PaladinFX

This poll is about nerfing the Wasa, ie reducing its stats. Changing the Wasa BR to 3rd rate is a different poll/question altogether.

I voted No. The Wasa does not need nerfing; people complaining about its speed need to realise it's no faster than the Connie(actually slower than the Connie once you put standard set of guns on!) and it's not as fast as the Hermione or the Surprise. Any of those 3 ships should be able to chase down a Wasa, and lets not forget that the Renomee and Endymion have significantly higher speed ratings than the Wasa as well. As for it's armament, the devs have already nerfed the Wasa from what it was historically originally built to carry; 36 pounders on the main gun deck! The Wasa was designed to be a fast, manouvreable, heavy hitting ship that could compete with the prevailing 74's and that's what we have in game! Furthermore the Wasa in game does not have a great turn rate, so why the call for nerfing? There are plenty of ways for creative and skilled captains to neutralize a Wasa in pvp! When I go out in a Wasa looking for pvp there are captains that are skilled enough to neutralize me and there are those that aren't; which tells me the real issue is around the skills or approach to the battle of the players, not that the Wasa is in itself OP. The real question is in regards 4th rate port battles and the Wasa's classification. Should it's BR be changed since its broadside weight is higher than the 3rd rate in game and has side armour approx equivalent to the 3rd rate? Therefore should the Wasa be re-rated as a 3rd rate thus excluding it from 4th rate PBs? Personally I'd say Yes. We have plenty of different 4th rates in game already providing options for 4th rate PB ships and personally I don't mind if they change the BR/status of the Wasa to a 3rd rate. To me this makes much more sense for the game than nerfing the Wasa's armament/speed etc. Hopefully 3rd rates will have more of a role in game if we get changes to the PB system along BR or ship classes lines to get more variety of ships in Line ship PBs. I have advocated for the ship class idea in this thread:

@admin I would be 100% in favour of creating a variety of ship classes in line ship PBs, the variety would open up the tactical options for the battle and make it way more interesting than 25 1st rates v 24 1st rates + mortar brig. This would give opportunities for newer players to be involved in line ship PBs as well as they could participate by sailing in lower rated ships; this could help with player retention as newer players could get involved in PBs fairly quickly after joining NA. If you enforce a cap on the number of each ship class you enforce the variety and that in turn creates the variety of tactics the battle commander has at his disposal. This could create some pretty interesting PB scenarios! A possible solution for line ship PBs of a 25 ship fleet could be: 1st rates: minimum 3, maximum 5 2nd rates: minimum 4, maximum 6 3rd rates: minimum 4, maximum 8 Total of line ships must = 15 ships. (The numbers above are just an example to enforce a line ship fleet combined of a variety of 1st/2nd/3rd rates) 4th rates: minimum 2, maximum 4 5th rates: minimum 3, maximum 5 6th rates: minimum 1, maximum 5 (eg Mortar Brigs, Heavy Rattle, Niagara) Total number of 4th/5th/6th rates combined must = 10 ships. The ship min/max numbers idea could also be set up the same way using min/max BR numbers per ship class. The idea of the numbers above is that the cap/requirement of 15 line ships is still the majority % of the 25 ship fleet thus qualifying it as a line ship PB, and the variety of ships involved in the PB is guaranteed. I like the idea of using minimums and maximums because it enforces the variety of ship classes involved whilst retaining options for the fleet set up. I think this is a better solution than just enforcing x number of each ship class; this would not yield as much potential variety as the idea I have shown above. There are plenty of players who love sailing say the Bellona/Buc/Connie (for example) and i personally think it would be a hell of a lot of fun to see those ships have a role in line ship PBs. The same process could also be used to set min/max numbers for 4th/5th/6th rates for 4th rate PBs to ensure a variety of ship classes in 4th rate PBs. An afterthought: Maybe the leader of the attacking clan could set a choice for the PB: Standard as we have been doing up until now, or Varied as per above suggestions for a variety of ships.

@Sir Texas Sir o7 to the Pirates for getting a decent sized fleet to La Navasse; I know it was very early for most of your guys. I think you will see ARMED try to make some flips at more mutually better times from now on. We're certainly not trying to night flip everything; its not about how many ports we own we couldnt care less about the numbers we hold, its about trying to create fun battles for us all. We will look forward to some great battles with you guys over the coming weeks! o7

@Christendom sad to see you go Pirate, really enjoyed getting out hunting with you guys and as Rebrall said will look forward to having some fun scraps with you guys now. @Sir Texas Sir no offence mate but you really are overreacting; anyone would think we just one ported you the fuss you're making over one port battle! As Jeheil and Rebrall have said you guys usually show with decent numbers whatever the time and usually are the last to whine about time of day; you chose to go Global Server for a reason right? We just thought flipping La Navasse was sure to get good numbers from you guys; we just wanted to tee up a fun PB with you is all! Personally I dont only want PB's on weekends; its fun to have content during the week too and its boring fighting AI all the time! And there is no agreement for GB and US to team up like some huge zerg to pick on the Pirates; you've jumped to a big conclusion that is false mate! In ARMED we do not believe all out alliances would be healthy for the server with its current low pop. We'll be looking for fun in the game with PVP and PB's as we have always done but we have no interest in zerging any nation down to minmal ports by creating a huge alliance. We want to have some fun fights with everyone; it makes this game enjoyable!

Personally I'd be 100% in favour of varied number of ships in PB's so we have variety in our game but even more so what I would really love to see is PB's that had a requirement of different ship classes, eg a 25 ship lineship PB allowing say a choice of 4-6 1sts, 8-12 2nds, 8-10 3rds as the of set up for each side, ie a spread of types but also the choice within each class of how many you have within certain guidelines. The same could be done with 4th rate PB's where some 5th rate frigates were also required in the PB. This would open up gameplay in either of those two aforementioned PB's to have much more variety and options for how the sides fought the battle. Personally i think that would be great fun!

Some great ideas in this thread! Lets face it the Global Server is now dead; they need to merge it into the EU server ASAP and give Global players redeemables on transfer to the EU server. Then, set about sorting out the other issues that make this game a second job to play when all the player base is on one server, but that's discussion for a differently titled thread! The separate Global server experiment hasn't worked, time for one server is my vote!

Great development looking forward to see how it plays out!

I'm all for "realism" in the game and I understand that you need some gold sinks in game, so I like: 1 dura ships. Provisions required for ship build. Rum needed to assist Surgeon in battle with crew replenishment. Having to buy or craft all cannons for the ships. Protractor on map for planning your heading. Crafting hull and rigging repairs kits. The Marks and Permits are fine. SOL's being hard to come by is good. It looks like PB's may get a more mixed type of ship for quite some time; thats great and should add to the fun and challenge in PB's. Still needs tweaking: Hostility derived from PVE seems to have been tweaked way too low (per Jeheil's post) I think not being able to capture any AI ships is a bit tough. Maybe a solution could be to allow capture up to 4th or 5th rates or something similar. AI ships captured should always be low/base quality like the npc ships for sale in shop. The Hotfix tweak to weights on goods (I understand why it was done, the quoted reasoning from devs was fine) maybe went a little too far. Feedback from clan members doing the ship skill tree grind is that its a bit over the top. Personally I don't see the reasoning to have to grind through loads of small ships I will never want to sail just to get to the skill slots on a 5th and 4th rate I do want to sail. I understand why this was brought in but maybe it needs tweaking down a bit. I'm sure more things will come to mind but overall am really liking the direction the devs are taking and although there's more grind to do I personally don't mind and am thoroughly enjoying getting to grips with the new game. Nice job by the devs!

@admin Awesome thank you, will look forward to hearing more on Monday. And yep since this is the Global server, the smaller the PB lockdown the better.

@admin On the Global Server the Port Battle Window (12.00 to 0700 server time) is good for North American players but this expansion from 3 to 5 hour closed period is a big problem for those of us in Oceania, ie Aus EST 22.00-17.00 and NZ 0.00-19.00. This means we can only get PB's very late at night in our timezone! Please can you go back to a 3hr closed window on the Global Server and make the PB Window 10.00 to 07.00 server time. This would be a great help for PB content for Oceania players and not hurt North American players. Thank you.

I don't understand the decision to remove copper from the game. So where the heck is the copper coming from for the ships that have a copper hull? Seems logical to me that if you want to improve a ships speed then copper plating the hull is needed. If we select Speed for the build and the copper hull just magically appears without copper being needed as one of the resources that's just going to be stupid and unrealistic. What exactly is wrong with having copper in game anyways? And my vote is for the devs to remove teleports completely. Did they teleport around the Carribean in the 18th century? No, they did not; they sailed to their destination! Steam Description: Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas.

How do you arrange Small battle in OW if you are turning off Global Chat; we won't be able to communicate with the other Nations???

Yep agreed we need a new system similar to the ideas expressed here so that there are more battles. There should definitely be battles for control of the smaller shallow/deep water towns before attempting conquest of the regional capital.

Good to see a confirmation of a map reset happening with the asset wipe so people can stop wondering about map being reset or not. IMO it makes total sense to reset the map so good job devs

Totally agree with this

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I understand why the PVEers want to keep the whole map available by being on separate server and not have the risk of PVPers grabbing them around the outskirts of a PVE/PVP border, but on the other hand I feel it would have been really good for the game to bring the two communities together with the server pops being so low. This would also have given PVEers a better chance of either transfering to PVP if they chose to or at least dipping their toes into PVP world with assistance from PVP players/clan. I'm sure the devs thought long and hard about their decision and lets be honest if they looked at it from a financial perspective must have been a tough decision to make. Having done all my levelling to Rear Admiral on PVE before switching to PVP, I would encourage PVEers that have an interest in seeing what PVP is like really to make a separate toon on PVP and just come and meet some folk and dip your toe in and give it a try; it's not all ganking all the time! And just like on the PVE server there is a friendly and helpful community at least on the Brit side that I play, but I'd guess the other nations are good too. You never know you might have some fun on PVP!

Thanks for clarification.

Link please??? Information source??? I haven't seen the devs post that about blueprints in regards this wipe. What they DID say on the Ship Wipe thread initial post was "Ship blueprints will not change significantly". What you're stating sounds more likely the plans for when they do the blueprint overhaul that they have already told us about will come before release, but why are you saying that is coming included with this asset wipe? Not that it would bother me, sounds like a good plan, less RNG would be great !

Well some gold to at least be able to buy cannons for our 4 ships would be nice, right?!

I don't know why some are assuming blueprints will be wiped; the devs have already said that the blueprint rework is coming a bit later. They will want us to be building ships, consuming resources after the wipe to begin the economy testing. If they wanted to test all over again the aquisition of blueprints they would wipe everyones craft xp level and that's not happening; they have enough data on that side already i'm sure. What they want is meaningful data on the economy from scratch, ie no gold/resources or mats for everyone. Thus personally I'm not expecting blueprints to be wiped. When the devs say "assets" i'm pretty sure they mean gold(cash), resources and mats; along with ships and upgrades. But clarification from the devs exactly what they mean by "assets" would be nice!

I think some of the suggestions above definitely have merit; bringing some more variety into port battles one way or another would make them more interesting and appealing. And I'm always in favour of bringing more reality based ideas into NA. Personally, having some sort of breakdown of various mix of classes allowed/required into the PB based on historical fact might be interesting to test. This could also open up the possibility of newer players to the game being in a PB sailing say a Frigate if thats all they can crew at that time. Could be more inclusive and less elitist maybe. From my standpoint I'd like to see PB's be more about the conquest; defeating (sinking or capping) the defending fleet and vice versa; in reality they didnt fight for points or circle A/B/C occupation! The attackers, to capture the port, would also be required to destroy X number of the forts/gun batteries as well as defeat the defending fleet by capping or sinking them or getting them to surrender. The number of forts/gun batteries required to be destroyed could also vary depending on the importance/size of the port maybe??? I think the reality was that the result of a Fleet battle was determined by numbers of ships being lost being more on one side than the other and either it was outright destruction of the opposing fleet or the opposing Commander of the Fleet hauled down his colours and surrendered. Some ships of the losing/surrendering fleet also managed to escape sometimes (eg Battle of Trafalgar). If a port was also being attacked then likely a significant amount of damage/destruction was also done to the defenders forts/gun batteries as well as their fleet being beaten. Of course a landing party would also be needed but we dont have that available yet in NA! What we need is a realistic and fair way to determine PB outcomes based on these kind of things. It would make it more immersive and fun for all players! Keep a 90 minute battle window, or some time very close to that. Over 2 hrs certainly seems like it would be too much for the more casual player; under 60 mins too short for meaningful PVP/results. Maybe the battle timer could be a bit longer for some, and a bit shorter (shallow water?) for other PB's? Could there be a way to work it where each Fleet could nominate a Commander of the Fleet who had the ability to offer Surrender to the opposing Commander? Maybe surrender gives that Commander a benefit of ships being able to exit the encompassing battle circle without that forcing sinking of the leaving ships if they can make it there??? Often players are having more fun in screening actions where there are various ship classes involved compared to 25v25 L'Oceans inside a PB. I think it would add to our game to have a bit more variety and reality inside the Port Battles themselves. 1st rate only battles certainly werent the reality in most cases!

Personally I'm ok with the ship wipe and move to 1 dura ship format, makes the game more realistic which i personally am always in favour of. I'm not understanding why some folks are assuming HG/MG/LG Notes will be going; the devs haven't stated they are going I don't think; please correct me if I'm wrong. They could still be used for the class of ship. Even a grey Victory could require a HG Note or two or whatever to craft even tho currently grey does not require a Note so I'm presuming they will stay at this point in time. It will be interesting to see what effect greater demand for ships will have on the economy too. Of course this will be distorted initially because of the vast stores of gold(cash), mats and resources that many are sitting on so it will take a while before the devs can get any meaningful data about the economy side i would think.

Personally I'm in favour of the PVE server merge so that it brings our community together and gives a positive benefit for those on PVE who want to engage with the PVP community a way to be able to do that directly yet still retains pure PVE content for those that want that. Our player base is too small for us to be divided IMO. PVE players will quickly find out that the long held view on PVE that all PVPers must be scumbags who just want to screw with the little guy all the time is far from the truth for most of us PVPers. That understanding in seeing the reality on alot of what happens on the PVP server might actually help bring our community together more. I would suggest most of us on PVP want a fun well-matched battle and blowing up some midshipman in his cutter with our much higher rated ship isnt that interesting to most of us, we'd much rather be in a more challenging battle! There are many of us who started on PVE (me included, I ranked to Rear Admiral on PVE but have been PVP only for over a year now) to develop some skills and try out the game before migrating to the PVP server and there are probably some current PVE players doing the same right now. PVE is still a great way to get started in NA for those who have just purchased the game. The move from PVE player to PVP player will be a much easier and smooth transition if we are all on one server. PVE players should have a dedicated PVE chat tab on the new merged server. The map with the proposed zones for PVE that Admin have now posted shows that there will be a big area for PVE only although I personally would like the devs to find a workable solution for PVEers to have access to the whole map. A very difficult one I understand as you dont want all trading on the map to be PVE and hence no traders to attack in PVP. With regards to the move to PVP-EU(with PB lockout times) + Global Server suggested by the devs: Personally I am in agreement with Jeheil as he stated in this weeks Letter to the King Episode 52; I think the devs are overreacting to the recent "nigh flipping". This hasn't resulted in huge swathes of the map now being green in American hands and having an EU server with time in lockout when PB's cannot happen is overkill IMO. And lets face it the Danes or whoever can organise for their own "night flip" if they so choose! Personally I think with player numbers as they are, it is time to do the long hinted at merge of PVP2 into PVP1-EU and have ONE Global Server ONLY. Bring the whole community together so that there are more active players online at the different prime times AND off times! Devs it's time to bring our community together!!!

I think the exit from a non historical "Panama Canal" wouldn't be a hotspot, it would be a nightmare gankers paradise and not workable. I think most would probably quickly decide travelling through to get resources wasn't worth the probable hassle of getting back to the main PVP part of the map. We've got enough areas to get resources from at the moment, Pacific not really needed at this time.