Cmdr RideZ

Exactly this. The economy is so broken that capturing traders is not worth your time. Economy needs a big patch.

You should not get any PvP marks from traders, ever. You get the trader and cargo. Economy is super heavy so everyone wants to find an easy exit from it. This comes through PvP marks and DLC ships. Like many said, NA is now fun when you actually get your naval ACTION through DLC ships. To make working economy they have to make trading/crafting a competitive way to produce fun. I could imagine that shallow water ships are not selling that well now after DLC ships. Upgrades should follow the line. 1.5m copper plating for 1st rate, 150k for 5th rate. Economy right now is in really bad spot. Hachi and the rest, I am sorry that this went off topic.

The problem here is that people always take PvP marks instead. You don't need fleet perk and you don't have to sail the ship back to friendly port. Was better when you captured a 1st rate or a trader full of expensive goods and tried to get it back to friendly port. Enemy trying to recapture the ship. I understood that one reason for 1 dura ships was that those ships keep their value? PvP marks need a fix or should be removed from the game.

You got the ship instead?

Good ides for clan buildings.

I think you have misunderstood me. I don't want to remove mast sniping. I am not 100% for realism, I think mast sniping can be an interesting option for players, makes combat more versatile. You say yourself that meds without mods are enough and mast sniping will always be a thing. Then why would it be so big thing to try accuracy -10%? As you are challenging me to dismasting battle, I assume you have been practicing dismasting. On this forum many have been defending their own playstyle when they should think what is OP and what is UP, how to make this combat the best. I am not saying you are doing this but there has been more of this than testers on this forum. Decreased accuracy has been asked for years now and devs have never done it. They seem to be very fixed with accuracy. Maybe 10% is not too much for them. This way they could experience a bit themselves how much it actually affects and was it really that bad. If masts come easily down, chain damage has to be high OR else none will use chains. This seems to be very hard for devs to balance. People have been also saying often that masts went down after structural and rigging damage, not because those were sniped. Test it so that first chain to bring down rigging, making an opening to take weakened masts. If damaging rigging and masts is too easy, this creates more imbalance between bigger and smaller ships. If one broadside of chains from a Bellona wrecks sails from a 5th rate, a bit bad for the game. High rig damage also supports ganking and zergs, big fleets getting clear benefit vs small fleets. Accuracy makes it easier to use big cannons vs masts from distance. etc. etc. maybe I just stop as this is getting long... btw. Carronades were used to snipe masts when those had better penetration. There are multiple good reasons to decrease accuracy.

The same idea was suggested years ago by someone. I think we went multireps instead. All steps belong to this idea. I also say there -10% to accuracy because it is early access and I don't see any reasons why not to test it. ... Realism. It was common to shoot rigging and some historian can fix me here but what I remember reading, there were some cannons dedicated for more accurate fire. I assume these gunners were the best gunners on board. It would still be hard to believe that their hit % would be anything like we have in game. ... About 10% Take a ship without accuracy upgrades/books and go snipe masts. After accuracy nerf that would be almost the same as sniping masts with Pellew's Sight.

I am speaking from mast sniping and what options there are. It is true that OP was talking from and only single shot damage. You know, speaking from accuracy is actually out of context. There were many marked words and plenty of crying. Devs did not care. Many left the game. Somehow I think that I know way better than you how much is 10%. I don't still see that we are going to be able to talk this out so lets just agree to disagree.

Well this is so not true. The game combat is in pretty bad spot so saying that something is at the sweet spot would not make sense at all. Every change to combat system will affect to cannon balance. If cannons are really well balanced now and we don't want to change it, that would mean that we cannot do any changes to combat at all. Also Edinorogs are so out of balance that hard to see any sweet spots. They could also take it step by step and start from horizontal dispersion. Start from 10% and see how it goes. As masts are narrow targets horizontal dispersion would affect mostly to mast sniping. Decreasing accuracy too much will make the game to be less skill oriented and more rng and mass based. Accuracy cannot be decreased too much. Another question is how badly we want to remove this tactic and playstyle from the game. We also have really bad upgrade system. There are upgrades like Elite French that are very hard or probably impossible to balance. Mast hp and thickness are another way to do this. Can be set to values that we don't really care about accuracy after that. Convergence speed is yet another way to affect this. Nerfing accuracy mods...etc. There are many options.

Something old but new... 1. Decrease accuracy 10%, test how it goes 2. Repair kits back to 1+1 3. Revert back chain patch and decrease damage from the earlier numbers, or add shot count and decrease damage 4. Rigging HP and central structure define dynamically mast strength, thickness. Once rigging % is low enough you can start causing mast damage 5. If you lose a mast, you cannot repair it. You have to use your 1 rig repair before masts come down, describing urgent repairs to supporting element. 6. Central structure could be less important than rig 7. Rigging damage should be on level that it does not directly support gank fleets to gank better. 8. Difficulty level, how fast you can take down a mast, should be set based on other option we have to win a battle. This way chain and mast damage wont be competing but complementing each other. Should be easier to balance. More realistic as well?

I understand you don't like mast sniping but this idea would cause a bit too much collateral damage.

You can get everything else in multiple ways except one rare resource. A clan captures the rare resource port. This rare resource gives them advantage that the rest cannot have now. They have money and all the rest + the rare resource port. Tell me one good reason why they would sell this resource out from their clan? I agree that I am and have been against rare resources as I just don't see how these are ever going to make a good game. I would not say that bidding for rare resources and woods is good game design.

Player driven delivery missions; What if the player just takes the cargo? His alt captures the cargo? Player driven delivery can be already done. Find players and pay them from delivery. It takes so long to transport goods that none would do that from a small amount of money. Probably the reason why the one who wants to pay does not want to pay. Where is East India Company when you need it? AI driven delivery is a good way to go here and was asked already years ago. You pay and AI ship leaves from the port and sails specific route to another port. These trade routes should be known, visible on map. AI traders had an issue that time and maybe the same issue is still valid. Server has a limit of X ships that it can control in OW at one time. These ships are those random AI ships. I think suggestion was that there are max Y amount of traders that are dynamically taken from X. Maybe also a smaller fixed amount of trader slots. If there are no traders available delivery will be queued. AI traders would not have cannons. Trading paths are well known so everyone can go there to capture goods from other players. Creates content outside the green. I suppose people would like to also protect the routes. Pirate players like Pagan Pete would have places to hunt and don't have to go on green and complain about towers and reinforcements.

Balance everything, focus back to PvP please.

Display in percentage how many players play per nation from the playerbase. Give bonuses for small nations. For example resource production, more XP/Gold, etc.

This is true. Was it so that when the game was less economy based it had most players? Most players wanted and want Naval ACTION? The shallows are more lively than ever because it has more action? Anything we can learn from this?

I have understood that DLC ships made shallow waters more like DLC only zones? Admin and his buddies should start sailing Renommee, Surprise and Frigate in PvP.

Add double shot/charge damage/penetration and additional reload time in the perk description.

Coastline resources is a nice idea as an additional way to get resources. Not sure if can replace the old system as there are nations that are heavily based on small islands. There could be also specific amount of resources in each one, random amount. When all gathered server spawns randomly a new one. Traders should not give PvP marks as else everyone comes to this location to sink traders to get more marks. Traders right now should not provide marks as marks are more valuable than goods.

Scenario. Copper mine port to get copper for copper plating. Clan A vs Clan B. Clan A captures the port and all that clan B owned are now destroyed. Clan A wants to defend the port and Clan B wants to capture it back. Clan A wants to build forts and towers for better defense. Clan B wants to make it as hard as possible for Clan A to build forts/towers, as they don't want those to be there the next time they attack it. Clan B attacks traders that try to get in the port and Clan A escorts their traders.

Before wrote about something similar. No rare resource ports. I recommend balanced gear, including balanced wood types. All forts/towers build by clans. Forts towers have upkeep, foodsupplies to feed the men. Green zones have always forts/towers. Repairing forts/towers need stone blocks. etc you understand the point. Clans build their shipyards outside the green like today, and probably want to protect these ports as well. Decrease resources from buildings owned by players, decreased resources from building on the green zone. Players on green have still ok access to everything, including change to get a special ship. Nations have all possibilities on the green to get back on their feet, though not as good as if they actually owned ports. Clan buildings for resources with higher output. Only owning clan can build clan buildings. The rest, if they have access to the port, can build player owned buildings only. Each port can support only limited amount of clan production buildings for resources. Clans may want to own multiple ports as they want more resources to build more 5/5 ships. As everyone in that nation has access to these ports and can build personal production buildings, everyone has still access to everything. The amount of resources simply limits the amount they can build. More means simply more 5/5. Balancing wood types will mean there will be more interesting ports to own, more ports that you want to protect. Todays few rare ports are not serving anyone. Today we need rare resources that provides clear advantage for the owner. Tomorrow that stoneblock port is interesting port to own, as only the owner can build clan quarries. This should create trade and politics as one clan cannot own it all. Either be able to make hostility system PvP oriented, better, or go back to flags. None wants to grind bots to get in a PB. Balance ships so new and old players even in Renommee can participate and have fun. Clan leader saying that he will buy a flag to port A and everyone should be ready tomorrow at this time. This is 10000 times better system than the current one. This creates content while the other one is just ewww. Decrease combat ship cargo holds, half maybe? Make traders important, make escorting important. Building forts and towers to protect your trade routes might not be a bad idea. High trade ports have high BR limit in port battles. Clan buildings can affect to the number slightly as well but never make it impossible for small clans to own ports. When you lose a port, all clan buildings will be wiped. Bring back balanced gear. Theorycrafting different builds is very fun part of any PvP game. You can probably innovate the rest.

UG is a very good standalone title based on steam reviews. UG would be MMO game, don't see why it would not be positive. Why NA would be bad standalone title after this? NA has a huge map, even with 2000 players it is far from full. Lets make an example. UG land battles on continent would make gulf of Mexico far more interesting? You think that would benefit NA players?

Not worth our time. Admin should ask from UG team how long it would take. Then estimate if it is worth it.

Oh, I love trolling when everyone understands to take it as humor and don't hate or ban me. You know Vazco... Have you noticed that when you are good at something everything seems to be easy? When you are bad at something everything is like lions having sex with eagles to breed Griffins?

Now that I think, if they want to make it extremely simple NA has to share warehouses with UG. This means basically to give access for UG to NA DB. There may have to be new production buildings, if old resources and materials are not good enough for UG. Armies have to be in the DB and loadable to ships like any other resource. Map can be shared or no view to regions for NA. Shared map would be there to give better immersion and connection for players between the games. NA end game would be super charged after this. So back to the question, how much work UG would need?