Bramborough

Okay, I'll concede that I haven't been in/out of Key West and La Tortuga often enough to claim close familiarity with their advantages/disadvantages relative to La Habana and the northwest Cuba coast. But come on, surely you're greatly exaggerating the negative impact (if any)? What can possibly be so bad about this shift that it threatens the viability of a nation? I'm not refuting or dismissing (yet); genuinely curious as to the rationale of your statement. Right now I find your reaction rather mystifying...and, without speaking for anyone else, I doubt I'm the only one. Please educate us.

Fascinating read. Thanks very much for posting. Obviously fleet maneuvers were far more complex and rigidly regulated than simply "sail in a line".

Well thought out, Krakken. I like your proposal. My initial reaction to the OP was that I liked the idea, but it seemed ripe for exploitation. Your suggestions appear to cover the bases.

If you read this thread (found in this very same forum), you will find that, yes, they did spend some time thinking about this. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16423-free-town-changes-important/

This snippet points to something positive that OP has done. Thanks for providing a National News thread which finds British/Dutch/US captains in agreement with Spanish/French/Danish captains and clicking "Like" on each other's posts. The fact that such habitual enemies are finding common ground against the attitude espoused in the OP might (or might not) give Fletch67 some hint that he ought to reexamine his ideas? Probably not.

Thanks for the information. This clears up a good bit of uncertainty. Heh, rather amused that Ile-a-Vache will be moving to a new location even closer to Jamaica.

It's been a long time since there were any neutral ports on the PvP maps...so many experienced players may not know (or have forgotten) this: A Neutral port functions no differently than a National port in terms of being able to place outposts, ships, items, and buildings. In that sense, a neutral port is similar to a Free Town...except one can even have production buildings there as well. So if a player has an outpost+ships/stuff in an own-nation port today which will be a neutral port post-patch (example; British Misteriosa PvP1)....I don't think the player's assets would be affected. There is much that is still unclear about upcoming RvR mechanics...so there may (or may not) be some valid reasons why it would be a good idea to get assets out of a soon-to-be-neutral port. But the prospect of logging in on patch day and finding those assets inaccessible (or requiring use of things like smuggler flag and fleet mechanics to access) shouldn't be be one of the concerns.

The fundamental problem is reconciling the real-time speed/distance/time of battle vs much higher speed/time/distance of OW. The only true way to make everything "right" would be to place the entire game in battle-conditions speed/time/distance. No "instances" at all....everything takes place on the same map, at the same speeds, during the same timescale. Clearly that is impractical...we'd all die of boredom, taking an hour to travel such short distances as KPR-to-Port Morant. Otherwise, however, the situation remains that any sailing ship which enters battle is subject to (or enjoys) enemies/friends traveling to that location at the relative speed of modern jet fighters (or Millennium Falcon speeds in the case of folks teleporting from elsewhere). How do we get around this? I would propose that after a battle, the surviving ships are spawned back into OW at some random location relative to the initial battle. Perhaps somewhere within visual sight of the initial location. Perhaps somewhere in the same grid square. Some range at which the "revenge fleet" still has opportunity to tag again...but has to work for it, perhaps spread out and do some scouting. Sometimes the battle-exiter might get lucky with position/wind and be easily able to escape. Other times the "avengers" might likewise get lucky and gobble him up quickly. I recognize that such a solution introduces an element of RNG/luck with which some might not be so happy. But something that provides a roughly 50/50 shot to both sides of achieving or avoiding a re-tag seems preferable to what we have now, which is close to 100% certainty (if "battle-screen guy" chooses to reenter OW) or 0% certainty (if he decides to simply camp in the screen or log off).

Pretty simple statement, and seems clear. But as I think about the implications and second-order effects, a number of questions come to mind. I've read through admin posts in this and several related threads, and have not found answers...if I've missed any clarifying statements from admin, apologies in advance. Let's take the North Mosquito region as an example. As of port reset, I think the most recent map draft reflects that the region will consist of: Black River (British, deep..."capital"?) Ruatan (British, deep) Brewers (British, shallow) Croata (Independent, shallow) Bonacca (Pirate, Free Town, deep) Utila (Pirate, shallow) 1. At port reset, will the North Mosquito region be considered "British" or "mixed"? 2. How does Britain go about acquiring Croata or (more importantly) Utila? Is it possible to generate hostility within one's own region targeted at non-national ports? The neutral ports aren't a big concern...but how does a nation drive pirate ports out of a region which otherwise belongs to that nation (or at least predominantly so)? 3. If some other nation - say, our esteemed Spanish friends - conquers the North Mosquito region, then do all ports (other than Bonacca) become Spanish? Or only the previously-British ones? 4. The map denotes Black River with an orange star, reflecting that it is the capital of North Mosquito...but does not include the note "BRC"...so is Black River going to be a regular deep-water port, or a regional-capital deep-water port? 5. If the conquest mechanic is region-focused rather than port-focused, then does the previous question even have any relevance? 6. Ok, hostility levels rise and triggers a PB in North Mosquito. Is that PB associated with a specific port? Or is it one "all-the-marbles" fight for entire region? If the latter, what determines whether the fight is 1st/4th/6th rate? 7. Bonacca is reflected as both "Pirate" and "Free Town". Many other Free Towns on the map are annotated similarly. I assume that "Free Town" designation takes precedence over "Pirate", correct?

After about a month of some pretty regular RvR play, my typical "I'm still new to this server" qualifier is wearing pretty thin. But I'm going to use it one last time. This see-saw conflict over the past 2 weeks has shown me first-hand both ends; sailing with attack forces against ports which we're pretty sure aren't going to be defended...or at least not the majority. Watching during off-peak times as Espana banners roll across the screen, while not in position to do much about it...and seeing in TS that apparently few others are in such position. Lots of pro-forma tower bombardment for all. I don't have anything to say, good or bad, about how British flag-carriers set timers last weekend. Wasn't involved in those discussions, and didn't pay much attention as the timers were set post-battle. My focus was on getting ready for the next probably-uncontested attack...but feeling compelled to go anyway just in case the next battle might be that 1 in 10 where there's a real fight. I suspect much the same has been true for many Spanish captains over the past 3-4 days. After seeing how this has gone over the past 2 weeks, it's pretty easy to extrapolate this has probably been the predominant RvR warfare pattern for months. Not much fun for either side. Whether currently "winning" or "losing", it's a big kabuki dance. A map-coloring exercise. A shadow-boxing match where the majority of punches land in empty air. Choose the metaphor of your liking. These insights are hardly new and original. Obviously players have been telling Game-Labs this for a long time, in such numbers and frequency that they've junked the system entirely and are about to introduce something completely different. Will it be better? Time will tell...who knows, might wind up even worse, we'll just have to see. But at least it will be different. I, for one, earnestly welcome the changes...close as they now are, I want them even sooner; can't come quickly enough. I'm sure that for those of you who've been doing this for months rather than weeks, the feeling is even stronger. Judging by what I've read in these forums, I'm reasonably confident that's something we can all (or at least the vast majority, regardless of nation) agree upon. I also hope (although with less optimism) that the changes somewhat mitigate this rather dreary mutual toxicity. We all seem a lot happier when actually fighting each other. I don't see all this angst and pettiness in battle...I just see a lot of hot iron flying followed by "o7"'s and "ggwp"'s. More of that, please.

I did not participate in yesterday's event, although I did follow along in nation/global chat and in nation TS as to how it progressed. Feel like I didn't miss a thing, and that what I did do during those hours (little bit of resource-gathering for ship mats, moving some ships around outposts, that sort of thing) was more productive. I also spent the remainder of my Naval Action play much less irritated and in a better mood than the previous two Saturdays. I'd like to think I'm a pretty open-minded, fair, and thoughtful player. Those who interact with me in-game and the tone of my few posts in these forums would (I hope) attest to that. So if this much-ballyhooed event renders such a reaction in a player like me...what does that say about the overall success of what you're doing here, Game-Labs? How far off the mark are you? Is this something close enough to "right" that it can be tweaked into place? Or does it just need to be junked entirely?

Thanks for the blast from the past. Loved the video clip. Didn't specifically play AAWS, but did spend a lot of time at other Broderbund titles from the same period. The nostalgia. Fully agree...Game-Labs could take the 30-year old graphics and plug straight in with zero updating, and would still be an improvement over what we have now. Goes beyond just the visual representation, however. Boarding combat in NA is simply unsatisfactory in all regards. And it's not simply an isolated problem in itself...the current nature of boarding mechanics influences other aspects of battle flow as well.

Because the answers are a lot harder. No matter how insightful and well-articulated, a player question has no consequences. One can just throw them out there. For that matter, player speculation and suggestions for possible solutions likewise have few ramifications. They're "fire-and-forget" posts. For Game Labs, however, anything written in these forums then has to be followed up and acted upon (or, even worse, possibly won't be followed up and acted upon). Every definitive answer limits or eliminates other possible solutions. Every definitive answer is a commitment which may or may not entail a re-prioritization of existing schedule. Every definitive answer impacts not only the individual who posts it, but also most or all of that individual's colleagues (not to mention the boss) at his/her real-world job. So yeah, if I were them, I'd probably be pretty careful and take my time in answering as well. That said... Ok devs, all the above notwithstanding, this new mechanics set is just around the corner. Surely by now you've got to have some of these definitive answers at a sufficient level of confidence that they could be shared? I think the vast majority of players (myself included) are pretty enthusiastic about the game changes coming. But there are also many (myself included) feeling some uncertainty about the transition from the current environment to the next.

I agree with what you've written in this thread. It does take a bit of minimal effort to get synchronized with the RvR game (getting set up in TS, learning how the flags/timers work, which ports are open at which times, etc). An effort which a large number of Brit players seem to have little interest in making. And a few, such as we've seen in this thread, pointedly avoid cooperation and seem to willfully eschew constructive contribution to the national RvR campaign (yet somehow feel entitled and qualified to spout RvR diplomacy-affecting statements). I do think there's a certain subset of players who would like to participate in the battles if the time/location were made available farther in advance. Seems that's going to happen with the next patch. Everyone will be able to see the region hostility levels, and when/where major battles are going to occur. Some players still won't care...but many others will begin to contribute more meaningfully to RvR than before. Not just in the port battles, but also in generating/mitigating hostility levels. My point is that today, I believe your observations about RvR-active player balance have some truth to them. As of next patch, however, I suspect that the latent power of British playerbase size will start to have more of an effect than it does now. Oh, and in the interest of having at least some on-topic content in this post....Dastardly Sweden! How could you betray us like that?!?!?

I was thinking same when I saw preferred timeframe. AUS or KIN might be a good fit. Not speaking for them in any way; just the folks I happen to most see online in Brit nation TS during those hours. BRITS a possibility as well; they seem to have a kernel of US-located players on "night crew", as it were. I don't have the slightest idea if any of these clans are actively recruiting, or have prerequisites, etc. Now whether you'll have an appreciable number of enemies is an entirely different question. That 3-hr window happens to coincide with the low ebb of PvP1 server pop (but still higher than the PvE peak).

Instead of reducing the number of wrecks, you could perhaps make the "event area" larger, in order to achieve the desired distance increase between individual wrecks?

Just adding my $0.02 to what a few other British captains have already posted. The operational/tactical environment yesterday (and to great extent the day prior) was starkly different from that of the preceding few days (roughly Fri through Mon). I tip my hat to the Spanish captains with whom we traded gunfire yesterday. In my own education and development as an RvR captain, I see now the Achilles' heel of the "pull multiple flags simultaneously" tactic. It works...to get you 90% of the way to the end goal. Eventually a point is reached where there's few (or even only one) significant target port whose flag can be pulled at any given time. Obviously, in this current iteration of Britain-Spain conflict, that point has been reached...and its name is Robras. The zerg is over (for now, anyway). Hard fights ahead. Looking forward to them. o7 Dons.

I think I finally realize why you're so far at odds with the vast majority of others (and not just PvP1 Danes) in these forums. Unlike any other MMO I have played, Naval Action is a nation-focused game, rather than clan-focused. In most other MMOs, the goals/activities of a specific clan are impacted little (if at all) by the actions of different clans or non-clan players. But in Naval Action, they are. In fact, the goals/actions of a single clan (even a large one) are distinctly secondary to those of the nation as a whole. The degree to which any clan's (or individual's) goals/actions differ from the national goals/actions is the degree to which that clan or individual harms and disrupts the nation of which they are part. That last sentence may sound like a chilling bit of collectivist-regime propaganda, worthy of Orwell. But in fact the game is very egalitarian. Each nation is essentially one big clan with zero membership barriers and inability to kick. The use of Teamspeak isn't an attempt to exclude...it's a tool to help coordinate and get all rowers in the one-big-clan canoe pulling in the same direction. Extra-game diplomacy (which, contrary to the perception of some, seems to me more important than ever in the new alliance/war mechanic environment) are attempts - with varying degrees of success - to further and shape the nation's goals in order to make its actions more effective in achieving those goals. In PvP1 Britain, we genuinely operate along these lines. The mantra is "One Big Clan". The council meetings are open to all. The "leaders" (i.e., those who frankly work their butts off to conduct coordination/diplo and organize/command operations - often to the detriment of their own personal enjoyment of the game) earnestly try to run things and achieve outcomes which are genuinely beneficial to all British players regardless of RvR activity and/or clan affiliation. I have a hard time imagining that Danmark-Norge or any other NA nation is markedly different from what I have described. Your quoted post above, fox2run, shows in stark relief that you just don't get it. One Big Clan. If you start thinking of Danmark-Norge in such a way...perhaps you'll finally start to get a glimmer of why you've encountered such antagonism from otherwise gentle-natured folk.

I agree with you, and commented on that factor a couple weeks ago, just before the alliance mechanics were introduced. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15548-the-three-admirals-treaty-pvp1/page-26 Just be aware that there's at least one English captain who isn't interested in "an endless forever war" with Spain, and who would welcome a future alliance (or at least neutrality) between the two nations, should it ever become feasible (which would necessitate a Spanish rapprochement not only with Britain, but with US/VP as well). I won't speak for any other Brit in that regard...other than to say that I don't think I'm alone. Edit: when I wrote the linked post above, I was of course aware of the standing British-Dutch alliance at the time, but as a newer player to PvP1, did not yet fully grasp the depth of mutual VP-UK affinity. I thought, just looking at the map and capital locations, that VP might well align differently with the new mechanics once full playerbases could vote binding alliances. I was wrong. Hey, I'm learning too. Apologies to Dutch allies for doubting you; I do not any longer.

I felt some empathy (not sympathy) for Spain over the past two days...even as I spent both days as one cog in the so-called "zerg". I recognize it's not too much fun to be on the receiving end of what we were dealing. Just some comments from one English captain's perspective (I don't speak for the leaders/diplomats from established Brit clans, let alone for the Brit nation). 1. "Brits have the population to attack/defend many ports at once." There may be a kernel of truth to this, but some important caveats. We have a large population...but tend to be spread out over timezones. At any given point in time (i.e., during any single 2-hr port-timer window), I don't think Britain has many more players for a full port-battle fleet than any other nation. What players saw in game messages and the map was a lot of British flags, not a lot of British fleets. 2. Instead, what has been seen over the past two days has been the result of solid planning and coordination by a very small group of players....in fact, one player in particular. I refrain from naming because I don't want him to become the favorite target of every French/Dane/Spanish/Swedish/Pirate gank fleet in the OW....plus he's not the type of guy who seeks or would enjoy public credit. Brit captains (at least the ones who pay attention) know who he is, as well as several key US/Dutch leaders. This player deserves some kudos for having conceived, planned, coordinated, and executed an imaginative and complex operation. 3. The in-game mechanics are misleading, in creating the false appearance of a monolithic British steamroller. Nothing could be further from the truth. Flags, battle/port-capture messages, and map colors may be British...and even the ships' ensigns inside battle instances. But make no mistake: what occurred this weekend was a combined US-VP-UK operation. British flags supported by willing and able Dutch and US captains (who, obtw, temporarily deprioritized their own nations' challenges in order to support the overall alliance effort). From the perspective of testing second- and third-order effects of the new alliance mechanics introduced in 9.94, I'd say that occurred in spades this weekend. We learned a lot of things which are now feasible with these mechanics (as well as a few things which are not). 4. Some may perceive the Spanish response as "roll over and play dead". Likewise, nothing could be further from the truth. What I saw was a consistent intelligent defense by the Spanish captains available and on hand. A very effective screening effort which neutralized our attempted attacks on Baja, Santa Fe, Robras, and came very close to doing so at Pinar del Rio. Continuous Spanish scouting (and obtw, some French scouts as well)...whatever other organizational or manpower issues Spain may have, lack of reliable information on our fleets' location/movements was not one of them. Tough port battle defenses at Conttoy and Daguilla which came quite close to succeeding. Persistent (and often effective) attempts to isolate and pick off fleet stragglers to whittle down our forces. 5. I don't want to rehash the history of Spain/Britain warfare/diplomacy. Partially because it's all been repeated ad nauseam, and partially because I'm not really qualified to do so. I'll just say that, from my perspective, it didn't have to be this way. A treaty was in place, the intent of which was to maintain Spanish territorial viability. When the new mechanics were introduced, a good-faith effort was made to extend that treaty, in substance if not in specific detail. I didn't (and don't) want to fight Spain...and I think many other British captains feel likewise. Spain chose otherwise, with it's attacks on Little Cayman, Xpu Ha, Tantun Cuzamil, Portillo, Guama Sevilla, Placer, and Misterioso. Guess what...we don't want Jamaica at risk any more than Spain would want around La Habana. Hence the US-VP-UK response.

Well, pirates are excluded from alliance, so your idea is exactly the current state of affairs.

I think the current vote/alliance length ratio (1:3) is fine. And seems to be working well. I see no reason not to go ahead and extend the period to 1 week / 3 week. I do like the various ideas about Neutrality. Right now, there's no sufficiently meaningful reason to vote a particular enemy over others, since we're "at war" with anyone not an ally anyway. The extra XP for sinking "enemies" isn't much of a carrot, especially as many RvR players are already Rank 10 regardless. I also think that Neutrality should be a vote-able option, not merely absence of Ally/Enemy status. Primarily to avoid an oblivious and/or mischievous minority from forcing an Enemy vote upon a majority who would prefer to avoid war with a given state.

I'm a newer player to the server (and to NA PvP in general); not quite a month yet. I'm not in a big clan. Yet despite the lack of experience and not being connected to a large established clan, I've participated in many recent PB's for Britain, and (as far as I can tell), have been welcomed and accepted by those who've been fighting these battles for months. No friction or drama whatsoever; not one derogatory term has been uttered (lol, at least none that I could hear/read). Differences between DN and Brit nations? I suspect not. I sought out those with some experience, and asked what and what not to do. I got hooked in on the nation TS. I brought the types of ships preferred by the Fleet Commanders. I listened (may be most important word in this entire post) and followed tactical commands. I can't say first-hand, but am 99.9% sure that anyone following such methodology within Danmark-Norge (or any other nation) would likewise have met success and become a welcomed contributor to the national RvR effort. I could have done it differently. I could've followed the banners to find the battles, and entered into one with an understrength ship. I could've stayed out of Teamspeak, and remained unaware of Brit strategy/tactics, both in planning and execution. I have the "RIGHT" to do so. It's a "PUBLIC" battle. The "IN-GAME MECHANICS" allow it. I won't say there's a "right" and "wrong" way...such terms have moral connotations and tend to evoke unnecessary emotion. But there's "effective" and "Ineffective" ways to go about one's business. An individual has freedom - the "right" - to pursue any such path. That does not mean, however, one has a right to expect equal outcomes.

I'm new to the PvP1 server. I didn't participate in the recent war between Spain and Britain/VP. Nor any of the previous wars/alliances - just a little of the current fighting between Denmark/Britain. I have little understanding and no direct experience of the history here. I freely admit that I'm in no way qualified to comment on what has occurred in the past. So no doubt some of you (with some validity) would instinctively dismiss what I have to say about the matter. I'm also, however, still an objective outsider, and much more concerned with the future than the past. The new alliance mechanics are upon us. In my view, they present an opportunity to resolve many of (perhaps almost all) of the territorial/playerbase concerns involved. Hypothetically...look at the benefits of a US/Spain/Britain alliance. - The specific port color on map would become irrelevant; allied ports function like own-nation ports. Who cares if Cuyo or Sant Iago or any other individual intra-alliance port happens to be Spanish/US/Brit? They're all shared. - Spanish and US mutual (and antithetical) concerns over status of the Florida Keys and north Cuba ports resolved. - British concern about Cayman/south Cuba ports resolved. - All three nations' capital security concerns resolved. (well, to the extent that US would have any concern about Charleston in the first place). - Gulf of Mexico becomes a reasonably-secure vast trade/craft/carebear lake for those of all our playerbases so inclined. (and I don't mean "carebear" pejoratively. I like to trade and shipbuild too, am a carebear about half the time). Bigger picture, the game could look like this: a "Western" bloc (US/Spain/Britain) vs an "Eastern" bloc (VP/France/Danmark-Norge/Sweden). - Plenty of secure "carebear" rear area for all those inclined. - Plenty of PvP hot zone for all those inclined, along a relatively predictable area running roughly through Panama/Colombia, Hispaniola, and the southern Bahamas. - Enough RvR-focused players on both side of the fence to keep things roughly balanced, without wiping nations (and their playerbases) out. There's just one problem: the players have sufficiently angered one another now that I just don't see how the US/Spain/Britain playerbases could feasibly vote such a "Western bloc" into existence. Consider this, however: the "Eastern bloc" I mentioned above is probably more realistic. Not at all "inevitable", but at least within the realm of possibility. I think US/Spanish/British captains (i.e., "voters") ought to think a little about this. Project how nations' playerbases are likely to vote over the first 2-3 rounds...what do you think the alliance balance will look like? Standing by for the inevitable flames...

I don't think it's "funny" at all; strikes me as a good reasonable idea. :-)