Niagara

Also, repairing in battle should not give all cannons back. Some might be remounted and be made ready for action again but I very much doubt you could do larger repairs while in battle. After a battle you would be able to do more extensive repairs but if you been raked alot you would require a port to fully repair a ship.

I agree. There needs to be a middle way that allows for a system to raise hostility to a level that open more options that in the end that allows for the purchase of flags for the intent of attacking a regions capital. The problem lies in balancing for large vs small, time zones and a whole host of other issues. A option would be that the Flag can only be used after a certain time has passed after purchase to allow defenders to plan and gather a defence. This to simulate that a invasion of a region was no easy feat and required lots of men and materials. Tbh, Instead of a player holding a flag a Ai fleet consisting of troop transports and siege equipment should arrive need escort to the region that is to be attacked. Yet i dislike the inclusion of Ai as they are often more of a burden then a added thing to stuff. but it can perhaps be tweaked as such as the defenders are defending the ships in the middle of the fleet and the defenders can try to intercept and sink/board the transports to lower the effectiveness of the AI attack force. Just as attacking screeners could try to blockade/raid the region to lower the effectiveness of the defending forces. Just a few ideas

This is not a solution to the problem, this is like pouring more and more water into a leaking bucket and thinking that it will stop leaking eventually.. .(Which it will once it is empty btw) How good of you to grace this forum with your infinite wisdom... Or perhaps your just trolling and wasting forum space with your non constructive remarks... Wow... Just Wow. I am sick of all the mud slinging from certain players over and over again without any real reason other then to post another post about how evil the enemy and how saintly your own side. If your just going to post crap over and over then refrain from posting until your adding to the solution to the problems this game faces. But let's all remember that you never ever lost anything, and if you did lose a ship/battle it was while sailing a Teak ship and it does not count anyway. So you did not lose anything ever. Lets all agree to that and the mighty Lord V can climb back into his glorified hole of darkness and we can focus on the important stuff. Most agree that there is a problem yet the majority continue to focus on petty issues in the past. Lets move past that and find a solution to the problem. Devs have declared that the current hostility system is not working as they was hoping and that Flags is coming back. I think a combination with hostility that eventually leads to the option of purchasing a flag is system worth testing. Just needs to find a way to allow players to enjoy the game without wasting hours sitting and waiting for a eventual attack in the middle of the night. It was proposed here earlier in a post that raising hostility is not the work for a mere 10 players but rather a effort for the entire nation. This is a solid idea that needs to be tweaked to allow smaller nations and nations with smaller player base to compete with HUGE nations like The brittish Tea and Scones Armada. Traders should have a way to contribute to the war efforts because without food, powder, cannons etc No battles will be fought Casual players needs to have a way to aid the war effort, Could be by donation of labour hours or doing materials mission to aid the war effort. PvE needs a way to help to otherwise we will lose a portion of the player base as well, A PvE player today could be a PVP tomorrow. Lets try to keep them around. PvP need other PvP to have fun fights and meaningfull contests. We all need ways to find a meaning to log in and aid your nation as you should hopefully feel that your actions is aiding you nations

What I don't get is why people are so intent on winning a stupid battle when it means killing the game.... Most of the people posting here are behaving like someone stole your best red shiny toy and refused to give it back, so you will now burn there house down to get even.... Yes, people will not complain so much when winning, People will complain ALOT when losing... This is human behaviour we are talking about. Instead of sitting in your high thrones and flinging shit at each other how about discussing a solution to the problems we face.

Please... Get real. Every nation whines about stuff. Don't try to pretend like you and your friends are any better then any other player group. I don't know what group you belong to but claiming that nation A are bug abusers and you did not whine about it yet when your Nation B does something everyone whines is just a fools remarks seeing how the climate is on the forums at times.

I am all for more control over the cannons however it also needs to be feasible code wise and not to much of a hassle to manage for large battles. Now, I am interested in the way we arm our ships as in ship records and other historical documents tell us that, the cost of obtaining the cannons was quite a large part of the sums required when supplying a warship or a traders vessel for voyages. It is also sometimes written that captains had to settle for smaller cannons as there was a shortage of large cannons, despite that ships might be able to carry 32 pounders they had to settle for 18 or 24 pounders due to shortages in supply. Some captains had to scrounge older pieces from forts to make due in times of need. This would increase the cost of ships and might provide a reason to capture ships instead of sinking them as the enemy warships might carry cannons you need to arm yourself. Also, if you had to obtain the actual quantities of cannons required for each deck it would make more sense to allow crafting/casting of cannons by players. This would also give more meaning to diversifying the crafting tree. And give certain regions fame for the casting of cannon pieces with different quirks.

Also Morale should be dependant on the allies you have around you, even tho your ship may have sustained quite alot of damage(lowered morale) it may have several undamaged or light damaged allied ships close by that would boost your crews morale, reverse effect if your left alone and no allied ship is near enough to help you against overwhelming enemy ships damaging broadsides (lowering your ships morale) ofc. Also, It should be implemented that any surrendered ship may see fit to undo its surrender if left alone and the enemy loses/or withdraws from the battle. I would be inclined to surrender my ship to save crew and possible durability if there was a chance for allied ships to win the battle and my ship would be allowed to hoist my flag again. Does not make sense to lose a Durability if your ship is recaptured and returned to you by your allies or just left there to be a ghost ship until the battle ends and your allies prevails.

Well, Then we should by your logics remove anything that is not PVP related from the PVP servers... because rewarding pvp players doing anything that is not actual pvp is surely not what PVP servers is about.... This idea that persists that PVP servers dont have players that either are PVE players or casual PVE/PVP players is silly. PVP just means there is mechanics for Players vs Players, it does not remove any Players vs Enviroment stuff.

Yeah... Or you could say that those who do pvp can start to produce there own ships and see how fun that is... I will never accept the view that those that do PVP are in any way better then those that do not pvp. That is elitism and for those of who actually think that your is play style more important then any other players way of playing and enjoying this, I feel pity. If you want to reward players for there actions in war ie PVP that is fine. But remember that without those that paid taxes(merchants), produced the weapons and ships and food(crafters) you would not be able to wage that war in the first place.

Greetings! Just pure voting means it would become a popularity thing if your allowed back or not and that is not a good way to offer pardons. Make it a system that forces you to perform tasks to aid the nation you seek a pardon from to ensure that its no easy thing and make sure it takes time. Or make it so you can only seek pardon from the nation you defected from. Other nations you are forced to become a privateer and buy a letter of marque to ensure your good standing and make deeds to grant you a pardon from them. With regards

Greetings! From looking on from the outside as I have been unable to participate in the first 2 weeks of events and just logged on when the event started this 3rd week. I have a few observations and suggestions Finding out the location should be advantageous for those there on or near the location when the event starts but it should not be all the chests that are placed out at that time, because that kills the purpose and the fun of the event for the casual players or smaller groups. Make it so that each chest takes x minutes to retrieve, the larger the group helping the faster it goes.(Promoting group play) and also make sure that those helping gets a share of the loot. That way pvp can ensure over the right to salvage that particular wreck. That way you can be a single player aiming to sneak in and recovering a chest and hope that you can get away but you risk the chance of being attacked and robbed. Add a module that speeds up this recovery process but slows you down in OW, Perhaps call it wreck diver module. Spawn chest/wrecks over time so that even casual players who logs on near the start of the event can get a chance of gathering a group and join the hunt for the precious treasure. Add a similar event that gives clues in letters that eventually gives out a map markers for buried chests or lost wrecks if you manage to gather enough letters and clues and visit ports for gossip. Make the letters/clues usable and if you use them at the correct port you get more information and perhaps another port name to visit . That would also promote clans/groups working together and still allow single players to have a chance at the prize. And I as many others are annoyed of the fact that we/I cannot craft the new shiny toys but dont let the negative feedback take to much focus. Lets contribute to make this event better and in the end the game better.

Ofc we and I assume most nations have people attending PB without TS nor any experience of PB beforehand. But facing 25 experienced players with TS communications is much harder if your force is comprised of underrated ships and unexperienced captains with little or no means on communication other then the chat function. And good for you, hope you had fun in that port battle.

Excellent idea. The use of Free ports as staging areas for large fleets is somewhat a nuisance as you can teleport far behind enemy lines and do major actions with the speed of a click of a mouse button. Some restrictions to the use of free ports would seem to be in order or the option would be to allow free ports to be conquered or blockaded with new ingame mechanics to counter this use. Allowing players to donate ships to a blockade fleet would be a interesting way of allowing players to donate smaller ships captured in battle. Also limiting the fleet ofc as smaller ships should be able to break a blockade by using cover and fast ships but a large fleet would have to fight its way out. Perhaps putting a limit on ships that can be docked in a Freeport, introduce a Safezone as is implemented around the capitals. I hope that when forts come in play they will protect the merchants ships near the ports from the dangerous pirates. There are many ways of making the use of Freeports more balanced for all parties. Also I think that the placement of Free ports needs to be revised and updated as some are VERY close to Capitals and others are not, meaning certain nations can be visited much easier by enemys/pirates and others are much more secure. Adding smaller unoffical ports for the pirates that only they can enter and make use of would make the freeports more interesting. If the pirates and smugglers had a smaller port they could use to hide there smaller ships from the prying eyes of the customs and pirate hunters they would not need to rely so much on the free ports and could do raids much more with surprise and give them the chance to get away without being forced into the few safe Free ports in the area. Also if there where more areas of shallow water near land that would allow smaller ships to use to hide in from larger ships hunting them that would make the use of smaller ships more viable. Many smaller traders preferred to sail near the coast knowing that they could head for the shore and try to outsail larger ships that would hunt them knowing that they could sail much closer then a 5th rate to the shore. We also could also use more saling lanes that allow smaller ships to pass and forces larger ships to take a detour as that gives players the option that learn the lanes to use that knowledge to sneak away or take a shortcut to catch that tempting trader... I will try to make a Suggestion post when I get back from work

Wow... Anyway, As others have pointed out there is nothing in the game preventing you from joining other players battles or even Port Battles, however doing this and then having no intention of communicating or helping your allies is just bad teamplay and somewhat stupid You are free to initiate your own OW battles and PB and invite others to join them, but joining a event others have payed for and planned is just rude if your intentions are just to be a nuisance. But joining a PB with a vessel that is underrated for the PB and dont think that action of yours has consequences then you are being delusional. If your filling a spot that would otherwise be empty is another matter itself but perhaps instead of using the "I am the Lone Wolf and can do whatever I please" mentality you could ask on Nation chat if there are others in ships more suited coming before joining as that can hardly be difficulty for you. The rest of the server is not here to please your needs or desires but this is a game that we share and that requires us to be able to play nicely with eachother or take the consequense of the actions that we/you do. Just because you can do something is not the same as you should do it, common sense is a nice thing to have and use. And No you cant be forced to use TS to communicate with your allies but it helps.. ALOT. And to be typing all the time while fighting a intense and often chaotic battle is not always a option. You dont have to have a mic to join TS you can just listen and that will improve your sides ability to react and counter enemy tactics much faster and efficient then by having someone type every little information that needs to be passed along. Try watching a streamed PB and then try to type the info being given over TS and see how you can do that while doing something else that also requires you to use mouse and keyboard as you would do while commanding a ship.

There is flaw in your reasoning. Sweden is allied to VP, We are friendly/neutral Towards Uk and US. That is not the same as your describing.

Well, as I wrote I am mostly aiming at being able to place price crews on ships that have already surrendered to you, I think you misunderstood. It makes no sense that your able to have fleet ships with you and can order them to attack and other things but once they have forced the enemy to yield they cannot do anything else. You have to sail there and place a price crew or wait out the battle and hope it does not sink meanwhile...

Greetings! When having a fleet ship with you it would be nice to be able to order it to board/capture ships that have surrendered and place a price crew on it, we already have AI boarding in pve/fleet missions so I hope its not so much work for this to be able to be implemented. Perhaps have it tied to a perk for your officer to enable him to act as organiser of said action if you deem it to good without without any drawbacks? Also atm when players flee and leave there surrendered fleet ships they just sail along... I dont mind the notion that they abandon ship but the notion that the ship would sail straight and not lose any speed without crew manning the ship does not make sense as player ships that surrender stops during the surrender process.

Ahh, But the downside to this would be unable to see what what was traded to you in a trade if they get autoadded to your excisting stacks, however when breaking up I agree that it is silly to need 8 free slots that is never actually used other then to be filled and emptied while you as a player gets to see the result screen of the breaking up of the ship.

Umm European Traders will autofill contracts the second you place it if you pay enough so it does not matter if you have 100 or 1 contract free as you just need to finish that order and place a new one its just about paying enough money which in most cases are not worth it... Otherwise its just the ports own production and the AI trading ships that will fill them. Thus I fail to see how you reached your point and how its a problem for the player economy with a higher limit on contracts... Your suggestion to keep the limit is hindering players from placing contracts that OTHER players can fill or purchase from and not the European Traders. If I have a trade route and is wanting to deal in the 3-4 resources that the ports on that trade route creates or demands, a hard limit as is now would require me to sail it every few hours unless I want to allow other traders the chance to come in a buy the resources at the price that is set by the port itself despite that I may be willing to pay a premium to be able to come in and buy larger quantities but only once a day.

Looking forward to it. I welcome a cool down on port battles as defending and attacking the same ports vs the same opponents gets tedious and it burns out people and gives little meaning as to why we took it in the first place if we will lose it the very next day. I think that however a 7 day cool down might be to long unless its regional capitals which should be hard to take and worth the efforts. I also hope that during said cool down you cannot purchase flags from it until its open for recapture or otherwise smaller nations will be much more vulnerable to larger nations. Also a restriction of the amount of flags you may purchase/mount vs any single nation needs to be implemented, especially if 1 smaller nation is fighting wars vs 2 or more nations. There has to be a balance so we dont lose players to due to losing interest in the game itself because we failed to balance it.

Well, the same can PVE players say about PVP players deciding stuff that will affect them. Lets understand that there is no us or them, its just different playstyles. This Mindset that PVP players should have a bigger say in how things/pvp are run has been said over and over in many PVP/PVE games and it often leads to heated discussions with no clear winner. Just because Player 1 is not as involved in PVP as Player 2 does not mean that he or she should have less input in how things are run, I have always valued PVP players input on PVP issues higher as they are more involved in PVP but that does not mean that PVE players input should be neglected either. We need to make sure that those not so lucky or fortunate enough to be able to participate in PB are able to feel involved in the daily running of the nation and that they feel they are getting rewarded for there action to the benefit of the nation.

This is something that needs to be considered as clans will lose some of there role here but it means we can gain/make political clans/movements/blocks instead, in which you can join/work within to try to get your opinion heard and perhaps address issues that are important to you. I have been fortunate to have been elected to a Magistrate position in a MUD (Discworld)with a mix of PVP and PVE and its going to be hard to get everyone to pull in the same direction as different play styles offers and demands various things. However this experience has shown me that it can be done but it will require some work and a semi active admin that defines the scopes of what the players can and cannot do within the system of laws/politics etc. I for one is keen to see where this leads and I am hoping I can help to make this system as good as we can make it. With regards

This to me sounds awesome but most people here are focusing on the crew side in the sense that it will effect battle readiness. Few mention the costs involved as Admin has stated. I like the idea that huge ships also comes with huge costs thus making it a very big investment and thus a risk, this will hopefully as some have pointed out give us a more balanced use of ships. The idea that the crew will cost you an upkeep is good and might lead to players doing trading runs with a skeleton crew to cut costs Now with the other ideas being discussed this will make it harder to micromanage if you want to "game the game" as some have mentioned, however I am sure we can find a balance for both the casual and the non casual players that will add more then it hinders our fun. Some have mentioned in suggestions that crew itself should have different levels as that favours a experienced and successful captain that manages to train the crew and keep it alive and I for one like that notion but it might be going to far atm. Officers also sounds interesting but I hope we can try to avoid getting a few very good officers and a few not so good. Thus getting rare sought after officers and common simple officers that no one actually uses. I see this in modules also and the most sought after are ofc the non craft able ones that people want to use, and often only drop from large pvp engagements. Officers could more be sailors and lesser officers that have a exp system of them self and they would randomly gain insights after battles etc that influence there abilities to help you and your ship. This discussion has some very interesting ideas and points.

Greetings! As many other has wrote it looks interesting. It does however give me the impression that perhaps we need a new system other then the current clan system to show what we support. Perhaps we need the ability to join political blocks/movements to lend weight to what we feel is the heading our nation should take. This gives more intricate systems that can change without actual voting taking place but still gives people opportunities to show how they feel. I also feel that we need to make sure that not just the people doing the attacking/defending that reaps the rewards but those that support are also given ample reward. I hope that the changes to portbattles gives those casual players the ability to contribute to the attacks and the defence of the realm to make sure everyone can get involved no matter the time they can invest. I am looking forward to more information.

Interesting post and the ideas that can be drawn from this. This could also lead to blockades of goods and open up smuggling for players who don't mind doing some dirty deals on the side Taxation was the main reason for smuggling in this time and I imagine that the Traders you encounter on the OW that has contraband is supposed to simulate that. Would be awesome if they actually carried goods that reflected that. It also is part of a suggestion I wrote earlier for when/if diplomacy is implemented and you are allowed to enter allied/neutral ports for trading purposes You should be forced to pay a larger tax/levy for your goods sold and bought on those foreign markets. You could ofc meet in a freeport and do a deal with a member of another nation and thus avoid that extra levy/taxation. Etc There are so many ideas that can come from a more advanced trading system even if we keep it simplified.