Cmdr RideZ

There are probably many ways but the simplest way would be to simply nerf and buff different wood types, upgrades, books, ships. This has to follow the current combat mechanism. Simple example: Two wood types, other one has resistance vs leaks and another one has resistance vs fire. Very hard to balance but in theory doable. Combat mechanism has to make both tactics valid. We have complex wood types and we have more than enough of those. Will be hard to balance. Another example: Rock-Paper-Scissors like in so many other games. 3rd for example: Role based mechanism. 4th example: ...

Top players know the meta. Instead of being good, it is simply OP. If your #1 option to sail now is a Fir ship and you think you know the meta, then that ship is probably indeed OP. NA playerbase is small, if we had more players, maybe in the future, there will be plenty who know how to play. In game development, I would say that it may not be the correct way to think that the rest cannot do what I can. Eventually many will learn and we will be all in Fir ships. Now while the game is in development, we should try to balance it so that top players see multiple really good builds. If you think you are a top player and your wood type is Fir, then we unfortunately should nerf that playstyle and/or that wood type. All wood types, upgrades, books, ships should have a purpose and be balanced. It wont ever be perfectly so, but that is where we should aim.

I have understood many are doing this at the moment. If you ever decide to make a video, send me a link.

Almost like in real life...

Damaging sales and stern raking. Mast/Stern raking, mast sniping. Chain shots are too "easy" for pro gamers so those should be nerfed. This is the core idea of being pro in Naval Action. + Having that fast ship.Question is why they don't nerf this? They removed side hull crew damage (This is good). What if they would scale stern rake damage the same way? What if they made similar level of unrealism for sails and masts? Thrilling part... Is this what makes people to think this playstyle is not OP? I am just saying that most seem to have the same playstyle right? Most seem to win with this? For pro gamers it has been also too difficult to change ammunition. So chains and grapes should be useless. It is also better to have 2nd dimension healing potions to make their mistakes to look mad healing potion skills edit. I said it maybe to complicatedly there. Nerfing stern rake damage and having stronger masts and sails, would that improve it for other builds?

I have to agree here. One question. What makes speed so dominant in battles? If speed dominant features are nerfed, other builds get better, right? This should clearly indicate what is OP in combat system and what is not? So what is the main "tactic" Fir ships use?

At some point we had trader vs pirate vs pirate hunter. Not so clearly, but we had it. Yes, with realism we have now slow ships. Not sure if that made game to be more rich, but probably more realistic. If Fir is unusable for combat, it will be used as a scout. Having a woodtype that is faster than average gank ship, why that is not good? Fast combat ships are not for everyone. Those need time to get, right? Making HC PvE grinders to get a benefit. As a PvP player, you got it, I am not great fan of this. + The real reason, this is giving an advantage for veterans vs new players. From PvP point of view "gear > skill" has no purpose. Small % upgrades were better than todays huge % upgrades. This is a bit off topic, but in case you like realism. One of the most unrealistic features and still accepted and wanted by all "pro" gamers. Side hull hits don't cause ~any crew damage. It was removed for playability. I am fine with that, but then they ask that stern rake damage should be realistic. They want that mast damage is realistic. If crew damage would have been scaled down from every hit location, we would have more realistic gameplay. Try to explain this here and you have no luck. People on this forum are cherry picking realistic features as they like. In general gear is balanced if every piece has its purpose. I would also like to see that OW would be balanced for multiple different builds. Meaning, not only so that there is one build for PB and another for OW. I have actually started to think that devs actually love gank based PvP themselves. Multiple/Unlimited Repair Kits, this is interesting case because there are plenty of players who have been playing long and don't understand why this is bad. I really would like to know who devs listen first to do their decisions. While we speak here only from speed, I am not trying to say that is the way to fix speed meta. Still, creating versatility to builds should be good.

Lets make an extreme scenario. If we could sink a fast ship with one broadside -> Would be very hard to gank with these ships. Or you and Jodgi don't agree here either? You understand that having fast trader, pirates, pirate hunters will create one type of PvP in OW? They will have the fast ships and will be fighting against each other. This creates a possibility for other builds to be sailed in OW as well. This game is not pure combat game. This game has many unrealistic things, no reason to start cherry picking here. Try to understand that if something is used a lot, that is not because of SKILL. In every game that is because it is OP, it is not in balance. Just don't please tell me that you and Jodgi and friends are sailing fast Fir ships. Please tell me that you don't even sail speed meta ships in OW. ... edit. I have to say that I really don't see your point there. Maybe you can clarify it? As how I understand what you say now, it makes absolutely 0 sense. If you have to use slower ship to gank combat ships, you cannot catch fast traders anymore. So how much this will piss them off? Would this create multiple OW capable builds? Sure this is not the only thing broken. There are probably multiple different ways to start fixing this. But to say that this does not work at all, I really cannot see the point in that.

They have to also remove multiple repair kits. If a gank ship gets hit bad, it should go down. Speed meta is nerfed when those ships have enough negative traits. We could have a ship that none wants to use for ganking but can always escape. Gankers could not catch fast traders. Weak speed boats have to run from combat ships, but can catch traders. It would not make it worse. Just make sure that if you highly optimize your ship for speed, it is utter crap in combat. You can have 10 gank ships vs 3 combat ships and they can do absolutely nothing. I am giving extreme examples here, don't know which would be the balanced spot. You can have a Fir/Fir scout, but whoever sails that knows to avoid combat. Another issue is that we have players who want very high rake/mast damage. This is hard to balance when not in balance with hulls. In one way I have to say it is very hard to balance when people want so much features that are out of balance.

Balancing ships like this is a bad idea hombre. You have to make other kind of builds sailable in OW as well. You have to remove speed meta as well as you can. I am not saying you have to do exactly this but as an example. If speed meta ships have -75% hull hp, not sure if everyone would be so damn interested from those. You should be doing this balancing work all the time. Not sure why you are not actually doing this all the time. Have you ever thought that while you make fast ships weaker, it makes other builds more interesting options. This will also decrease ganking. As if you attack with 6xSpeedBoat and 3xStandardBuild can sink those with ease, it is not so easy to gank. SpeedBoats should be left for traders, pirates and pirate hunters. Pirates as Trader Hunters. Gankers and the rest should never sail speed boats. Instead they should have something more combat oriented. Last group should be the port battle ships that are very strong. These ships should be slow and gankable in OW if sailed alone.

Tommy, I know that you want to find a good and balanced combat mechanism for NA. I still think that you have been pushing mast meta too hard. You have been playing so long that you should know what I meant.

Many try to make it so that if you do "hull bashing" you are doing something wrong. This attitude in my opinion sucks. There are probably many who can win 1vs2 by mast/stern raking, probably even 1vs3. The same guys cannot win 1vs2 by hull bashing. Then they come here to tell that mast/stern raking is pr0-1337. Or does that mean that so far in NA "hull bashing" is clearly the most skill oriented way to win? More efficient it is to mast/stern rake, less tactical the game is. Especially if mast raking/sniping is efficient. Positioning/Maneuvering, Wind and energy, tactical side of NA has less role if you don't have to care an F about it and just snipe masts. If this game turns to mast sniping/raking game for dummies I simply stop playing. NA can be a really nice "tactical shooter". It can clearly separate itself from the rest by keeping this tactical gameplay in it. Don't F it up please. NA should stay on level that you have to outsmart your enemy, use your brain to win. Naval Battles took hours, not 5 minutes. And when I want to show my 1337 sniping skills I go to play CS. I am sorry guys but mast sniping game is simply too simple. Boring shite.

And I thought that we already learned the fact that dismasting is not some pro-gamers only trick. Masts were made very weak and everyone was able to take down masts. Some had been shooting those more than others, but clearly it was something that everyone can learn pretty fast. If you seriously think that shooting masts makes you pro, I recommend that you play another 1000 hours of Naval Action. The main reason why none was shooting masts at some point was because none believed that devs have implemented something as broken as that. Some people knew the meta so they abused it and were sure victorious. (Situation could be the same still) The question is do you want that everyone is shooting masts or if it should be valid to win with other tactics as well? What I know, some here want easy and fast way to win by sniping/raking masts. Mast/Rake damage should have a reason, but should not provide change for people to become "One trick ponies".

Players are not "broken", the game is.

Reinforced zones are ok for all ranks. Maybe the size is too big. There are multiple reasons why there is no PvP or it is hard to find. If multiple other reasons are fixed, we don't have to sail to PvE areas. After that Reinforced zones don't really feel that bad. The question is can devs actually make it happen that players sail out from these zones.

What would be the point of having faster ship then? In the end you have nothing against circles, but in your opinion rewards are not in balance?

2 things, circle and wang. I really don't understand why you even care about Wang? They removed "Ignore" from NAL? If not, then just ignore ffs. To be great you have to understand different kind of people and cultures or use ignore Circle is good. Why? Ask from yourself, why you have to sail out? Why people sail out? What is so hard that people don't stay in the circle? Why and how that circle can be so small that people cannot fit in? The answer is that they don't understand that those are sailing ships and there is something called wind. They cannot manage wind, why they just sail downwind. While they sail continuously downwind -> They naturally in the end are out. In a sailing game, basic concept called wind should have it's purpose. If you don't understand it, you lose. It is not much to learn so what is the issue? You should get more points from circle cap, this is true.

Battle is closed only after balance has been reached. Combat marker in OW follows the battle location in instance. When new players join to balance, they spawn to relative position in the instance. Follows, meaning that when combatants are moving in the instance, those crossed sword move in OW as well.

We had it at some point, what were the problems?

XP should be shared between servers. No reason to have separated Rank on different servers. It is probably even harming the game. If someone wants to grind his rank on a PvE server and later start playing on a PvP server, personally I have nothing against it. The only benefit is that after players have got used to the game and maybe are planning to do some PvP as well, at least some times, they can jump from PvE to PvP server without losing their rank. If devs are planning to create a mega server, it could be done so that we have PvE mode. You cannot transports good between modes but experience would be the same. If there is going to be more PvE content later, people can grind that content without being attacked by other players. Their leveling experience without PvP will be better. Every MMO that has PvE content to level and PvP end game, everyone grinds their characters in PvE. Most skip PvP until they have max rank. If PvP servers are not merged, it will help players to play on both servers if they at least can have their rank. We should return to account based XP system.

Malachy is mostly right there, at least I agree with him. We have players who want very high rake damage. Players who want instantly breaking masts. Players who want that ship side is protecting from everything while at the same time everything else comes down fast. Players who think that shooting hull side needs 0 skill. Unlimited repair kits to fix all your mistakes. Sure we have those who support idea of not having repair kits or having only few. Unlimited repair kits so that fast ships can always repair and run when needed. Only engaging when they actually want, have superior numbers, can gank. Players who know the current meta and already forgot what we had before. Players who directly look from perspective of current meta, from perspective of their current playstyle and what are the issues for them. "I sail a Surprise, I can rake 1st rates. That is the most difficult thing to do so we have to increase rake damage." .. Pro gamers in their Surprises, how many of them thought that maybe the game is broken? I believe they rather wanted to think that they are PvP gods of Naval Action. Because of that, they did not ask devs to fix things when those were clearly broken. Instead they started to defend their godly position. etc. We have players who think completely opposite to everything that I just wrote. If you think about this from devs perspective. In case they try to listen our community, it can be very hard to know what would be the best thing to do. Simply so many opinions.

I am just asking, you are the expert here. If I google about Constitution they say that live oak hull was very strong, they tell me something about ironsides and that it was fast, 13kn. I think some place explain that strong hull made it possible for Constitution to reach that kind of speed. Strong hull was strong enough against water pressure created by speed. (What I have read from google, don't know how reliable those sources are at all) How fast Agamemnon was? Will the new model simulate both ships? How realistic you try to make it? I understand that game may need a bit less realistic simulation, mainly to create good balance between ships. Fans of more realistic games can get disappointed if historically fast ships are not actually fast.

In real life Constitution was still the fastest? Was not? If so, some variables are missing from this function.

Chain has high damage so that chain would have a purpose vs firing masts. When balancing chains you have to think also masts.

If rum does not fix the crew back to 100%, why repair kits should repair the ship back to 100% ? Maybe none has to fully repair? Repair crew requirement based on % to be fixed vs repair efficiency. When hit with full sails, there could be a high change that sails start to burn. Or hitting the hull could send wooden pieces to fly all over and harm your lower sails as well. Or firing your own cannons, especially on the weather deck, could increase sail fire change. Faster you go, less accurate your cannons are.