fox2run

I can just say that battles where bigger and where more available when the timers where longer. It may not have been correct in a simulated world (the time travel discussion) but it was more fun and easier to find a battle. Besides it would have been possible to meet reinforcements out of sight... Since the 2 min have been introduced, the player based has diminished. But in the forums are a lot of whiners and in a democratic project, the loudest voice usually wins. ;-)

Who is talking about 90 minutes? A counter goes down from say 30 min plus 3-5 minutes per ship in battle. When timer is over the most damaged ship is lost.

The same goes to PvP. Please stop making plp escape all the time. Once in a battle there should be no way you can escape... Immersion: if attacked in OW then a close quarter duel is on... If you cant make the escape in OW then its just too bad. In that way OW gets more important and battles less boring. Better for gameplay. - Try it. You wont regret!

Been there done that - it takes ages...

To hell with realism. Games are not realistic. Thats why they are games. Dont misunderstand me. But you dont buy a game called "Naval Action" and then use hours and hours and hours with little or no action at all. Please make a world where it is EASY to engage in PVP. If OW is used then make it EASY to join an ongoing battle in OW. Now joining a battle is almost impossible. You need to chase plp for 30 min or more. Yesterday I used an hour in front of a harbour just waiting for enemies to come. Two came but they sailed faster... no action... just...boredom... One hour of wasted gameplay. Its not realistic. Its just a broken game.

Why make it possible to escape a battle? Make it impossible - more fighting that way. That AND longer joining timers - you will see. More action - more fun.

I like to engage in larger battles in OW. But as the battle timers has been cut down, this is hard to get. Here is a suggestion: 1) make groups up to 25 players 2) let them sail as fleets (not like 25 loose ships that can be tagged by loophole-players). One fleet (the creator of the group sail it or the fleet follow a fixed pattern like the AI-fleets). 3) make a list in harbours over fleets to join - when enough players are in the fleet sails out. 4) when they meet another fleet exciting battles occurs.

I do blame the game for not making mechanisms that enhance a good combat experience. Good games has to be easy to learn and hard to master. Here the development seems to follow a strange pattern away from logic. What Ive experienced is the following: 1) you group up 2) you go looking for a fight (A battle) 3) 15-30 min of sailing 4) finally you reach a fight but the battle is closed 4) you sail on to another closed fight and another one... no result 5) the group gets tagged by players that wants to split it up - players that knows the loopholes in the game 6) the splitted group got involved in 3 different battles at the same time against one or two ships that rams and kill a Pavel - no battle - no fight - just gamey stuff. 7) after one hour or so of chasing we caught the tagger and killed him 8) the 1/3 of the group sails home 9) exit Naval Action after another frustrating experience 10) read on forums that Its my own fault not having fun?

Something is wrong with the new system. In order to have fun, you need to make a damage system based on skills. Not on how many leaks a broadside can do close on. Yesterday I saw a Pavel go down after 2 min of battle. I also almost lost my 3rd rate to an AI-bot that rammed me right away after 30 seconds of gameplay. I dont know why I didnt sink - I needed 800 crew for repairs and my ship was about 90% filled with water. But I mean - where is the tactical play? Where is the option to to make formations - lines - maneuvres etc. in such an environment? Id say the old system - with all its flaws - was the better chioce. Its simply too risky to sail out now as battles are completely randomized. Also I was in a group of 11 players. We got tagged by single players and where split up in 2-3 groups with a lot of "battle circle" to choose from. When you group up, you very much like to play and fight as a group. There must be better ways to make the tagging mechanisms. I know you are facing a challenge making this game right. I also know that you like the realism aspect. But in a game - gameplay always comes first. THEN you can make things lookin good and nice etc. I got the feeling that you are doing things the other way around here.

Sometime plp seems to forget that this is a GAME. Not a real world sailing ship simulator. Therefore GAME-mechanisms should be prioritized. Imagine a Sid Meier Civilization-game in real time... Or a ww1 wargame. (A soldier in that war saw high density combat action of around 2-7 days in a year - that means 358 days of waiting!). Its very satisfying to see ships explode and sink around you. Its makes it exciting. Keep it that way please.

I'm working on finding a suitable privateer so this endless discussion can be closed for good. We can meet outside Ile La Vache. It is possible to bring up to 48 spectators under a flag of truce. Prepare your crew for a last voyage under the malfunct 2 min timer, Sir!

No they dont. But the few 2 min followers are good lobbyists. Thats all.

...we will never agree on this, Sir. Im insulted by your rude manners and demands satisfaction. My civilized conduct leaves me with the only option left, however. I therefore hand over the choice of ship-type of our forthcoming duel to you, as I consider an apology for these wild theories of yours as unlikely as your will to adopt reason and enlightment. Regards fox2run

Yesterday we ganked a lot of swedish just outside their capital. No one had a chance to aid qua the short 2 min. If it was 5 min we would have been in trouble. I just want to mention it....

I dont get this. It is easier to aid a distress-call if you have longer time to response, no?

Longer timers means larger battles - reinforcements - unpredictable results Shorter timers means smaller battles/skirmishes - no reinforcements - predictable results Its all about perception. I liked the 5 min timers a lot more... it made everything more exciting and dangerous...

Yesterday a war broke out between the swedish and danish nations. In a greater political scale it probably is a bad idea for the minors to fight. But players where excited about war near the capital as they no longer had to worry about long sailing times to meet the enemy and the logistical problems in the vast distances. Food for thought...

2 min has not reduced ganking. Now the only OW battles are ganking battles. Out of 20 or so battles I have seen only one (ONE) larger OW fight. And the whole idea that you cannot reinforce an ongoing battle is really bad for overall gameplay. If this is the approach there is no need for nations, clans or the like. An arena based 1vs1 with a ladder would be the better choice then.

I have long advocated for larger battles in OW. One of the mechanics is to make the joining-timers longer so more plp could join a battle. Some plp dont like this idea and hence the development of the game has now gone in a direction that make "ganking" perfect. You can round a weak ship up - surround him in the circle with no means of escape. The short timer cut off any friends to aid, so all hope is actually lost if you get tagged. I think that this is a terribble direction... Please make the timers longer combinded with fixed positions. For the good of gameplay! However, I also think that there should be an easier option for newcomers and medium players to get involved in battles in the open world: Right now a lot of large AI-fleets sails around. Why not make it optional to join these fleets as a player? 1) Your rank decide which ship you can "overtake" 2) The fleet sails out when a certain number of places has been filled up with players (50% or so). 3) The fleet get a chance to meet other fleets from other nations in their path in OW. 4) The fleet can be attacked by other players (clans usually) in OW. I think that this could enhance gameplay for the more causual players that like OW-engagements other than ganking and small skirmishes. Regards Fox2run

Keep the discussion on track please. Most of us are organized in clans in fact. That doesn't say that we agree with you. In fact longer timers are the best anti-gank measure that you can find. That is in friendly waters of course. Now 5-6 players can go to hostile waters without risks at all. And it's almost always small gank battles outthere. There must be smarter ways to enhance the OW gameplay.

Computergames need good gameplay in order to succeed. I really don't care about real world distances. My time is not for sailing around on patrol for lets say months without an engagement like it happened in the real world.

In battles you would have good times and bad times. You outnumber or get outnumbered. But the bottom line is a mathematical certainty: Longer joining times provides larger battles with reinforcing possibilities. Shorter joining times provides smaller battles without reinforcing possibilities. It's a matter of a gameplay decision. So far the devs listened to the guys which glass is half empty. Ask yourself what provides the most fun gameplay: Small skirmishes or large battles....

Its hard for enemies to be sitting ind a friendly port, isnt it? If Im doing missions at a capital no enemy ship can lure me from that harbour. The only place such a thing could take place is at enemy or neutral harbours. Solution: stay away from these ports if you like this game to be a safe haven experience.

5 min timer makes the chance of finding a battle twice as good as now. food for thought why did they leave that in the first place?

The whole idea about WYSIWYG in sea-battles are nuts. Imagine Waterloo without the prussians... Eeeehhh, not! 5 min timers were more fun than 2 min timers. Now battles are rare. You cant aid a friendly distress call. Longer timers=more battles, larger battles Shorter timers= fewer battles, smaller battles I know what I prefer...