stayed in the lobby at the start of the battle will be placed as "spectator" and will be able to witness the battle the same way you do when you're dead. This will prevent the recurrent issue when you attack a port and managed to gather like 27 people and 2 players will be left outside of the instance like a sacrifice to the screening fleet because the port is limited to 25 people only.

What I would like to see is that you spawn in the open world at the exact same spot you were in the instance when the battle is over

What I consider to be good ideas from the OP : To set up a port battle Nation must build an Assault Fleet Building an assault fleet requires weapons, troops, transports and supplies (any player can add them to the project) Once the project is fully supplied the construction starts It takes X days to complete the project Once the construction starts it will generate pvp quests for the Nation and Target Nation in the port zone Once the project is completed the port battle will start exactly 48 hours (2 days) after completion Here are my suggestions/alternatives : Before the port battle The port battle will happen no matter what if the project is fully supplied and the construction starts. Accomplishing PVP quests as the attacker will earn you "Conquest points" that will fill an "Invasion bar". Accomplishing PVP quests as the defender will earn you "Defense points" that will drain the "Invasion bar". This "Invasion bar" will have an impact on the Port battle itself depending on how much the attackers/defenders managed to fill/drain it when the project is completed. During the port battle I'm going to consider that the port battles will work as followed in this thread : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13784-minor-port-battle-changes-next-patch/ The "invasion bar" will have an impact on the defenses of the port and will determine the conditions of the towers/forts in presence. If the "invasion bar" is full, then the forts/towers will be extremely damaged ( or even destroyed) right at the start of the port battle lessening the advantage of the defenders. However, if the "invasion bar" is at 0, the defenses will be in top condition giving the defenders extra protections. The "invasion bar" will also have an impact on the victory conditions. If we consider that reaching 1000 victory points first is required to win the port battle for both side under normal conditions, this requirement might change and tilt in favor of the defenders or the attackers depending on how much the "invasion bar" got filled. If the bar is full, then the attackers might only need 500 victory points in order to capture the port while the defenders still need to reach 1000 to snatch a win. If the bar is at 0, then it's the opposite.

The problem here is that this roadmap doesn't mention "port battle rework" but just straight out the 7 days features. This is the kind of modifications that are supposed to be delivered in a bundle of multiples other features for it to makes sense. What I'm afraid of is to see the devs throwing those modification one by one instead of waiting to have the whole thing done.

This, It gives a ludicrous advantage to the attackers and makes zerging to snatch as many ports as possible much more potent. It also means that if you're on the losing side, you need to hold the front for 7 freaking days before being able to retake the initiative and push back, which means potentially having to defend each port near the frontline 7 damn times each in a row without failing, otherwise you're in for another 7 days of pain. In fact, it doesn't even creates any sort of frontline either, since you won't be able to take the enemy ports next to yours because of this 7 days stuff, you'll have to either wait for these 7 days or strike further back into the enemy lines which will end up in a bloody mess where both side will hold ports inside the other nation territories instead of having a clean front. In my opinion, this change is just bad unless : 1-You have to warn the defenders where/when you'll attack 1-2 days prior to the assault so they can prepare 2-This 7 days timer is activated if the port is attacked whether or not they manage to take it, so that the attackers still need to plan carefully their assault instead of just brute forcing everyday until they take it. 3-The cost for attacking a port should be much more than what we have now. The cheapest should already cost more than a Million gold. taking a port is supposed to be a national effort, not something the average joe can buy after 2 AI fleet mission. 4-Finally I find the 7 days timer to be quite long and I'm afraid it will slow the pace of the RvR too much. Something like 3-4 days would be already more reasonable in my eyes.

I love this feature, I'm no longer forced to tag sinking ships to be sure they actually go to the bottom of the ocean instead of just magically disappear by the power of the christ despite being condemned. If you're constantly taking water despite having fixed all the leaks, that means your vessel took too much punishment and is well beyond salvation. What was stupid and arcadey is that you could leave and live another day while having your ship completely obliterated just because you could bail out after 2 minutes while it would have required 3 minutes for you to sink. Unless you believe in divine intervention to repair your ship. A sinking ship, even if it manages to disengage from a fight will still sink if you don't have the stuff required to fix it anyway. And I don't see what the heck do pirates have to do with this game mechanic.

This never works, it only delays the issue but in the end, you'll still have your death ball of 25 first rate.

And what about the DRUNK's players that went and helped the british screening fleet when they had Aves and when we were trying to give basse-terre to the Danes to help us out ? (click to maximize, direct link below) http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/339415Client2016042921531468.jpg This Screen was taken the 04/29 so basically during the conflict with the British still at Aves trying to get a foothold on the french territories from there. And we were informed just a few hours prior to this screen to not attack DRUNK anymore because they "changed". So much for that.

On PVP1, Sweden did. Spain almost with only 4 ports left IIRC. Then come France which lost all the west indies in a matter of a week and was stuck with a couple of city in the gulf of Paria. Player imbalance is not an issue in itself, unless one faction happen to have a critically low playerbase, . It's how player imbalance is translated in the game and how it interacts with the mechanics that bring issues. If you want to avoid that, the very basic 101 is that each player must take something from a general "pool of power" which is identical for every faction. What you don't want is each player adding power to that pool. A good start is "the cost of crew" that the devs want to add to the game. basically, each nation have X crew in total divided by the number of players in the said faction. the more you are in your faction, the less crew you'll have per player, and vice versa. So virtually both nation are identical in term of crew power, because the less populated faction counterbalance this by having players "worth" more. Another good concept would be to slow down the number of Port battles happening in a short span of time. If we have a faction with 200 players against a faction with only 50 players, you realize that the latter can only manage 2 fight happening at the same time while the first can fight for 8 ports at the same time. Therefore you end up with the lesser faction getting wipe into oblivion due to sheer number in a matter of days until they are left with only 2 ports they can actually try to defend. If you limit the creation of an assault fleet against the same nation to 2 at the same time, they could then be able to fight on equal terms against each others for every port battle. Now here is an example of a bad mechanic : The labor hours. Each player produce in average, roughly 42 labor per hours. For every additional player in your faction, you virtually increase the quantity of ship a faction can make per day. Therefore, where a big nation could produce around 20 santisima a day, a lesser one might only be able to make 3 santisima per day. And in a war of attrition, the first would obviously win. TL;DR : In conclusion, if you want a balanced game. Being in the biggest faction shouldn't by default grant you any extra advantages over a smaller faction except for having more people to talk to. Choosing the "easy side" should be restrictive but still allowed if you really want to for diverse reasons, while the smaller factions should allow more flexibility and possibility for their players. If you want a good example of how it should be done, look at the Strategic part of the game "Heroes&Generals". Now if you are cool with having some factions being objectively stronger than others by design, then it's a totally different discussion.

capture zones are a good way to force a fight during the Whole PB instead of the running around and avoiding combat that usually happen on the defense side to keep the BR difference until the end of the timer, so i'm all for it. Now, in the future if those zones could be transformed into forts you have to capture, I would be quite pleased.

Another advantage of the BR limit is if there is a need to nerf or buff a particular ship. You can just slide its Battle Ranking higher if it's too good, or lower if it's too weak. Therefore you won't need to touch to the specifications of a ship like it's speed, turn rate, resistance etc. for balancing reasons. And I would argue that having to tweak 1 value is way easier than tweaking 5+ values and trying to make them work together. Again, a BR limit allows the losing/weaker faction to still put up a fight and maybe snatch a win even if they can't come up with the best ship allowed. A continuous war from the start to the end is for me much more enjoyable than something that'd settle in a matter of 2-3 days because the weaker side ran out of the best ship and can't compete with a deathball of 25* Santi/ingermanland, therefore just quitting the fight. It's not fun for the losing side that can't defend itself because the power gap is too great And it's not fun for the winning side to just sit their rear on 3 undefended circles until the end of the war because the losing side won't come defend

No, what I described is how a fleet that should be formed of mostly 3rd rate with a certain amount of 1st/2nd rate in a real age of sail fleet composition is, in this game, limited to 25 first rate almost all the time and how toying with the price won't change that fact or make a more mixed fleet. I don't believe there is a single record of a fleet in which more than 50% of it was made out of 1st rate.

How did you manage to reach to that conclusion about the BR limit ? With a BR limit in a regional battle you'd have the choice of picking a fleet composition ranging from an handful of powerful 1st rate to a swarm of 3rd rate. which offers you a large panel of strategy depending on what you've chosen and what you'll face. How come a team would feel more entitled to pick "the best ship" rather than "the ship I like" if in the end, the chances remain 50/50 to win in both case ? On a second note, this has nothing to do with balancing ships, a shitty ship will still remain a shitty ship. The difference is that you will be able to field more of them against a lower number of good ships. having equal forces fighting each others is different from having the same forces fighting each others. The later being the boring one, like what we currently have in the game with 25 santi fighting 25 santi. Also, the strategic part still remain, since you will be able to raid ports if you're on the attacking side to worn out the port defenses or built up forts if you're on defensive side to tilt the balance of the fight in your favor. And add to that the land in ports which could drastically change the way you play from one port to another. Attrition will also remain relevant if for example you face a nation fond of 1st rate fleets. If you take out all of them, you'll force them to use a different fleet composition which they might not be accustomed to use. You talk about tactics, but then you should know that it's in those situation in which the chances are 50/50 where the determinant factor for a victory is the tactic you'll employ and if it's better than the one used by your opponent. You want to know what I find boring ? it's when the result of a war between nations is decided in an handful of battles. Where both nation bring their best fleets during the first days of a war until one of them can't anymore due to attrition and then just get stomped by the remaining ball of death from the "victor" against whom the "losing" side can't do anything. The first day is fun, fighting with equal (well in fact, same) forces against your opponent. The second day start to get stinky when all you find in front of you are suicide squads trying to ram you with their petty frigates with the hope of sinking one of them. The third day is just boring as hell when the defenders finally decide that this is enough and just let you cap empty ports until you win the war. Fighting against the odds is fun from time to time, especially when you manage to pull it off. But this has to stay reasonable, something like 40-30% chances of winning. And I can tell you that in a fight of 25 santi against 25 frigates, the chances of objectively winning the fight on the frigate side is probably around 5% What is fun for me is when my nation and I have to fight like lions to grab every inch of territory against an opponent responding back with everything they have. Something they won't do if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning the war themselves. I have no interest into grabbing 10 empty undefended ports because our opponent don't have the means to fight back or annihilate a dozen of suicide frigate's squads launched at us in despair while me and the 24 others captains are laughing like some nouveau-riche twat on our Santissima. It's like using a cheat code in a solo game. You might laugh your ass off for half an hour and then you get bored again.

The BR limit is not "limiting the entry rights". In fact it's quite the opposite since it makes a wider range of people able to participate without feeling like utter trash if they don't use the best ship. a limitation to the entry rights is something that flush out/only concerns a certain category of players. The BR limit is something that would apply to everybody no matter if you started to play or if you were there for the last 4 months. Just like the hard cap of 25vs25 which also applies to all, this rule won't change because you're a veteran or a newbie. If you want to see what a real limitation to the entry rights is, take a look at the announced port system with deep/shallow/regional water where you can't participate unlike other players if you don't own the right ship for a port in particular. To make a parallel with the real world, just because a rollercoaster only have 30 seats available or a maximum weight charge of 2400kg doesn't limit anybody to use it (well, unless you alone weight more than 2400kg but you should probably be more concerned about your health than getting in a rollercoaster at this point). You'll get in eventually if you're patient enough, nobody else is more or less entitled than you to use it. However specifying that you need to be taller than 1m40 to get onboard is something that'll alter entry rights for a certain category of people.

Also, making 1st rate more expansive doesn't change anything in the long run. You'll need 3 months instead of 1 to build your deathball of 25 Santissima from scratch, then what ? They'll still piss in the mouth of hundreds and hundreds of frigates before you could even destroy one of them in a port battle. In fact, the more expansive 1st rate are going to be, the more pack of full 25 Santissima you'll encounter, because this is the safest way to travel and not lose one of them. So you'll either see a full 25 Santissima, or none of them. Now talking about your point 2 and 3. Like I said a deathball of Santissima will utterly destroy hundreds of frigates before you even manage to get 1 of them. Mainly because the game force you to fight 25vs25 and snatch away one of the 2 only advantage normally given to a weaker force which is supposed to be numerical advantage. The other advantage which is their speed/maneuverability also being non existant because the point of a port battle will soon become to "take and hold" your position. Emphasize on the "hold" part where running away and guerrilla tactics won't work. So yeah, for 1 player losing XP/officiers/crew on a 1st rate, you made 25 frigate's captains lose XP/officiers/crew multiple time on their 5th rate. In the end who's on the short end of the stick ?

Letting the fleet composition into the hands of "EVERY players" is a recipe for disaster. It's like allowing every single grunt inside the commander's tent to talk strategy which is not what I want. A port battle by its very nature is something started by an already organized group of players which obviously have a leader taking command for this battle. Just check any port battle video out there. You'll mostly hear 1 guy talking during almost all the video while everybody else listen or gives concise info. You said it yourself, "If you don't control entry into PB your composition will be screwed up". Then allow the flag's holder, highest ranked player (talking about the political rank), the one who initiated the battle, or through a vote to decide who should "lead" the fight etc. To see who's present with what ship and to decide who gets in the fight and in which position (front/middle/rear) with a drag and drop system during the 5-10min of preparation, add a counter telling you how many BR your fleet has and how many you can have at most and voilà. You already established that random players doing whatever they want without caring about others and the general plans are a nuisance. Fleshing them out so they don't grief all the other players (be it intentionally or not which will also avoid the new player bashing trend) and/or forcing them to get involved into the general politic of a nation in order to participate is a good idea. And to make the parallel with DOTA, in a tournament About the pre arranged nature of a port battle, I would argue that having to tell which port you're going to attack 2-3 days beforehand like suggested in your port battle/war post is the very definition of something "pre-arranged". Just like in DOTA, you know which team you are going to confront many weeks before the actual battle (replace team with nation for NA), and you don't know which is the composition of the enemy team before the last minute, which is also the case in Naval Action. If we are to compare the Port battles in NA with a DOTA game, i would say that they are not that distant to each others and actually share quite a bunch of similarities. If the only reason to why this BR limit system won't work is because random players can grief it (again, intentionally or not). Do something about this issue (I gave a suggestion to how above) THEN add the BR limit. And since this "random players grieving a large group" is already happening, you'll have to deal with it sooner or later anyway if you don't want clans/group of players to get pissed over individuals Nothing prohibit the attackers to bring a fleet of 50+ players to guarantee that 25 of them will manage to go through the defensive fleet and get in the port battle. In fact, it's already the case with screening fleets happening on on both side.

The same reason why some people struggle to put all their stuff in a luggage and need an extra suitcase while other can put the triple of that in a single luggage. Because they know how to (play tetris) arrange and pack their stuff to take profit of every bit of space available instead of just tossing their goods left and right in the cargo.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know why they created a whole new option to deactivate a whole broadside instead of using the current keybinds F1-F4 to manually deactivate each deck one by one. Sometime I just want every sailors manning the guns on the weather deck to stop reloading and to sail instead while the guys on the lower/middle/top deck keep doing their stuff. I don't want to shut down an entire broadside in order to do that...

Yup, A BR limit is the easiest way to start seeing more diversity of ships in a port battle while putting the strategic aspect of a fleet composition into the hands of the players. The main point of bringing less powerful/smaller ships is to fight quality with number, sadly this strategy is null and void with the current game mechanics. As long as the game will allow players to bring whatever they want in a port battle within the limit of 25 ships. Don't expect people to use anything but the best ship allowed since there is no benefit to sail weaker ships. You'd think that the system of victory point earned based on the BR of a ship would help towards this issue, but it won't. Because a fleet of 25 Santissima will obviously snowball the heck out of a fleet of 25 3rd rate before and you'll lose all your fleet of 3rd rate before you could even sink more than 3 Santi in front of you due to sheer firepower difference. -The new Port Battle "king of the hills" is great, because it will actually force people to fight instead of running around in circle for 1h30 to conserve a BR difference under *2. -Dividing the ports in 3 distinct size is also a good call. This will group ships of "equivalent power" together and will allow more diversity. But adding a BR limit would make those 2 points even better. I want players to be able to make their own strategy : -Either having a big fleet of weaker ships to emphasize control over the terrain for the capture points, -Or having a small fleet of strong ships to emphasize the firepower in a direct encounter to gain victory points over a fight. -Or having a balanced fleet with a great variety of ship. What I don't want is to keep the current system where the only viable strategy is to bring a big fleet of the strongest ship allowed. Not only does this gets old real fast because you keep seing/fighting/sailing the same damn ship all the time, but because it also makes you wonder why the dev team even bother modeling dozens of ships if we are just going to see like 4 of them for the great majority of the time.

Et lorsque les timers de chaque côté seront à 6 heures du matin on fait quoi ? On force tous le monde à mettre une alarme pour se lever le matin et jouer ? Et pour ceux qui ne peuvent pas ? On les obliges à poser des congés pour qu'ils aient un créneaux ? Ce qui relève de la bêtise c'est de vouloir "gagner" à tout prix dans un jeu qui ne le permet de toute façon pas par ses mécaniques et cela au détriment de la communauté globale.

I did it and the issue seems to have been fixed, thanks for the tip .

Hi, I currently have an FPS issue with the game since the hotfix 9.71 or 9.72. Everytime I go through a loading screen from port -> open world or open world -> battle my frames per second get stuck at around 10fps. Tho from open world -> port menu, my FPS are normal. In fact, when I Alt+tab everything seem to stutter. I checked my GPU/CPU/memory load, and all of them seemed to be fine. However I found a workaround to this, to get my fps back to normal I have to open the start menu, be it by doing alt+tab and then click on the start button or by pressing the windows key on my keyboard. In the end it doesn't make the game unplayable for me since I found this workaround, but it sure gets annoying after a while. I'm running on Windows 10 and I'd like to find a permanent solution to this somewhere.

The only thing the BR limit seems to do is to check the BR difference after each players to see if the limitation is reached if yes it closes the battle, if not, it lets it open. It doesn't seem to care about the actual BR difference. In your case, if 210BR is the limit before the battle is closed, then they could stack a few ships so it ends up at 209BR on their side, which won't close the instance, and then let in a Santissima if they wanted to.