HachiRoku
-
Posts
3,179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by HachiRoku
-
-
I like this idea.
-
7 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:
Yes Kerbal space program and it's increasing on the back of an existing playerbase, an establish one.
Something NA has never sort to build with an easier beginners game, hardcore right from the start, e.g. (some examples) ridiculous high shipyards costs and upgrades, dopey low rewarding kill missions, high ship xp grind etc. etc. etc...
Those and above add to an accumulative effect that handicaps the potential playerbase. And what Dev's can't see in there stats and printouts, is the loss of that "potential".
Even in that other thread (STRONG SUGGESTION FOR POPULATION SURVIVAL) @admin defended the state of pop when the majority of posts were showing concern, its not just about the facts and stats but about the potential, even "concern" is not a fact but still can drain the playerbase (or even just the concern for the lack of action!).
"Potential" is achieved through game design.
You're right but we cannot ignore the fact ksp is a vastly superior game in many ways and I would argue sqaud got lucky with it to a certain extent. Few games reward failure and success the way ksp does. Ksp is arguably one of the best games ever. The level of replayability is huge and with mods limitless. Personally I have 2000 hours and am trying not to be hyped incase ksp2 is a disaster. Unlikely by developer interviews and the fact they get it but still possible.
Right now space exploration is a very popular subject. It's obviously far more popular than 19th century naval combat.
Even if the devs made the game more accessible to players it's quite unlikely we will ever have a high player base. Doesn't mean it's pointless to not do it because naval action doesn't need more than 700-1000 players to be playable. Let's also not ignore the fact that most gamers have never heard of it and there is still no professional reviews out yet. I don't know why I'm saying this cause I think you get it anyway.
-
3 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:
KSP is going up in player count, 16% this month, up to 4500+, imagine NA with all those players, it would be awesome.
If only Dev's didn't go so hardcore, didn't use "Risk" and "Adrenaline" as immersion.
E.g. of beginner game negative effect, teleport fees,
The application, once you get "establish" there no problem, as @adminhas said and it gets newbies out and about creating pvp content.
In reality, it only makes it harder for newbies to get "establish" and opens them up to ganking and continuous loss, in both cases leading to less retainment. And to top it off, it has an negligible effect on the end game.
One simple mechanic that has an simple effect but accumulates with everyother little negative effect/mechanic, something @admin doesn't get it, and these are things that cannot be read within statics printouts.They all add up to a negative experience.
You mean Kerbal space program? Its a far more difficult game than this. Difficulty is not a reason players quit. Its playerbase is increasing because KSP2 was announced. Its also a single player game that is extremely mod friendly.
Naval Action is extremely punishing and time sink. It requires a shit ton of time to be competitive. There is nothing easy or hard about being ganked. Thats not what people care about. They care more about the fact that everything is a chore. Some people dont want to invest a few hundred hours to get a 1st rate.
-
6
-
-
Doesn't the admiral dlc not give you more ports already? I have not bought the dlc so cannot tell.
-
5 hours ago, Atreides said:
In the last week, I have been braying and bragging on GB chat whenever a puppy killer arrives, chasing them away, doing everything to catch them, there are now more and more pinging to KPR, Trux etc. when the call goes out. Preying on the weak has diminished, when it starts the response has been admirable. This is the kind of spirit all new players need to feel, having a freakin fight on even terms of gear and a very low cost to participate with rewards given even if they get owned every fight. They still had fun, got to meet some new people, and did some pew pew pew.
This is from an individual perspective the best thing you can do for new players. After all it's the communitys responsibility to create content in open world sandbox games. You're also not wrong about better access to ships in ports. It's however only a solution if the inventory gap is minimal.
Back when free 1 duration 3rd rates were an easy way to get risk free pvp the gap between those ai 3rd rates and a 3 duration 3rd rate was about 5% give or take. The main advantage was not risking mods. Skill books removed that and that's a great thing along with 1 duration ships. I consider that the best change besides leeway in the past 2 years. If the Devs were to give us access to captured ai 3rd rates now however it would not change anything for example. A port bonus bellona is at minimum 20% stronger if you take everything into account. I would actually say just removing port bonuses might be enough since books are not that bad alone.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, Atreides said:
I do not agree with the bold part, The developers LOVE this game more than I do, this game is their labour of love for far more years than I have been around. I am sure if given the right suggestions, that take into consideration their effort and hard work, along with a rational and well reasoned set of changes, they would engage my ideas and work them over in developer discussions. The amount of abuse, mockery and general ungrateful attitudes they have suffered from the toxic elements of this community has hardened their hearts to our suggestions. I seek to move above all that bullshit and address them as one adult to another adult, with respect. The developer and I BOTH want this game to be the jewel; it CAN be, and I am willing to do whatever I can to help.
Just cause you want something to be good doesn't mean it's going to be good. Having an emotional attachment can make things worse sometimes. Developers more often than not do not know what their players like and dislike about their games. That's why so many sequels are bad.
-
16 hours ago, Atreides said:
I don't take it personal, I take it on face value, you flitter in like a bird and take a shit on an idea someone has, this time its me, because as the past shows anybody is a good target for your charming approach at persuasion. You spend time and energy posting on a forum on a game you say you abandoned and don't play anymore.
So if I am reading all that correctly, you think the ideas I present MIGHT work? if super mods and super ships were removed? Or are you saying it won't work because of differential experience. Using that logic one would think the only time to buy an MMO is at release, if you didn't do it then...why bother others will be better than you. That is asinine and you well know it.
This is a business to the devs, you do not run a business on "Certain Elites" You run it on the market, you tweak and adjust based on what customers want, not friends. If you work on the developing the first group, that is business acumen for a successful company, if you disregard the first group to high five the second, you have a hobby and are pissing away potential financial gains and market share. My focus on this entire topic is NOT limited to what I want, it is what is healthy for the population of the game, new players, having people race out in boats whenever the call comes, working together, having fun fights, reducing the salt and the bile. I want to do what I can to help this game survive, that requires money which comes from catering to the market as a whole, and not the opinions of a few "Masters of all they see"
You have said you are bored with this game and don't play anymore, you say that people are trash, it's not worth your time, you can't be bothered anymore and on etc etc...
And yet you come into this carefully thought out proposal and say " You can think of 1000 ideas on how to improve the game for new players and I promise you all 1000 will not work" You then offer counter suggestions, but then say they won't work. So therefore you think all is lost, nothing will work, and you are done with this game... So why are you even on these forums anymore, because the only thing I see is a witty guy that likes to take the piss out of anyone he sees, spending time here to shit on any effort someone is making. I may well be naive, and your studies of human-social interactions within a competitive framework may be deeper than mine. But in speaking with you in the past, I sort of doubt it. The framework I approach this with has a positive effect on newer players, whom bring with them other new players and so on (read sales and $)
If you think that something else WOULD work, then post it and we can talk about YOUR ideas, but thus far you have added NOTHING OF VALUE to these ideas and have simply swooped in to shit on something, on a forum, of a game, you say you don't care about or play anymore. If you truly believe the devs will not waver in their " They like the videos of reverse seal clubbing 20 newbs with his 5 clan mates with meta ships, mods and 4000 hours more experience." At the expense of their game's financial survival, why the hell are you even still posting on these boards? Serious question because when I leave something behind I don't go back and write a tart letter every so often just to remind people I USED to be there and I'm still bitter. and that last snipe at the devs... " The UI is also a disaster imo. Its far to complex kinda like the roe, mods and game in general. " LOL, classic Hachi. Dude, you checked out of this game, move one with your life. I will continue to do what I can to help in any way I am able to help make this game viable long term with lots and lots of men willing to get "stuck in" and fight tooth and nail against any opponent, and get their friends to pay money to join them. I wanted to fully address you this time, but unless you have something to actually ADD to the conversation or propose things yourself for intelligent discussion. I will simply wear a hat from to protect from the bird droppings, and maybe, I will answer your snipes and jabs back in kind. I am finished with piss takers and really don't care if you think this game is trash and the devs are shit an all that yapping.
You said I had nothing to add to the conversation yet I seem to have wasted alot of energy explaining you to you detail why new players will always avoid patrols and pvp. The inventory advantage is to much. EVE has the same issue. EVE does not have alot of new players if you consider how famous the game is. Everyone loves reading about it. Noone starts playing it because its a grindfest and way to difficult to become competitive.
You think you're the only person to have ever come up with an idea about patrol zones. People do not like them simply because the game should be an open world sandbox yet there is 0 open world content because there is actually no freeroam content. Patrols are nothing more than a pregame lobby where you sit and wait for the chance of an enemy ship to come fight you. Players that wanted an open world naval action did not want it because of patrols. They wanted it for trading, capturing traders, fighting over land the unpredictability of open world games in general. Patrol zones are exactly the opposite.
The open world aspect of the game was far better on day 1 of steam release. Back then players actually had to sail places to get goods. Not produce them in ports. There were players that got filthy rich just from hunting traders. All a new player had to do was buy the cheapest fir fir surprise he could find and go find traders. It was simple. The best mods and ships only required a tiny bit of work and a friend that was level 50 crafter. Blue mods were only 2% worse than yellow ones anyway. You were competitive with shitty items.
You don't try and make a fundamentally bad mechanic good. You remove it. Nerfing mods yet adding port bonuses is not actually nerfing mods. Its adding more mods that can be stacked. 1 Simple fact about mods is that the second you need to add caps you have to many multipliers. Now you might say that has nothing to do with actual patrols zones but it has to do with the game in general and how welcoming it is for newcomers. Since you are making this topic for the good of new players I am sure you are open to the possibility that its not only the patrol zones that are at fault. You need to look at the broader picture.
You seem to be under the illusion that the devs worry about this games financial survival. The game was already released in 2016. It sold something like 300K copies. Ever wonder why sequels existed? 95% of games released in 2016 are dead just like this.
Battlefield 1 all time peak 250K, now its 25K
Call Of Duty WW2 all time peak 56K, now its 1,7K
Games loose 90% of their population in the first 6 months and there are certain exceptions to the rule but naval action is not one of them.
https://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Keep a close eye on these stats. The same games have been on the top 100 postions for the last years. 99% of games die. Once month when some AAA game is released it will be in the top 10 for a day or 2 and then die.
The devs did not wipe all assets on "release" for gameplay reasons. They did it so the playercount would stay higher for longer. Postponing the inevitable. By December the player base will be at 400 again. Maybe the will make a single player Naval action because if they did we could make content ourselves since I am sure this game is mod friendly. Unity games generally are.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Atreides said:
You have nothing of value to add to this and are simply taking the piss mate. Knock it off and go post a funny meme mocking me for trying to help improve this game, not in the mood for your acerbic wit.
Jesus christ man I cannot believe you are taking it personal. There is a difference between ideas to improve the game and changing how human beings behave. And I quote: "If people could learn to not rely on gear so much and loosen up about their precious little ship"
You don't go create an online game with the hope that people all play fair and competitive. Players do not want fair fights. This is especially true in MMOs. There is nothing the devs can do game play wise to change that. If you want the game to be more newcomer friendly you need to remove the massive advantages the experienced players have other than experience. As long as players can gain an advantage they will use it.
Just imagine if you could unlock a Rifle in battlefield 3 that was 1.5 times stronger than the first Rifle after 50 hours of game play . The Max level players would have a rifle that is 1.5 times stronger and an experience advantage that is even more important also. No new player would want to fight players with max rank because they are simple not competitive enough and just give up. BF3 gives you imo the best rifles at the very start. That is the AK74 and the M16. With these 2 guns you can be just as competitive as the last rifle(an94) you can unlock. AK74 was arguably the best rifle in game.
BF3 is not nearly as complex as naval action. Experience is 10 times more important in Naval action as in battlefield yet the best mods, ships, port bonuses and books require a significant amount of play time to be invested.
You can think of 1000 ideas on how to improve the game for new players and I promise you all 1000 will not work simply because the gap between a player with 500 hours and 2 hours is so massive. The devs are aware of this. They like the videos of reverse seal clubbing 20 newbs with his 5 clan mates with meta ships, mods and 4000 hours more experience. One of the reasons naval action legends did not do so well is because certain "elites" did not have a mod advantage anymore.
You think Moscalb would start being a shit player if you took all his mods and bonuses? I doubt it so take them away and let skill alone be the sole judge of the battle. Mods should only be different setups to how you want to play in battle. Not bonus on top of bonus that simply increases the skill gab to levels that turn newcomers off. The UI is also a disaster imo. Its far to complex kinda like the roe, mods and game in general.
-
4
-
-
On 8/24/2019 at 3:50 PM, Atreides said:
but if people could learn to not rely on gear so much and loosen up about their precious little ship
this will simply never happen.
-
2
-
-
Again, to clarify. It wont change a thing if you give people unlimited free ships. They will just infinitely sink in 1v1 vs far better players with far better mods. When 1v1s were actually fun you could craft any mod in game with little effort. Mods also mattered less since they were only candy.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Atreides said:
You didn't read Number 2, it would be impossible to be ganked unless you leave the inner circle surrounding the freetown as proposed.
I did but my main argument is the skill part. I still mentioned it because its currently relevant.
-
1
-
-
the problem with the 1v1 zones is that you loose your ship to a gank before you get there. The skill gap is also far to high for 1v1s anyway. The more time you invest the more mods and better ships you will have. There are far to many mods in game. By mods I include ship builds and port bonuses. Its all mods. Most online games that are skill dependant will give you all you need to be competitive at the start. Games that reward you stronger items with more play time are always very toxic to newcomers.
Take Reverse as a player for example. He sails the best of the best most of the time. How can you be competitive against that? Yeah. By not going to the 1v1 patrol.
-
8
-
-
23 hours ago, vazco said:
Double-charge doesn't literally mean double the black powder, I think it was 150%, or similar. With double ball, you were also loading more charge (but less than with double charge). Both caused similar higher pressure.
They used less powder with double ball. Double ball was used at extremly close ranges. They are what really caused the major splinter damage. Using the same amount of powder with 2 balls could blow the cannon up. You would create the same internal pressure and it would not be able to escape fast enough so bom bom.
Edit. Double ball is actually totally unreal in game too. It would break more parts of the ship but would not case more damage. Then again ships didnt have a HP bar in real life so lets give the devs a bit of leeway.
-
17 hours ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:
energy is a result of velocity and mass. almost all pistol rounds travel supersonic and some high precision rifle rounds are subsonic. precision is gained by barrel length and more important the length your eyes get to aim. Hence the rifle on longer range. the effect on a target: ask a hunter, he'll tell you about the negatives of a too fast projectile.
I was not talking about a soft target like a deer. I am quite aware that a 308 is not the preferred round where I live to shoot them. It will do the job however I promise but you will have dear all over the place.
I was talking about the range advantage you gain from a faster projectile. 2 very different things. The faster the projectile, the more accurate it is in general and what you say about barrel length and accuracy is only half the story and by the way you explained it, makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. A carbine will have less muzzle velocity than a rifle when firing the same round for example. Barrel length is not just about accuracy because accuracy and muzzle velocity are both the product of a longer barrel. The faster projectile is not influenced by gravity and environmental factors nearly as much as a slower projectile. Newtons first law.... The 556 is a far more accurate round than the 762. Its muzzle velocity is the main reason for this. I have never fired a 762 so this example is not personal experience.
Some people prefer subsonic ammo in handguns because of the recoil and that is what makes it more accurate. Its not the actual slower speed that makes it more precise. We could argue about this all day long because everyone has their own opinion on what ammo is the best ammo for them.
Also I am aware that the 556 is designed to be faster than the 762 and will be faster no matter the barrel length but its just an example. So many things play a part in accuracy but you saying velocity plays no part in accuracy is simply nonsense especially because my argument was range based and not accuracy based. Range is basically the most important thing in all kinds of combat.
Out of curiosity please name the subsonic round you are talking about for high precision shooting you are talking about and then lets compare its range and accuracy to supersonic ammo.
Last but not least keeping a bullet supersonic for as long as possible is crucial for accuracy since when the bullet goes transonic again it will loose all accuracy. Its not that subsonic and supersonic makes a difference aerodynamically but that transonic speeds do.
-
3 hours ago, vazco said:
Second sentence is correct, that's why in warships ships moved from Carronades to long guns - to gain range. Longs on short distance were not as effective as carronades though.
A cannonball with too much energy has two disadvantages:
- it can indeed go through completely, not passing it's energy. It doesn't bounce, doesn't veer. It won't set anything on fire
- more important - cannonballs were causing massive damage through splinters. Faster cannonballs don't cause so much splinters
Mythbusters tested this, I'm not able to quote episode out of my head though. I can be wrong about details of course. Just like with gun ballistics though, having just right amunt of energy is the most devastating.
its not even the case with guns. More energy is almost always better since you can keep the bullet supersonic so you can make a far more accurate shot. Why do you think rifles are so much more deadlier than pistols?
And saying to much energy is a disadvantage is just nonsense. The amount of range you gain from a faster projectile is far more important since you can engage at further distances. They couldn't technically achieve this in the past and that is why I dislike double charge. Cannonades were not equipped on ships because they having less range and less penetration is a good thing. If that were the case long guns would have stopped existing when they were invented. Carros were far lighter. Required less crew, had 2 times the firing rate and were far cheaper to produce and maintain. It is a nobrainer to replace long gun frigates with cannonades in this case because of these reasons. It was a compromise that they accepted because of all the other MAJOR advantages. Also if you were really that close in naval combat that you didn't want to over penetrate you would simply use less powder and the issue would be solved. In reality more umpf is far more of an advantage than a mythbusters video.
-
11 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:
I actually saw that episode. What they discovered is that you want the ball to have just enough energy to penetrate. The residual energy after penetration allows it to cause damage in the interior of the ship. Too much velocity causes the ball to exit the other side of the ship, unless you are lucky enough to hit something solid. Not as likely as you would think in a cleared for action gundeck. Human flesh is no considered "something solid" in this example.
Actually this cannot be correct at all. The faster projectile gives you an accuracy and range advantage. The reason ships fought so close in those days because the lacked the velocity and accuracy to do damage at range. So if they had the tech they would dominate. Mythbusters often do experiments from a certain perspective.
-
Just now, vazco said:
In damage values, maybe. It definitely pens less though, even if because of a different arc.
Correct.
1 minute ago, vazco said:Actually more often than not the faster the ball goes, the less damage it causes. There's even a nice Myth Busters episode about this.
Physically impossible. The higher the speed the more kinetic energy it has. What I am guessing you mean is if the projectile is designed to not penetrate but to tumble and fragment. If a cannon ball had the power to go in one side of the ship and out the other it would do less damage yes.
A 1 kg ball doing 1000kph has 2 times more energy than a 2kg ball doing 500kph.
I don't know exactly what kind of target they were shooting at but I would be very careful when saying that a slower projectile does less damage than a faster one more often than not because that is simply incorrect.
-
4 hours ago, koltes said:
2. Your ship has actual crew... To the point that you can watch them doing their daily duties. Pulling riggins, washing deck, smocking on a break, cook chasing a chicken, , fishing, cleaning cannons, captain checks the horizon etc etc. All crew have their life on board and coded to do specific things. You could add more crew members to the ship doing various things....
Very nice thing but extremely demanding
The problem with something like this is that its a gimmick 5% of players have the processing power to handle. Not to mention the fact that ships would need an interior for this too. The game is already quit to demanding if I look at the screenshots people are posting in battle results.
The thing about it is that it would be an extremely good thing for the game for making the game less like a barren wasteland. Something that is very important to open world games is making the player feel like it is alive.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Teutonic said:
I too hope for a clear answer. as for previous numbers and what it was like
Double Charger
+ 20% penetration
- 10% damageDouble Shot
+ 20% damage
- 10% penetrationIt may just be that the mouse over info is being redundant in trying to explain what the type of ammo does.
I asked this when first noticed it but never got a reply. What I know from previous game versions is that the debufs were removed in a hot patch. The debuffs were only in the previous versions for a week or so. Charge has the same damage as ball and double has the same pen. It would be nice for double to be 2 balls and that each ball had less damage and pen and that charge was removed because even if someone would risk blowing a cannon up with to much charge the damage would increase alot since velocity is way more important to damage.
I have my doubts with the UI in this case because I never noticed any change. Many game UIs work directly with the file values so misinformation by UI editing oversight is impossible and that is what makes me very uncertain about this. I highly doubt the devs edit all the % stats in the UI manually. In guess you might be able to see if you look into the game translation files of how exactly its done. I couldn't be bothered myself since UIs in modding is something that makes my brain fall asleep :p
It would be nice however if the devs finally gave us conformation on this because It drives me insane not being sure.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, dron44I said:
Sure. Solo new player never have all so fast. But @Reverse showed all on the stream how new player can farm fast. 12k reals for cerberus+ 1 hour in patrol zone = 6 CM. 6 CM= 450k reals= trincomale with port bonuses. 1 hour = good frigate. It was impossible 2 years ago, but now it's. If new player want he can. If he live in information vacuum he never find ship better then npc frigate.
When I start play I was farming 1 week for trincomalee. Now it's 1 hour + time to build outpost in freetown.
Wait? Reverse is a new player? You know that the devs nor you or I hmcan judge how difficult it is for a new player. If I wanted to I could probably get max rank and most of the mods in 24 hours game time yes. That doesn't mean a new player can do it in simular time.
Back in 2016 I leveled Bill Kerman. It took me 18 steam ingame hours or so. At this time new players said it was taking them 100+ hours to do the same. This is 5 times faster.
You, the devs and myself have no idea how new players experience the game. Our personal experience is irrelevant. I read reviews and it all seems overwhelming for them. When we were newbs the game was very simple. Sure max rank in 2016 took more time than even now with 400+ hours minimum for newb but there was only one thing to grind too. Rank. Now we have ports, Buildings, ship slots, books, cm, reals and victory marks. Everything is so much. The ui is more complex than alpha ui. Ui should be simple and give you max information on first sight.
Newbs have no idea where to begin so don't pretend we have any idea.
-
6
-
-
3 hours ago, dron44I said:
Cmon... You dont need craft 24/7 to have long guns and good upgrades. You just need Hercules or Pandora with medium guns and 1 week with 2-3 hours per day + 150 russian noobs west of tumbado. Or dutch in les cayes. After 1 week you will have so many good ships /CM/Upgrades abd dubs... I didn't craft anything. Moscalb had to craft only 1 ship. All what we have start with medium guns Hercules. NA are friendly for solo players with good skills now more then 2 years ago I think. 2 years ago you must run from 25 ships after each battle. Now you can easy find some fun for solo/duo/small group. And finally take this f*c*ing books in LT.
Sorry dron. The battle I lost yesterday has put me into a bit of a naval action depression. I uninstall the game today, call it shit, blame the devs for breaking game and then I will install and play again tomorrow.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, van der Clam said:
The Rat nation has a 1 man clan that capped 2 ports. He just asked for help, so many of us did. It's doable.
Someone like that is not a proper solo player. Solo players rarely interact with anyone. They don't use the forums in most cases. They just keep to themselves. There are actually no real solo players left in open sea. Few years back there were a few but reinforcments drove them away. The game is not designed for solo players. There is nothing compeditve about it anymore. Whoever grinds the most wins. This is an obvious fact. I sank to a player yesterday that I must have smashed 10 times in the open sea. He won because he farmed mods and ships. Fair play. He did what was required. For a player like me there is not alternative other than medium guns and no mods atm. I don't have the time. I don't want to grind just to get long guns. The 1 or 2 hours I have a day will not be wasted on the worst designed eco I have ever seen in my life. It's designed for clans like bf with 200 members to farm marks from seal clubbing. The game is a time sink and there is nothing fun in grinding.
-
6
-
-
4 minutes ago, Vinnie said:
Wonder if dedicated solo players might form a clan which only acts as a friend to a port-owning clan? A traditional clan might open their shipyard to a group of lone wolves if they offered to screen for the occasional port battle. Call themselves SOLO or something ("Sons of Liberty Online"). Or charge a fee.
Thats the opposite of solo isn't it?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, CrustyJohnson said:
does boarding and then sinking a ship count as a kill
yes
2 minutes ago, CrustyJohnson said:Does capturing it count as a kill?
No
-
1
-
The problem with something like this is that its a gimmick 5% of players have the processing power to handle. Not to mention the fact that ships would need an interior for this too. The game is already quit to demanding if I look at the screenshots people are posting in battle results.
No game for noobs?
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
This wouldn't make the game easier for new players... It would make it more convenient for existing players. New players don't need any free port for the first 100 hours because they are clubbed around freeports. Players have never had an issue finding their preferred hunting grounds and the reason more freeports is a current discussion is mainly patrols. Something newbs cannot risk because they have NO WAY of being competitive. Just imagine if everyone had freeports. The second a new player undocks some clan will know about it because they have alts camping every freeport. I think adding more ports is pointless anyway because the fundamental problem is with the open world and rvr design. Not the amount of ports. It almost seems to me like you're only saying it so you can get more freeports and are making up a reason for noobs needing freeports.
The simple fact of the matter is that the core issue is the inventory one. Make combat skill based not setup based. Setup should be important yes but it should not be more important than skill. There is a fine line with that and the devs don't have a good history with fine lines.