Cmdr RideZ

SORRY was my answer if we speak in general in Naval Action History. - They were not bad in RvR, they were not bad in Port Battles. Probably they were at least better than average. We can at least all agree this? - They made clearly the biggest impact to our community. No other clan is as well known as SORRY. Lord Vicious is rude in his comment, none can deny that. This created hate against SORRY and LV. People wanted to hang them, probably because Lord Vicious was able to make them to be so hated. Even other pirates wanted to hang them. They were the "evil" clan that everyone hated. On top of that, even when everyone turned against them they were still able to survive and also be victorious. When they were victorious, LV came to your face and laughed at you, made sure that everyone knew that he had won. He did not just do one victory dance to annoy you, he made 10 of those, and after that came to teabag you. - If they had been bad in RvR, you guys would have removed them from the map 100 times. You guys could not achieve that, and that makes them even more annoying. - They did not care an F from honor. More unfair it was for their enemy the better. Did not really make them to be any less hated. - They were able to create so much drama and salt that global chat turned to be good entertainment when Lord Vicious was active. - They had active players, many were HC players. If rumors are true they had ~10 alts per member. They had very strong economy, if they had lost a full fleet, they could make a comeback sooner than any other clan. - They created content. Many wanted to do something to see them dead. - Maybe they did not have best players, maybe they were not the best clan in Port Battles. I am still pretty sure they were the best RvR clan. SORRY and Lord Vicious created a very good "evil" clan. Makes me wish that Albion Online dies and LV comes back to entertain us all, in good and mostly bad. Where is the thread for best OW PvP clan?

I am a casual player. I have 2 hours to play per day. My clan says that we do hostility missions. I have time to sail 2 of those, I earn 1.2 million. Yesterday we did missions as well, but enemy came to defend and I lost my L'OCean. Later that day we did OW PvP and I lost my Constitution. How many days I have to play to earn back what I lost? One big issue NA had was that people could not afford to lose ships. They did not want to do PvP or only if they had superior numbers. NA waters are full of uneven fights, 99.9% are uneven. Will this income rate be enough to grow your sacks so big that the next time you are at BR disadvantage, you take that fight and see what happens. Would be also interesting to see if our "pro" players finally grow balls big enough that they actually sail something else than a speed boat. I did not name anyone, not my fault if you felt a sting in your heart. Does it really matter if we have some HC players who have 100 billion on their account, if at the same time we have a server full of players actually playing Naval Action?

I recommend that you add progressive port upkeep costs. If first is 100k, the 2nd is 100k+X. If you do not implement something like this, there is a high change that people will just form big clans to rule them all.

This affects to current speed meta and also combat balance. Probably brings back the question are masts too strong or weak. Multiple repair kits make speed meta to be stronger as you can compensate your weak hull with repair kits. Compensating speed is not possible. MRK issue is also related to Mass > Skill, and increasing Zergfest/Gankfest. MRK issue is big and breaks the game for sure. Whatever you do, I hope you understand that it is going to affect to multiple things. edit. Big fleets vs Small fleets issue is worse now with MRK. As big fleet can always out repair the smaller one. This is broken as hell.

You bought Naval Action and you do not have money for upgrades. What were you using when we had quality system and what would you be using in the current system? In which system this new player would be at greater disadvantage? ... Upgrades and knowledge should be balanced as well.

Did I follow this correctly. You say you did not like the quality system and then you speak about balance? What are the reason why you did not like the quality system? Why the current system is better?

As new patch is coming soon, all that I write might be obsolete, but... At some point we had a talk that everyone wants to sail exceptional ship, have exceptional upgrades, none wants to use greens or blues, etc. Players are ready to invest more time to directly get exceptional than buy Master Crafted. I think we forgot one pretty important thing here. Many of us had already plenty of money to buy and craft what we wanted. What if we had been just starting to play the game, would we have 10 million to buy exceptional Marines? 500k to buy Exceptional Hammocks for our Basic Cutter? Lesser qualities were leveling gear, just like in every mmorpg. Blue Marines were really good already and price was maybe 1% from Gold Marines. Now you either have an upgrade or you dont. So gear difference between new players, casuals, casual+, HC and the rest is way bigger than it was when we actually had leveling gear -> Quality levels. I believe quality levels were ok, it is just that game had reach the point where most were already able to buy exceptional ones. To be honest, I actually knew plenty of people who were not able to exceptionally upgrade their ship. Some/Most may have had enough money to craft/buy regulars, but permanents were too big investment for many. Quality system for upgrades was probably better than the current system. When crafting level 50 was needed to craft exceptional upgrades, I think crafting was in better balance, it had higher impact, reasons to have it. Combat oriented players, who were still leveling their rank, they were able to buy exceptional upgrades eventually. If they collected materials, often crafters did not ask that much and clan crafters asked nothing. Lesser quality upgrades were often sold by players, you got those as a reward from mission, sometimes. These were cheap and players who could not afford exceptionals bought these. Someone has good reasons why the old system was not better than the one we have now? If there are none, I am going to recommend that we return quality system for upgrades.

Someone could say the same for me. If Naval Action is going to have good PvP, I am not going to even touch Naval Action Legends. If NAL is going to be f2p, I think NA should be excellent sequel for NAL. Not so that NAL cheats people to buy NA just to notice that NA is pure PvE grind. They are not going to be double from what we will get in the future? 400k -> 800k ? I believe this is called "End Game". In 2016 Tournament version reaching the end game was too difficult. I know hard core players who never reached this point, even people who played more than I did. This before Fine Woods destroyed the economy. ... Economy simplified: 1. Combat players are able to PvE/PvP without focusing to trade/craft, earn enough money to buy new ships, cannons and upgrades. 2. Trade/Craft players to make profit from ships/cannons/upgrades after trade/craft. 3. Trade/Craft players are earning enough money to initiate RvR, big SOL battles for ports. Too much to ask, too difficult to balance? ... Side notes, subcrafter XP should be brought back. This was a very good feature.

This looks good. In the end we are just going to speak from big numbers. If all prices follow this, it will be ok. Real values are also pretty interesting. Maybe we all learn to better understand how expensive war really was (and is). In real life there were not that many ships as in the game. We are going to burn some big bucks in the future. edit. and thanks from the quote.

How are we supposed to make money to pay 100k per port? More grind?

Not sure about 12 months, but in Naval Action history there is only one -> SORRY edit. Noticed that this was Global server only, so I suppose my answer is invalid.

Now that I think about it... Your warcorp captures a very profitable port, but that will increase your port costs by 1 million. This means that you have increased need to drop one of your less profitable ports. Which automatically gives room for smaller corps to take part in RvR. Flat 100k has the same effect but it is not that aggressive. This more aggressive system would probably make it harder for HC players to take over the world. Which might then improve gaming experience for casual players.

About the 100k "issue". It could be so that the 1st one is almost free and the following would have increasing payments. More ports you own, more you pay per port. That means that monster warcorps are not the best option, at least not always. Gives room for smaller groups and clans. If you have multiple small ones allied you can control large territory. Multiple leaders bring more our beloved drama and that extra delicious salt.

Can you refund our buildings? Many are probably going to move, so would make it just less painful for us all.

I think ship specific skills are not the best possible idea. Before we were able to sail multiple ship, be competitive, have more variety how we play. Ships specific XP/Skills are locking us to one specific kind of ship or even playstyle. Ranks alone are providing enough XP grind. You can sail different ships and that makes leveling more enjoyable. You can do that without skills for sure, but for many PvP players that is not true. If ships specific skills are here to stay, then I agree that bonuses should be very small. If you have those, you get very minor bonuses here and there, but it still leaves good change for new players to sink bad veteran players. Veteran players do not need bonuses vs new players. These big bonuses feel like a mechanism for PvE players.

Agreed with some points here, just to be more specific... 10vs1 situation should give decreased reward for those 10. That 1 should still get reward to get back on his feet, there should be reward for losers. That 1 cannot have increased reward, or else alt abuse. PvP should have higher rewards than PvE, for winning and losing side. We want that people play PvP and do not grind bots, right? So make it worth it. PvP does not need rewards but has to make it possible.

Repairs are not a bad idea after battles, in BRS or OW. It decreases the boring part where we have to sail back and forth to port, we can do longer distance sailing, we are not bound to ports. Adding weight probably means that we are bound to ports. Issues come if you can use those in battle, especially if you can use those multiple times. Remember though that this is affecting to battle balance as well. If you cannot repair, mast raking/sniping will get big role. I do recommend to remove repair kits or leave 1, but also I recommend that when and if you do so, you check that mast raking/sniping is in balance. Simple example: Lets say repair kits have weight 0 and you can have 1 of those with you. You have a fight, you repair after. Now you have to sail back to port to get more. You are in danger, as if anyone attacks you, you cannot repair after. You can be worn down by continuous attacks really fast -> Not fun. Another simple example: I make a long voyage and I take 20 repair kits so that I can fight and have fun for this evening. Those are so heavy that I cannot fight, so I will be a sitting duck -> Not fun. Earlier implementation was better. In the end it was ok to have 20-25 repair kits (weight 0) and have nice long sails and fun (If you did not sink). The FUN part is pretty damn important here. Earlier implementation was more arcade, but 10000 times more playable.

1. Does not really feel player driven at all I do not honestly know who were those community members you listened to do these changes. I have never read about this radical changes. I know some guys who can read the closed tester forum, I understood this was a surprise for them as well. So from which community we are talking? 2. First impression was really good, for me. It is the future I am worried about. For you I hope you are right, but I do not agree. You sure need both things, but not sure if that is going to safe you. I think you need those 10h players stay longer and I believe you are going to opposite direction. I am not your oldest community. Guy that told me from Naval Action quit the game long time ago. He was simply not interested to craft and trade, he wanted an adventure. 3. You are trying to achieve something your old community does not agree with. I am not going to be here either and neither will be all I know, many of them actually left long time ago. You need plenty of new members in you community to help you, as old one will just write their frustrations in reviews. Finding those players will be hard as old ones are trashing your game. ... About the economy... A. If you make economy too heavy -> Serfdom. B. If you make economy too light -> Everything will lose a meaning, removes "depth" that OW creates. Some like A, others like B. Somewhere there in the middle is probably the right spot. I only know that economy should be lighter than what it was in Tournament 2016, as that time people were already too afraid to lose ships. (Ship + Crew + Upgrades + Books + Cannons + Repair Kits + Time it takes to acquire these - Losers reward) / Durability = Death Penalty ~= How heavy economy is. I am assuming player to be somewhat competitive in that ship. Serfdom comes from continuous grind to get that ship and be able to lose that one after another. In PvP you lose ships, someone else is losing ships, 10h players are losing faster than we can imagine. All of them should be able to spend most of their time in fun stuff, which often means PvP. 4 friends make a sailing trip after heavy day at work, one friend sinks in a battle. If they want to continue their evening, they have to wait/help that one to get back. 1dura ships + removing teleport increased "Time to Combat" considerable amount. How fast your economy can provide a new ship, how fast are they back together and in action? We all want to make war, not serfdom. There is a successful game company from 1975, that has a slogan that is famous and has been keeping them going all these years... In the grim darkness of the age of sail, there is only war.

No shit Sherlock. You are developing the game, you have power to do what ever you want. Your old players had an idea, you decide to go other direction. They invested thousands of hours testing your game and you do the opposite. What kind of reaction you were expecting? Who should they blame if not you? ... 1. You admit that you failed and fix it for old players. They write good reviews. 2. You never failed. You suffer some time from bad reviews. You find new players. 3. You never admit you failed, you suffer from bad reviews, never find new players and you go down pointing at everyone else. Lets just hope it is not the #3.

If you check from twitch, you can see that zerg/gank PvP does not sell. In top 50 games there is BDO, that I assume has more content than Z&G, but which has pretty heavy Z&G? Not too many Z&G games there. EVE has a large population, and all guys I know are multiboxing. They each have 5-7 accounts in one clan, which has ~10 players, that is 50-70 active accounts in their clan. Really cannot recommend this path for Naval Action.

Just pointing out that there are and have been many more successful games than EVE. If you can draw a line from there to my kids, fine. EVE is a niche game.

There are specific EVE minded players. I suppose you are right, it is success in one way. If we remove alt accounts, not sure how successful it would be then. Some specific HC gamers bought multiple accounts, are paying sub for multiple accounts.

The game will probably do better if we are able to capture all ships and remove crafting. I do not recommend removing crafting, just pointing out that often people come here for Naval Action. They come here to loot and plunder. I could imagine that for many capturing ships is more important than crafting. When I started to play this game, when I did not know anything about this game. We sailed in a group of friends and were capturing ships for each other. We only got bigger ships if we captured those. It was fun, I have to admit. Then I understood what kind of crafting this game has, and my first strong negative memories start from there. I know people who quit the game -> "The game is now too trade/craft oriented".

WOW was a success, EVE was not. If someone asks me how was WOW, I can say that I played it sometime but it was not exactly a game for me, but it was a real success story. If someone asks me how was EVE, I tested and quit because it really was not a good game. It never sold well, but it had its HC fans that bought multiple accounts.

Players who play 10 hours and quit: You want them to stay and you remove gold and xp from losing side. Hard to understand. ... Ships are actually more expensive now: Calculate materials/resources + combat marks + upgrades and time that it takes to craft + the fact that you craft 1 dura ships. Upgrades alone are more expensive than ships before. ... EVE: It is a niche game, no reason to copy from a game that has failed already. Yes, it is a niche game, face the facts. Guys I know playing it pay sub for 5-7 accounts per month. If you are EVE veteran, big fan of EVE, well you probably know that it is more hated than loved. No reason to copy from it. Yes it is/was a great game for you, but for most it is utter crap. ... Open World PvP is often or probably always criticized that is gank or zerg PvP, no competitive PvP on any level. Testing something like signaling perk globally would be a good test. If someone is attacked 6vs1, that one can get help. There is a BR limit, which makes sure this does not turn to counter-gank. That 1 should in the end get more BR than gankers, not much but should. Still makes it possible to gank, but gives a very good change for good PvP as well. These fights could be even visible from longer distances, to make sure people find each other and PvP happens. I have done my nasty share of 2vs1 ganks, I admit. I would have loved if that one could have got help, turn that to 2vs3 or why not even 2vs4. I can accept certain level of unfairness in OW PvP. Naval Action is just offering 6vs2 or 6vs18 scenarios. Port Battles are 24vs24. I know that many do not like OW PvP at all because they only like competitive PvP. OW PvP mechanisms that create competitive/fair PvP can separate this game from all other OW PvP games, and I am pretty sure that is in a positive way.