Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tyrant

  1. There've been many comments elsewhere on the forum regarding whether or not to teleport.  I agree remove with remove from game, however disagree with this idea of AI offline navigation.  I hadn't seen that suggestion before, but if you want to play the game then you should play the game, and all activity ceases when you don't.  It's not unlike any other game, if you don't have the time you don't play.  The idea of offline AI gaming produces much the same result as teleporting.  Go to bed and wake up and your ship is at the other port (perhaps some risk involved but assuming no event, then the result is the same).  (....IMO.... :) )


    Fact of the matter is, this is a game not a job.  People will complain to high heaven about being forced to complete mundane tasks such as sailing back and forth on the same four hour long journey and I can understand their plight.


    Teleportation is too easily exploitable and is ruining the game imho.


    We will never get rid of teleportation without a compromise that allows people the ability to do mundane tasks like that of supply logistics easily.


    So the AI navigation is my compromise.  It is realistic in a few senses:


    1) the captain of a ship (you) was not awake 24/7.  There had to be some time that they slept and would give the helm to the appropriate officer who could navigate the ship in the same way the captain would've based on the captains orders.


    2) being turned into an NPC that navigates to the prescribed destination opens you up to exposure on the high seas and a certain element of risk.  If the voyage were particularly risky like transiting near enemy controlled territory... the captain could opt to make the journey himself and do it all manually.  Either way, people have the option to decide.. easy risky way, or hard safer way. 


    3) removing the teleportation means that people cant warp supplies and big ships behind enemy lines.  This will reduce the ganking, surprise attacks that make no sense, and will concentrate PVP on the front lines of a nations territory where it should be.  You will always know where to go for a fight, just look at the border of your countries controlled ports.


    4) people could still get behind enemy lines, but they have to do it in open waters where they can be spotted, reported, intercepted, and engaged.  Not just warping a 3rd rate to the nearest free port and then coming out to attack a noob and teleporting back to capitol unabated. 



    So, in my opinion, this compromise is fair.  It will give the game a more realistic feel, open up high seas piracy, make patrolling of your borders relevant, concentrate PvP to areas of conflict, mitigate ganking of new players, make supply runs even more important and profitable, and promote intra-faction cooperation.  Furthermore, the AI pathing from port to port already exists and can be used just the same.  The AI can take your destination and take the normal NPC routes leap frogging from one port to the next until it gets there.


    Teleporting breaks the game, people will abuse it so long as you let them.  It needs to be removed, but it also needs a compromise.  This game is awesome, it's a great simulation style way to handle an MMO... but even super realistic flight simulators have time compression and other tools which aid in long distance navigation because developers know that part isn't fun.  Want to get into PvP? Set the AI to move your ship to the front lines and go to sleep, four hours later your ship hopefully arrives safe and sound, and you are in position to fight the enemy.  Have a particularly valuable cargo, or don't want to lose your ship in transit... do it yourself manually, or opt to hire a fleet escort which cuts into your profits...


    it will add a risk vs reward mentality for each player to make his own decision as to how he accomplishes certain objectives.  It will also promote cooperation and make clan headquarters more important.

    • Like 1
  2. remove teleporting from game 100%.  It shouldn't be a feature at all, for new players or veterans alike.


    Allow the AI to control player ships and navigate for them while they are online or offline.  Basically just makes your ship an NPC with a pre selected destination.  You set your course, and go to sleep.


    Teleporting is being exploited too heavily and needs to go for this game to be great.

    • Like 1
  3. replace teleporting with an AI navigation system that can happen while offline


    AI has full control of ship to set course and navigate just like the NPC roamers.  If somebody engages your boat while you are offline in open world, the AI attempts to fight for you like an NPC battle


    the trip has risk, trading is exposed to piracy, no more sailing massive ships behind enemy lines without exposing yourself to interception.

  4. Take teleport out of game.  Replace it with AI navigation method which place my ship in the Open World and let the AI navigate to a port I've selected.  If my ship is engaged, it would be no different than any other AI battle is now on the map.  If I logged in, I could take control of my battle; otherwise, the AI would attempt to defend itself.


    Being able to teleport good across the map with impunity, without risk from piracy is not good.


    Being able to teleport big ships way behind enemy lines for stupid surprise port attacs is silly.


    Take teleport out, replace it with something more realistic.  Having AI control my ship while I am offline is like the captain of a ship going to sleep in his cabin and allowing his offficers to make basic navigation decisions.  That is realistic, helps newer players, removes the mundane task of sailing hours back and forth from place to place, and allows piracy of the high seas to be a viable way to play.

    • Like 1
  5. I suggest something slightly different, but better.

    They should do like EVE Onlin! Its like 1 big server, but its made of several server across the world, communicating all together. Its the best. People wont see anything, wont have to choose anything, its gonna be just like 1 big server for everyone. No one will lagging (because automatiquely youll be on the closest server, and anyway you wont know this and wont see anything... everyone playing in the same world, all the players of the game together, because of the servers communicating together. If EVE can have 50k players all logued at the same time, Naval Action can do something like that easy.

    Is this the "shard" idea that I've heard about?

    So it's like the open world being split into a bunch of zones and when you reach the edge of the zone you xfer over to the new server shard that loads the next zone? How does this work in Eve exactly? I've never played.

  6. ------TL;DR: Have only one server. Create more open worlds (new instances) for the populace to filter into as the server reaches peak players. Close them down again daily when maintenance downtime cycles the ports.------


    The game got big (steam release), servers became over crowded, lag became an issue, log in queues were frequent, the devs split off more servers and everyone was happy for a time.

    Now one server is dying and we are merging them back together. The population is going to wane and wax overtime, that much we can bet on.

    Opening up and closing servers as the population fluxes is not a very good way to deal with the overloads or population declines.

    Instead, I propose the following suggestion:


    One server, spawning multiple open world instances on demand.

    There will only be one version of any port or any battle. When you enter Charleston, you enter the same Charleston as everyone else. The same prices, same contracts, same chat. Charleston isn't likely to become "overloaded" from the servers perspective. As players filter to all the different nations and many available port cities. Also, Charleston just represents a UI essentially. The idea of 1000 people being in Charleston is like 1000 people being in a chat room. But 1000 people in the Charleston open world harbor is like having 1000 call of duty players inside the same room. The chat room is practical, the overcrowded "call of duty room" is not.

    This WILL require some changes to the port flag system or some special considerations for how that would work. So keep an open mind on that. Let's explore solutions together a little later.


    Let's have one or two servers. One PvP and one PvE.

    I honestly think we can do away with PvE servers and perhaps just have a PvE type mode available. Where people have the option to be in a safe place, like the protected areas, to do their PvE stuff.

    I don't see a lot of value in PvE "only"servers for this type of game.

    -----However, that is an entirely separate discussion that doesn't need to be addressed here.------

    So let's just say ONE server. For the purposes of our discussion, everything will be in reference to only having ONE universal server.

    We need multiple open worlds to deal with the population spikes. When you leave your port you will be spawned into the open world like normal.

    When that open world hits 75% capacity, a second one will become available. The second one will mirror the first one. All the same ports, same owners, same cross sword battles, same fleets patrolling... Everything is 100% the same except it has ZERO PLAYERS inside of it.

    Now that two are open (one almost full and one empty), when you leave port it will bring up a dialogue window asking you which of the two you would like to enter. This is how we will keep friends and groups together, since they may all select the same version. The dialogue window could also show the populations of the worlds available.



    1) OPEN WORLD 1 (873 players)

    2) OPEN WOLRD 2 (793 players)

    3) OPEN WORLD 3 (176 players)"

    ALL battles, no matter from which world they were spawned from, will be viewable in all the instances.

    If there is a port battle against Nassau, the message will be broadcast to the entire server and all of the instances of the open world.

    All players will be able to go to Nassau and join the port battle until that port battle instance becomes full.

    The additional open worlds will only become available when the population density becomes too high in the preceding open worlds. They will all close when the servers come down for maintenance. When the server comes back up from maintenance, it will have only one open world that everyone will log into until it becomes almost full again, then the server begins to open more. If more players attempt to log in when the other versions have opened, it will just ask them which they prefer to go into. When an open world becomes COMPLETELY full, it becomes unavailable to log into and players must choose a different version.


    Players can select the server that matches their goals best. Traders will go to the least populated versions for trade runs. PvE seekers will go to the least populated servers to save themselves from lag. PvP players will seek the most populated servers for more potential targets. :)

    This will also have social and economic benefits.

    We can combine all the players into one gigantic server with one economy and one ongoing war. Everyone will have a chance to meet and interact together. The only thing that will separate us is our nation. That will be solved, in part, by "war and peace". Also, players can switch nations with the help of their new friends to xfer things. This game is highly social, and putting up server barriers detracts from that aspect. Let's capitalize on it.


    The biggest issue I can think of that really hurts this idea is the current flag carry system. Let's say there are two open worlds available. The flag carrier will obviously choose the least populated one to transport the flag and reduce his chances of being intercepted. Is that fair? How can it be solved if not? What about blockade tactics for the port in question? I have a few ideas of how this can be addressed but I would like to first open it up for community discussion.


    Also, please, ANY other issues you can think of, absolutely do not hesitate to bring them up here. No matter how small or trivial. I would love the opportunity to address any feedback you might have. This same topic will be linked to the reddit subforum as well in case you prefer their discussion format Better (I know I do).


    • Like 1
  7. Shipbuilders have to build a shipyard. So they could only possibly produce four resources. Then they would need to buy the rest.

    Every ship needs:

    1.Stone (Ballasts)

    2, Hemp (Canvas Rolls,Cordage and Oakum, Cables and Howsers, Small / Medium / Large Carriages)

    3. Iron (Cables and Howsers, Iron Fittings, Rudder Parts, Small / Medium / Large Carriages)

    4 Oak (Planks, Rudder Parts)

    5. Fir (Tar, Wooden Fittings, Cordage and Oakum)

    6. Pine (Rigging Parts)

    7. Lignum Vitae Log (Blocks)

    8. Coal (to make all kinds of Ingots)

    All ships also need frame parts of whatever type of wood you want the boat made out of, so you might want another resource to be:

    9. Live Oak (Live Oak Frame Parts)

    High level ships ALSO need:

    10. Gold (Furnishings)

    11. Silver (Furnishings)

    12. Red Wood Log (Furnishings)

    13. Compass Wood (Knees)

  8. It's not Crafting Hours, it's Labour Hours. I think the system is that way to emphasize that no single person is able to do everything. Which is imo a good thing. It enhances interactions between players.

    Absolutely valid point. Thank you for bringing it up. Here is my solution.

    Allow me to "hire labor" for a daily cost. These NPC's will allow me to gather my resources without using my labor hours. My building can still only store a certain amount before it stops producing.

    So now, I am trading gold and eating into profits in order to save hours. The players who want to craft can win on this. But those who just want to sell go profit without crafting can opt not to "hire labor" and use their own hours to gather like the system works now. This allows them to gather the cheapest resources and sell for the largest profit margin.

  9. I think the labor hour discount for production buildings should be higher and be more expandable. It currently costs 1200 hours to clear the restored produced by five max level buildings. That's an entire day of labor hours for every three days worth of production.

    I spell out in my detail what I would like to see as far as numbers go here:


  10. Towing is a silly concept for it, but maybe joining up and making a convoy for an auto-follow. Limit the speed to 90% or so of the slowest boat's speed (keeping station generally has a speed penalty in real life) and I'd be all for this kind of mechanic. Possibly limit the number of players that could be grouped up like this, as it could make getting large fleets around easier, with the good and bad that comes with it.

    I am 100% down for that as a compromise. Call it whatever, fleet, towing.

    It's just an auto follow with a speed penalty.

    But having it be some sort of fleet mechanic would make more sense.

  11. And traders will no longer go in search of goods, risk is barely an issue, it's ludicrous to believe traders will sail 5 hours in one direction to do a trade run and then do the same amount of sailing just to return, the distances are too great and there is nowhere near enough profit in it to sail that long, it'll be easier to earn money doing PvP and PvE.

    I believe the price of goods would change to allow profit. Supply and demand. More risk, more difficult, supply would go down and demand would remain making prices go up.

  12. I don't see much use for this in OW as your ship has full health in OW, even if you have been damaged in battle. I can possibly see this in battle, but probably not.

    Thank you for your reply and feedback.

    The point of this mechanic isn't to tow a disabled ship in need of repair but to allow for the introduction of an auto follow feature.

    I'm not a fan of most convenience based mechanics (I despise teleport) but this world is absolutely massive and could use a mechanic which helps us to shrink it more fairly. Teleporting is just plain wrong, but I get why it's necessary.

    With the reduction in speed from towing, you will inherit a risk to your vessel. Piracy and war patrols of trading routes can become a much more viable play option (which it should)

    Taxi type services will become a viable play option (which I believe it should in lieu of teleportation)

    Teleporting should be limited to only the Capitol, once per day, and at the expense of losing the items in your hold. It's only purpose should be to help people who are lost at sea, not for trading goods to be moved around the map instantly.

    Too long; didn't read (TL;DR): don't think of it as "towing" but as auto-follow. This feature will allow us to revisit the alteration of teleporting to make the game more playable. Trade routes, taxi services, patrols, and piracy will become real, viable, and highly utilized play option. In my opinion, this will make the game more logical and playable.

  13. provide an ability to tow ships.

    Player A requests to be towed by player B

    Player B sees a dialogue window with the request

    Player B accepts or denies the request to be towed

    If player B accepts the request then player A will automatically follow player B without having to press anything.

    While towing, player B can break the rope at any time by disbanding the towing group, just like leaving a group now or kicking a member.

    While towing, player B may only put his sails up to half. Player B will be unable to travel at full speed until the towing operation is completed or discontinued.

  14. Ball - rewards exp thru ship damage

    Grape shot - rewards exp thru crew kills

    Chain shot - gives no reward

    Even tho chaining down sails contributes to the fight and is sometimes the only way a low level player can help (when their guns won't pierce a larger vessel). They receive no experience for this action.

    In my opinion, destroying an enemy's sail should reward some experience and allow a player to attain an "assist" when the enemy vessel is sunk if they were able to chain enough.

    Not rewarding a playing with experience when he uses chain shot would be similar to not rewarding a healing class character in an mmorpg because he didn't damage the enemy. It is a support function that contributes to a fight and is welcomed.

    • Like 4
  • Create New...