William the Drake

Hoist the colours and raise 'em high! For this be the hour we do or die! We be infamous, proud, and quick to brag! For we sail Jolly as Rogers, under the Black Flag! Avast there! We be the Messengers of Death, a veteran society from the Pirates of the Burning Sea, Roberts Server. We now be callin' fer crew to serve on board in Naval Action! To sail under the Black Flag as free mariners be our intent. However, should we be denied such a luxury, we may seek work and pay in either the United States Continental Navy or the English Royal Navy. We be callin' all sailors with like designs to join up with us. We be an English speaking Euro/Aus based community, who offer website and Teamspeak resources. English will be mandatory in any type of Guild/Society/Clan Chat. We have but one purpose in our adventures: to be merry and free; the society will not be anchored to one single aspect or another of gameplay. Sailors of all types be welcome, for we intend to be active in all aspects of Naval Action, from PvP, PvE, RvR, Economy, Exploration, (And 'o course perhaps a wee bit 'o RP) and whatever else this treasure-trove of a game may come to offer. Lay to it, though; we like to run a rather tight ship: we expect our sailors to be loyal and steadfast to fellow members, to be respectful of fellow Pirates, and to be manageable with our enemies, in accordance to their behavior towards us 'o course. Trolling, flaming, or any other conduct of the sort will not be allowed. Should ye have yer hand at PvP or RvR, we expect ye to be prepared, to fight with the utmost zeal and fervor attributed to us as Cutthroats and Pirates, and to carry a sense of decency as Gentlemen and Women of Fortune when dealing with fellow sailors of all creeds. So if'n ye be willin' to serve with us, sign away! and set yer sails fer plunder, pillage, and adventure! -William Drummond, one of the Lords of the Messengers of Death MoD info: -Facebook -William Drummond

If you are going to optimize the forums for guilds and clans, perhaps implement a way where each member can identify with their respective guild. Anyone who puts their clan tag/name will wait until the respective clan/guild leader confirms their membership. So over the profile picture you would have: -Novice- -Guild Name- The WoT clan system for example (clans that are connected to both the website/forums and the game itself) I believe would be nice. So if you get invited to a guild out of game, you are automatically invited in game and vice versa (For now it would just be for the forums) And each clan/guild could have their own page for their own clan description and member lists, etc.

As that is simply a discussion of sharpshooters and (mainly) muskets, whereas this is focused more as a possible game mechanic suggestion vs. a visual one, as well as other suggestions based on crew number, is this not appropriate for the suggestion forum? Here I am simply presenting a possible version to be used, in conjunction with game mechanics that are already in place

This topic is focused on all non-sailing crew and personnel that may find themselves on board our ship, and will offer possibilities in which they can be implemented. 1: Sharpshooters and Marines, These will be crew that are actively used in close ship-to-ship combat as well as boarding combat. When close enough, sharpshooters will begin to pick off enemy crew, slowly but continuously lowering the enemies crew number. They will be placed in the ship's rigging and deck. Marines on the other hand will be used solely for boarding combat. Marines will be much more adept at boarding than regular sailors, making them very valuable to a captain that likes to board. The issue comes in that crew, sharpshooters, and marines will all take up space in the overall crew limit. Each ship could be given a number of minimal sailors needed (in order to properly, but not optimally, sail the ship) as well a Sharpshooter limit, based on the size of the ship (and thus the amount of rigging and spots up in the sails and masts in which to hide). The fewer sailors you have,the slower your "crew Focus" skills change and the less they actually affect the ship's performance. So, if you have a max ship crew of 40, you can decide to have 20 crew (minimum needed being, say, 10), 15 Marines, and 5 Sharpshooters, or any combination the player deems fit 2: Prisoners At some point, after boarding actions, you may find yourself in possession of a few prisoners of war (or wanted pirates) that could be turned over to authorities for either a boost in renown or a pretty penny (This would usually mean just NPC crew, or the crew of other players, but not the other players themselves). A brig could be implemented on each ship to allow for the carrying of PoWs, which could in turn be removed or upgraded to carry more prisoners at the captain's (player's) discretion. 3: "Live" Cargo A: "Specialty Civilians"- Civilians of importance. These may encompass workers and professionals required to man various parts of economy ( e.g. Master shipwright, Blacksmith, etc.) or people of royal import (Governors, viceroys, Royal relations, anyone with "friends in high places") These people will require a place amongst the crew, meaning they will take the same space as combat crew, but will not fight in combat actions. (So 19 sailors, 15 marines, 5 sharpshooters, 1 Special Civilian. Max crew 40) B: Civilians- unimportant civilians in need of transportation. These will be put in the Cargo Hold, however will need a bit more upkeep than regular cargo. (If things like rations and fresh water are implemented, they will also need this as upkeep). Civilians will also slightly affect crew morale, based on the length of time at sea. C: Livestock- Livestock needed for trade and the economy. These will also be put in the cargo hold, will also need a bit more upkeep than regular cargo, but will not affect moral like citizens The main idea here is to diversify the possibilities available to each captain: Will you attempt to board in every action? Then you will want more marines at your disposal. Want to target the enemy crew as much as possible, but not intending to board? Just Sharpshooters and sailors for you. On a long trade run with livestock or civilians? Then you best plan your trip wisely to minimize any morale or ration issues that may come up. The more a player can feel they can change their strategy and individualize it, the better, in my opinion. Cheers- Captain Drummond

You must have been a Pirate, because that was the only starting port that was that large. A map of that size is a bit of a double-edged sword. Two of the Capitals in PotBS were so large that they needed warp systems to get around efficiently: it was very easy to get lost. However, for all of the large avatar maps, the environment as a whole: from the buildings and the decorations were all well done, and many times I have found myself simply walking around and looking at all the details that were hidden for someone just running through. There were a number of little hiding places, beautifully detailed areas, and even an easter egg or two I came across while just exploring the capitals and Pirate starting city. So yes the large ports were a bit of a hassle to traverse, but they were also unique models that were not used for any other port. So as you started as a pirate, you got to run around in a port that felt genuinely Piratey, and the Capitals felt just the same for all the other nations. This said, a nice balance could be found to merit a descent sized avatar port map, without it feeling daunting. But, alas, I would prefer them to model avatars to be able to walk about the decks first off before worrying about them running around ports.

Please understand where I'm coming from: small, fast moving ships. I understand that as I move up to face larger and slower ships, aiming will be easier since I have an easier target to hit, not that I have "mastered" aiming. Understand that firing from a the Santisima, moving at 10 kt max, at a large ship, moving at around the same speed, is not the same as firing from a schooner, cutter or brig, moving on average 13 kt (not max), at an equally small and fast target, meaning that the time it will take to measure a shot and adjust for speed and range, is multiplied compared to fighting in large ships. Also, the smaller ships can make maneuvers faster and easier then large ships, meaning they can throw off an opponents aim easier than a large ship In short, aiming with Large vs. Large ships is easier as opposed to small vs. small ships due to speed and the size of target. The issue? 1: New players who would otherwise find firing from large ships rather easy, may be deterred from the challenge of small ship combat. 2. Some players may prefer the speed and maneuverability of smaller ships to their larger counterparts (especially those who intend to live a life of piracy) who will be dealing with the range and speed differences. If you wish, a simple "Reticle Customization" could be used. If you like the current retcile, keep it. If you don't, pick another one that suits your skill. To close; first, just to be clear, I did not say I "disliked" the system, but just questioned its functionality and user friendliness. Second, if the more adept players can already manage to aim with the system now, but there are players who have trouble with the system, simply saying "Well we can do it so you just need to get better" is not an approach to be commended and should not be a viable reason to not implement a simple and possibly easier aiming system. And lastly, thank your for your feedback, I appreciate when people take the time to read and respond to my posts.

After playing a few games, I find the aiming mechanic is a bit too fluid for what we are shooting. First, I find myself constantly moving my mouse small increments in order to get the "just right" distance and lead. However, I often twitch or accidentally move the mouse just a little too far, or need to quickly take a look around so as to make sure I'm not blocking a friendly's shot, thus ruining the aim I had before. The first issue I believe could be changed by moving the aiming controls (when zoomed in on one broadside) to the arrow keys instead of the mouse. My aim will stay where it is regardless of where I look with my mouse, and will only change when I use the arrow keys. Thus, steering stays the same with the WSDA keys, and I can have an easier time aiming with the arrow keys. Another option would be, when in aiming mode (clicking the left mouse button) you use the mouse wheel to aim up and down. the only way to get out of aiming mode would be to press the same button you used to get into it (again, the left mouse button) In addition, aiming should be made a bit more rigid: so instead of just being able to aim anywhere in your range, you aim your guns one "click" or one "notch" up, down, left, or right The second is simple and has been discussed: A simple aiming reticle that details distance needed as well markers to show how much to lead a shot. A simple "Sniper's" Crosshair would be sufficient, although modifications could be made to fit in with the time period. Cheers, Captain Drummond.

I am very split with this. My first vote goes to Improving sailing and Damage models further. I think true emphasis should be placed on refining and fine-tuning the combat system and all that goes with it: U.I. , damage models, boarding, etc. In my opinion, you should focus most of development time on what is available to us now, the combat. Get it to the point that you want it to be at for release prior to devoting all resources to another (new) aspect of the game. This is the foundation that the rest of the game should be built upon. Do not condemn what has the potential to be an astounding game with a weak foundation. However, my second vote would go to the open world, as an MMO that offers freedom to its players to play, travel., and explore the way and to where they wish is much more attractive than a game that has you travel down a track which you cannot deviate. My third vote goes to customization. The more a player can individualize themselves, the better. This absolutely means avatars: to be able to put a face to a name and to be able to customize said face! Furthermore, things such as flags, ship names, and ship paint jobs should also be customization. Have a few default stencils and designs for flags to custom-make flags in-game (A cross here, a shield there, maybe a crest or two. Eagles, Lions, and Crowns (Oh my!) are always fancied by the navies. And of course, skulls and crossbones). And then perhaps the ability to create our won flags in more detail with user-created content uploaded via the website/steam. Same thing with paint jobs (Stripes are always dashing on the broadside of a ship, Nelson would approve I'm sure!)

Potbs name: William Drummond (And the Drummond Family) Potbs server : Roberts Potbs society: Messengers of Death (MoD) Potbs nation: Pirate NA IG name: William Drummond

These may be for the more... Piratically spirited. Really anything with a nice tempo, and lots of drums. how about some more sea shanties? And more drums...

Ah, here we are. This is the other topic I was referring to: Flags, Ensigns, Banners As I recall, it was discussing the implementation of extra flags and their purpose in-game. It seems to be a bit older, but still a good read. Anywho, I too like Ultra's suggestion, again, since it would give the signal flags practical purpose for players, and even more weight if to be used with friendly NPCs

I very much like this post: the more we can individualize a player's experience, the better. I do have a few responses, though most simply expand upon what you have presented. On Obtaining Your Crew: I do enjoy the idea of having different methods of acquiring crew based on your profession. If you requisition the crown for a crew, the officers should be stout and well experienced, with a few skills/perks of their own. However, the standard crew will be sub-par (seeing as much of the king's navy was a mix of experienced sailors and press-gang whom have never sailed before). Or perhaps you wan't true seaman to sail your ship, so head to the docks and look for the more experienced sailors, at the price of inexperienced officers and a good deal of extra coin. Or perhaps you like to work with a wide range of skills, so head to the tavern, where you can recruit any able-bodied man willing to sign on, for a small fee. (The tavern will present a truly random skillset selection) On Training Officers/Crew: I'd like to think that your crew, no matter how skilled, will need to adapt to a new setting, so every time you acquire a new ship, there will be a small penalty until such time the crew is acquainted with their new setting. Each crew member can have a set proficiency with sailing either small, medium, or large (or etc.) sized ships as well (or a percentage of the whole crew) also factoring in to skill perks and penalties. On Morale: I do not think the size of the ship should matter, but rather the number of men stationed on her (Fewer men= more space. If over crewed, morale takes a hit). I do think that morale should be based on any number of variables, included, but not limited to: Time aboard (last time since in dock), recent actions (if recently lost a battle: morale low, if successful battle: boost in morale), cargo (type/supply of rations, possession of any alcohol/ grog, gold, battle trophies, etc.) and even the attributes of the officer and yourself (the captain). There are so many things that could be made to affect morale, these are just a few concerning the ship at sea. On Boarding: The only note I have on this is that the opportunities and options that you have to board an enemy vessel should be limited to the orientation of both ships. Should they be parallel to each other, then you have the full spread of your deck in which to deploy sailors across to theirs. However, should you be perpendicular to the enemy (i.e. after a ramming maneuver) then you will be limited to deploying only off the bow, wherever it may have landed on the other ship. This will limit the amount you can deploy (because everyone would have to wait as they slowly stream across the bow, instead of all deploying at once off the side) Very good ideas, Captain Tom. I especially like being able to choose how much of my crew I can send in a boarding action, so as to not leave myself at the mercy of the opposing ship should things go awry.

I recall an older discussion about this, but I've been away for a while to where I'm unsure of where to find it or if it even still exists. However, I like the idea of signal flags, though they would need to be made more streamline: specific commands that would be followed by the hoisting of said flags (so you would click a preset command "Hold Position" for example and the needed flags would automatically be raised, eliminating the need to actually memorize signals.) Indeed this would be more of an aesthetic touch rather than a game mechanic. However, the addition of Allied NPC that would follow your signals would make the mechanic more interesting as well, making allied NPCs more valuable than in other games... (I cringe at the thought of PotBS elementary allied AI, one that would sacrifice ships for no reason or take the longest route possible to a target etc. etc.)

I think the answer to the problem Maturin presented can be found in a combination of the suggestions in this discussion. Have each ship's model designed with all the stunsails already in place (i.e. the "White overweight Elephant). But have the player be able to customize which stunsails they wish to use on their ship (perhaps even for a small instillation/removal fee, later in game development: The default ship will have no additional stunsails until otherwise purchased and/or installed) With the model already supporting all possible stunsail positions, it will be able to accommodate any custom configuration. The sailing stats would be the trickier part, although I believe the same format should work: each individual stunsail would have it's own bonuses and drawbacks, and the design would have the full bonuses/drawbacks implemented for the "Elephant" version. Just as with the model, the captain will only receive the effects of the stunsails he/she has installed. Not only do you add a valuable resource for captains to utilize, but you also make gameplay more dynamic by giving players more options to sail and fight

I couldn't agree more. IF avcom were to ever find its way into Naval Action, it should follow its open-sea counterpart's design: skill wins the day, not equipment or "magic skills" However, I do believe avatars will be imperative to the MMO design of the game, whether it is running around a port or on the deck of you own or another's ship (I would like to show my ship off to my peers should I get the chance, nothing like a bit of friendly boasting) or even just sitting in a pre-battle lobby, an avatar will provide a face to put with a name, as well as (hopefully) customizable uniforms and clothing to match. Non-combat interactions between players in ports, on decks, in lobbies, etc. with avatars would be paramount in order to keep the air of the MMO from going stale and to hopefully ensure that players do not see enemies or friends as simply another ship on the horizon. In my opinion at least.

Can we please, please , PLEASE have the ability to give friendly NPCs orders during battle (especially if they are "usable" NPCs, like PotBS Commissions) Too many times have I seen moronic AI: get in my way, block my shot, hinder maneuverability, target the wrong ship, or otherwise be an absolute nuisance. Often these are my own Commissions doing so, but regular friendly AI is just as capable of such stupidity. If there is ever a "Protect this ship" mission in NA, I would rather ignite my own magazine than see the ship I'm supposed to protect veer headlong into a far superior enemy fleet while it's AI escorts retreat in the most pitiful show of naval tactics I've ever seen. So again, yes, please let us give commands to NCPs at the least, giving the use of flag signals more weight than just aesthetic purposes.

If I recall correctly, there is some discussion on this, and that the devs are leaning away from the common "Hitpoints" setup to a more realistic damage gradient. I'll try to find the post, but I specifically remember the devs stating that even the possibilities of "Lucky shots" will be thrown in: the stray cannon ball that finds its way to the ship's magazine, or one that destroys the rudder. They also want to avoid having one broadside of the ship destroyed only to have the player flip to the other, fully functional one. EDIT: I do believe this is the post: Sinking a Ship There is discussion on damage and how it is derived, as well as the admin responding to "HP is bad" references. Hope this helps

Let's be a bit easy on the lad guys. And was NTW that bad? I have Empire and it seems O.K. Anyway, as BungeeLemming stated the game is from the Captain's viewpoint, not the Admiral's/Commander's, per say. I foresee any "fleets" will be comprised of groups of players moving and communicating together in small groups. Much like PotBS's group system (on the open sea at least). And yes a plethora of topics on Economy, ships, vantage point and more are here for your reading pleasure in the forums. And lastly, welcome aboard to the Naval Action Forums Port WK!

I agree we should be allowed to come up with whatever preposterous names we may come up with for the ships we sail. (and, as Johhny Reb stated, within reasonable profanity peramiters) However, I also would like to avoid the X_PWNMASTER_SWAGKING_Xs (note: yes, this is indeed a name I have come across my MMO career. I will state that this is not a player in PotBS, heaven forbid). Perhaps instead of compiling a list of pre-determined names, which would 1: Limit the player's overall experience and customization/individuality, and 2: will most likely continuously need expansion and changing, instead, have the player's name and ship name be verified by the server Moderators. This would be cumbersome, yes, but would keep the above's out while keeping some form of individuality in. (It may even be a way to avoid in-game character identity theft.) This isn't the best possible solution, but may be the best balance perhaps?

I think that, in this very rare case, historical prevalence (for or against) women avatars should be completely ignored. Lets face this one simple fact: though we may be playing a game based in the past, we, the player, are doing so in present times, where to ignore an entire group of potential gamers would be ill-advised, and could even come off as insulting. On that same note, I agree, especially with PotBS, that the clothing department was a bit...liberal in the terms of cloth coverage. Women should definitely be implemented as playable avatars, but keeping within the realm of even moderate decency. (But even Mary Read and Anne Bonny would flaunt time to time, but again, we should ignore historical references in this rare case). Avoid skimpy clothing. I agree with giving the women basically the same clothing options as men, with some obvious exceptions.

There is one thing I must ask, and one that weighs heavily on my mind. The one major event that has been present in PotBS that has now evolved into an uncontrollable monster that threatens to drive me from the game all-together: Cross-teaming. For those who may be unsure, Cross-teaming (or X-teaming) is when a player has two (or more) separate characters that can be played at the same time, that are parts of 2 different factions, and uses them to do harm to another (usually one of the ones they play for). Normally having different characters across nations is not a bad thing, it is a good economic tactic. And when used this way, a benign one. However, it becomes a problem when you have players going out and single-handedly flipping a port by farming their alternate characters. Or perhaps supplying a live stream of a battle. the worst is when they come into a Port battle and immediately jump out after the battle has started, crushing one sides ability to fight For those who played on the Roberts server, Lenin Lich was a prime example of this. It is also very demoralizing to at one point be fighting alongside someone to only moments later be facing them. Portalus has done almost nothing to reprimand these players and it is, at this very moment, one of the main diseases plaguing the game. I truly hope that Game Labs will, at the least, have some sort of policy on this, if not some type of fail safe system.

I've been mostly telling my society members that the initial NA will be a bit like World of Tanks (a title most gamers at least know of) : A game focused on fights and engagements, without an open world. I tell them that it will be more realistic in its combat system, it's detail, and its sailing mechanics. Like I said, PotBS has a special place in my heart, but it has been neglected and is being run aground. But I love realism and the challenge it brings with it; If PotBS wasn't dying, I would probably still be coming here (though maybe with a bit less zeal) But now, NA offers a sanctuary for the Captains of PotBS that (in one case) are literally drooling over this game.

Considering a variation of the Jolly Roger is being shown ('Calico' Jack Rackham's Jolly Roger is usually the contemporary flag used, and is arguably the one most people attribute to pirates), it is well documented that pirate crews (as well as naval ships) had bands to play on them, but it is also documented that some Pirate captains had their bands play during the battle and in boarding combat to inspire the crew and scare the enemy ("these buggers are playing music when they should be fighting for their lives, they must surely be all mad!") Now the question is this: Which musicians are you speaking of? Because while Beethoven and Bach (and etc.) where indeed alive during the NA span of time, it all depends on where you where if you were going to hear them, it was very unlikely to come across a tavern in Charleston playing Mozart, but the revers would be true in Europe (depending on your setting) With some refinement, this idea gets my vote.

The cannons spread would be the area in which you would wish your cannons to fire and your cannon balls to land. The accuracy of your guns would be the ability for the shot to stay true to its trajectory, other than going outside the determined spread or too high or too low. For example, I aim for the middle of a ship, with a tight spread. My spread ensures that I do not hit the rest of the ship (Say if I was focusing on the ships's magazine, hoping for a crippling shot) and all my cannons are focused on a smaller point. The accuracy ensures that the shot does not go too high, flying into the rigging, or too low, into the water, as well as any other deviations from the determined trajectory. In revers, a wide spread would allow me to deal general damage (perhaps If i did not know of any weak points to focus on) that will also have the affects of accuracy that the tight spread would have. This is what EIC showed and seems to add a bit more diversity to how you play, giving you more options on how to attack an enemy. I am not sure if this is/will be true for NA, but I hope it is.

Along with more possible 1st person vantage points, I was thinking of one in particular that may come in handy in the midst of battle, as well as some other cannon abilities that would diversify the battle experience: Cannon View: Take the view of one of the ships gunners and aim down the sights of one of your cannons. this will allow the player to get a better picture of where his guns are aimed. This view would also give the player a more detailed aiming reticle/HUD. The camera would take the view of the middle-most cannon on the ship. So on a ship with 3 gun-decks it would be on in the middle of the second deck. Smaller ships with just 2 (top-deck and gun deck) would be seen from the lower deck, below decks. Perhaps further down the development road, this view will allow you to see the crews below decks working the cannons while reloading. Watching the cannons being rolled out and the gun ports opening and closing. Toggle Fire-at-Will: From what I have read, I am still not sure if each individual cannon will be on its own reload timer or if it will be collective. If it is in fact on an individual basis, this toggle would have every individual cannon fire as soon as it is reloaded on the the mark where the redicle is placed. This will allow for slight ammunition conservation as well as a small accuracy boost to the cannon's fire. Cannon Spread: We should have the ability to decide how spread out our cannons are aimed. From wide to attack multiple ships in a line or a crowded group, or to focus fire in on a very close area. Also derived from EIC, to start their would be three options: Wide ,moderate, and tight.