Yar Matey

I want the old flag system back.... It can be used as a hostility generator. pull a flag for a port, sail to the port with a group of friends, do a port battle, or some other kind of battle (be creative), if you win you generate hostility, plus the ships sunk on either side will generate hostility or lower it depending on if it was a friendly or enemy ship.

Good for you! You want a sticker? Why not keep the thread constructive instead of boasting about your greatness and experience. Or should we all just bow to your greatness?

I saved this thread so I could come back and read what Koltes had to say, that was a very large wall of text I simply didn't have time to read when you posted it. I like the idea of clan based regions, but I think the only thing the game is missing is player triggered pvp. You want to replace the flag system with a declaration of war system, ok, I can see how that would work, but there still needs to be an immediate initiator of combat. The flag system was a way to let everyone know where the action was going to take place and it was happening as soon as the flag was pulled, yes sometimes false flags got pulled, but it became part of the strategy of the game as well. We need a system where a group of guys can log in and say "what are we going to do today, Hey I know, lets go raid this port, or blockade that port!", player initiated PvP right then and there. You log in, you decide to attack (xxPortxx). There needs to be many different types of meaningful pvp content available with easy access. The declaration of war takes time, and that's ok, especially if we are talking about a regional flip to another nation. So, its only fair that the defenders have time to organize a defense, but it is still not enough on its own. I like the idea of only needing to be in the region to join the port battle. This makes sense, but the number of port battles that spawn from this should be dependent on how many people show up to participate. If only 10 guys on each side show up, then only 1 port battle. But if 50 guys show up for each side then I can see a need for multiple port battles, but you only want to have multiple port battles for shallows only? By the way, with your port battle design, with shallows leading to deep, leading to capital, no attacking team will ever be able to flip a region to their side unless they have overwhelming force and skill. They essentially have to win 5 times in a row. But to make it even more impossible to take a region, you decided to add a screening battle before the port battle, and only those ships that made it through the screen could participate.

I also tested demasting with a Bellona vs a 3rd rate, I was able to use my bottom and middle deck with the largest caliber longs available to the ship and was able to bring down the masts after a few broad sides. Seems like demasting is a viable option at that tier. I also ended up in a battle against 2 ingermanland's in pvp and was simply not able to demast these ships. I managed to get away from the 2 ships and escape eventually, but was quite frustrated with how much abuse the ingermanlands masts could take, and the one I was shooing at with my Constitution's lower deck guns was built for speed. Also, when I faced off against an indefatigable in my constitution, again I was simply unable to demast the ship. I ended up getting the sails down to 60'ish % just from shooting ball into the sails, but alas! The masts simply refuse to fall. But ships like the surprise, the masts snap like twigs, and can have a mast fall in pvp from 2-3 well aimed broadsides. If it was not for the surprises weak masts, it would be dominating all pvp right now, by using its maneuverability to stay on the enemy stern and kill the crew off. I was also able to demast a frigate in pvp, but that took much longer to achieve, and I was also in a higher rated ship the constitution. For some reason the ingermanland, and indefatigable seem impossible to demast with an equally rated ship. This is from my experience, and why I originally brought up the topic and was looking at mast thicknesses of these ships.

What about the Agamemnon?

Now that we got the changes, or at least most of the changes we were looking for with the revert of mast thickness. I am curious as to why the Endymion, Ingermanland, and Agamemnon have such thick masts. The Ingerrmanland and the Agamemnon are the biggest offenders here if the wiki is correct. 111cm puts them in a tier above that of the Bellona. This makes no sense. Currently from the wiki: Frigate: 86 cm Endymion: 103 cm Indefatigable: 103 cm Constitution: 103cm Ingermanland: 111cm Agamemnon: 111cm Bellona: 105 cm all 2nd and 1st rates: 119 cm source: http://www.navalactionwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Sigh, I already posted a suggestion to bring back a hybrid flag/hostility system where flags could be used to conduct a raid or a blockade on a port here: Seems like the devs don't really go through and read these threads much, because with all the flaws the flag system had, at least every night when I logged on, there was PvP to be found all over the place. They took away the flag system, which let everyone know where the pvp hotspot would be once the flag was pulled, and replaced it with this new system that generates very little pvp at all. They tried to compensate with these dumb and pointless pvp events, which just end up being giant gank fests. Perhaps another post pointing out how the flag system was better than the current system we have may get through to them.

All ships should be 1 durability, and all modules should be craftable. Mid grade notes should cost 50 labor hours and 10 silver coins to make, high grade notes should cost 60 labor hours to make and 20 gold coins. Would solve so many problems with this game. It would make all captured ships (minus first rates) way more valuable, and replacing ships and its modules so much easier to do.

I heard a rumor that regional explorer is faster than is stated and is giving more than just a bonus of 3%. Its all hearsay, but its been said that regional explorer is faster than regional speed. Not sure how true this is.

Lets assume for the moment that a bunch of players were complaining about being demasted, and consequently, maybe just maybe it was too easy to demast a ship, I think the better way to have made the changes was to maybe give mast a small 10% hp buff and let the players test in the world, if its not enough, maybe buff another 10% and see. It would have been, in my opinion, a much better way to approach the problem. The reason being is, we had a damage model, that most were really happy with before this change. Yes, some were complaining about stern raking and maybe some were complaining about being demasted, but I feel like they were the minority. From now on, if the devs have feedback about what is too strong or weak, only small changes should be made. Use a scalpel, to fine tune your damage model, small changes here and there. Small buffs and nerfs, and see how it plays out. This goes for any change you make as far as fine tuning the model. For example, if stern raking is seen as a problem, maybe nerf crew losses by 10% per ball and then test. The devs already had had a gem of a damage model, please refrain from brining a butcher knife to trim it and remember to use the scalpel.

The reason why I personally feel like masts need a buff on their hit points is because it takes less than 1 min 30 seconds for a 2-3 man group to shoot a mast down (prepatch). You being in OCEAN would know how easy it is to take a mast out. All one needs to do is go watch some of the tournament battles to see this. A mast is different from the side stern or bow of your ship because you cannot protect it. If one side of your ship is low, you try to keep your weak side away from the enemy, much in the same way you maneuver your ship to keep your stern protected. Also, you can angle your ship to make shots bounce. A mast however, cannot be protected. It is always sitting there for you to shoot at and once it falls, the battle is pretty much decided as you position your ship behind the enemy and stern rake him over and over. Making the decision to take a mast out needs to be a tough decision, essentially a trade off. If mast thickness was a nonissue, then it would be an no brainer; you shoot the mast down before doing any other action. If an enemy exposes his stern, do you go for a rake or do you go for the masts? Pre patch one might actually go for the mast instead, but the stern is supposed to be the weakest and most vulnerable part of the ship. At the same time, however, I want ships that are 1 class lower have the option to demast a ship, this is why not only should we have a roll back, but a nerf of mast thickness. This way a connie can demast a bellona with its lower deck guns and a frigate can demast a connie with its lower deck guns ect... Anyway, this is my 2 cents on the issue.

I think mast thickness needs a nerf. but the increased hitpoints is fine and needed. 2 equally rated ships should be able to demast each other. The hitpoints needs to be increased because I have demasted ships with just 2 broadsides before, and when you add in more ships such as 3v3's, ships have been demasted less than 1 minute into the battle after the first cannon went off. Also, Puchu, it is not hard to demast ships, I have been showing clan members how to do it, and once you know how to use your rolling front fire (or back fire) and turn your ship into the broadside, its not hard to hit the masts.

VTD has a good mix of Swedish and American players on PvP1 Swedish nation, we also intermingle and team up with players all the time in other clans.

I posted about bringing back the flag system to generate hostility here: Also, the developers, unfortunately, have said that they will not bring back the old flag system when I brought it up here:

I am just worried about the current population levels I am seeing in your game. I love this game and I really want it to succeed. I have played over 2000 hours in this game now, the most played game ever with war thunder at second place with like 800 or so hours. Something needs to be done and fast to get people interested in your game again.

It has everything to do with hostility. Hostility is at the primary core of the game right now. In order to even get a port battle you need to generate hostility, which players have made it very clear, either by being vocal on the subject in the forums or simply strait up quitting the game they do not want to PvE to gain hostility. No hostility equals no port battles, and no port battles equals no rewards for screening and other actions at the port battles. The developers need to find a way to get the game focused on primarily PvP to generate hostility.

I feel like the devs keep throwing out new ideas, but keep missing the the important issue, which is, players do not want to do PvE to generate hostility, so a mechanism needs to exist where PvP is used to generate hostility. Which is why I keep advocating to bring back the flag system to generate hostility, but the admin and staff have made it clear that they will not bring back the flag system. I do not know what other solutions exist to fix the hostility generation problem. Would be nice if the devs would find a way to implement raids and blockades into the game to generate hostility instead of relying on PvE.

People with Alts are always going to have an advantage. If you have an alt, you already can build ships 2x faster than someone without an alt and you can build ships in enemy ports and then give the ship to yourself on your main account. Fine woods sucked because 1) rng to get the wood, and 2). Too much traveling around the world to get it. I would argue that my suggested method is better for people without alts because as a Swedish player on PvP1 or an American player on PvP2 I cannot ever build a ship with pirate refit right now, but people with Alts can. With my suggested method, I could maybe sneak into Mortimer town and buy some dabloons so I can craft myself a pirate refit, or maybe trade with a pirate at a free town for some meterial he may want for a trim on his ship. Overal, the more trade going on in the game, the better the economy and gameplay experience is for everyone.

Was pretty sure I sent it into tow, but if the logs show I sold it, so be it I guess... I will just build one. Not a big deal though, it was a throw away ship we didn't care about getting captured.

Instead of needing to be at a specific port to craft a ship with a regional bonus, you need a specific craftable material which can only be crafted in specific regions. For example: Pirate Refit: 100 pirate dabloons Spanish Refit: 100 Spanish Escudo British Refit: 100 pound Sterling French Refit: 100 French Livre Strong Hull: 100 Live Oak Planking parts Same goes for all other materials for regional bonuses. This would make materials needed for crafting ships with specific regional bonuses tradeable and you would not need to have an outpost at a specific port to get a regional bonus. Trade is good for the economy of the game. Also, some of these regional bonuses could use some rebalancing, and stacking of specific bonuses should not be allowed. For example, you cannot have speed with pirate refit or regional speed, and you cannot have stiffness or build strength with regional strong hull. I would really like to see more build diversity in ships rather than the same cookie cutter build strength regional strong hull for port battle ships and double stacking speed with pirate refit or regional speed. Also, whats up with the useless regional bonuses like regional explorer, regional reload, regional pump, regional build strength, regional accuracy. They all have counter options which are strictly better, so no one is ever going to use these regional bonuses.

FIFY

Interesting to see a resurgence of the Victory. I always thought the Victory was a fine ship, and in some ways, is superior to the Santisima, not sure about L'Ocean though, I have yet to sail one, but have had a few engagements against them. I am not impressed by L'Ocean, maybe I haven't fought a good enemy in the ship. I am curious why you decided to outfit most of your fleet with Victory's as opposed to Santisima's and L'Ocean's. Either way, it appears to be working well for the British, that was one hell of a good fight.

A friend of mine lent me a common 1 durability Indiaman trade ship. I then sent it into tow to Pedernales, but the ship simply vanished. I did issue a bug report the next day when I noticed the ship never reached its destination. Also, I sent 2 ships to that port the same day, one was the missing Indiaman and the other was a Le Gros Ventre. I am not sure if sending multiple ships in tow to the same port is causing this issue.

Hey, thanks for telling us that the PvE event is open 24/7 and then closing it so I cant even try it today. I just managed to borrow a rattlesnake from a friend of mine and now I do not get to even try the event. Nothing like making your player base angry. Event is closed why exactly? Event is closed on both pvp servers so I dont even get to play. If you didn't notice, the start button is unclickable.

The little guy (or nation in this case) will always lose to the larger guy (or nation) anyway whats your point? I am sure people will be up to the challenge and join weaker nations to even things out. This topic is about bringing back player initiated/triggered PvP, which, the lack thereof, is absolutely killing this game right now. This game should be about conquest first and foremost. Blockades and raids were a big part of naval warfare at this time and is sorely lacking from this game.