van der Clam

Ya um, I've been asking for a year why our fleet ai is 100x dumber than enemy ai. But they insist they have the same coding... So, always at the beginning of a battle tell your ai to stop. Then after the 2 minute mark you can tell them to retreat and they won't even sail...they'll just disappear. (If they haven't been tagged.)

But this is where permanent upgrades should be better categorized. A Bow Figure, Hammocks, Sails, etc for example are easily removed and therefore should not be considered permanent. Heck, even Copper Plating can be removed. I think things that are actually removable without damaging a ships design and structure integrity should be removable....however...some things like copper plating, extra plankings, etc should give us only parts of the resources to rebuild them. We should go through the entire list and deem which of them to be removable and which would return only parts.

Agreed for the most part. I usually seem to be a mid rate in the group facing 3rd or 2nd rates, hence why I keep a distance. However, my very soft Trinc is full carronades to swoop in and out fast being able to deal some worthy damage.....so long as I don't get dismasted by our certain Russian nemesis. heh

It depends on the ships ability and what I intend to do with it. If the ship is a close brawler I will load carronades or mediums. If I it's a generally soft ship I use longs to keep distance. If my SoL is shy on crew I will run mediums on bottom deck and longs on other decks. In a PB I will usually load whatever the commander suggests depending on his planned tactics I run longs on bow for tagging and carronades on stern for sail/mast dmg.

I have watched this video probably 30 times....wanting to get into it. This is another awesome battle with great setup.

Research shows: Grape needs to be an effective tactic to damage sails and crew (depending on aim ofc) Chain needs to damage sails and rigging (I know devs said rigging does not have a hitbox, but maybe someday) but should be able to take down only top sections of mast the bottom mast structure should not be caused to fall over via chain unless it has HP at 10% or less Ball needs to do some sail damage and some mast damage dismasting above hull is fine and an historical tactic and should stay in game amount of damage to mast should be slightly lessened by giving bottom section of masts more HP dismasting through the hull should not completely remove the mast from multi-decked ships, i.e. 5th rates +, yet it should indeed weaken the mast and slow the ship. I say this because logically snapping a mast below a second deck would not allow a mast to tip over, as the rigging and upper decks would still keep it square. However, the mast certainly would not have the force ability to hold wind at good speed and would slow the ship some. How to acquire dismasting in parts and in whole: Middle and Top mast sections: via ball directly at mast or chain to destroy rigging. Main mast section: via chain to destroy rigging and ball through hull to break mast @Christendom...love the "Urgent Leak Repair" idea. Much needed. What ship has 50 cannon on one broadside that can pen at that angle from all decks? IMO, I think leaks should occur a lot less frequently, or not cause leaks on the opposite side of hull, or the top 2 decks should not be able to pen due to angle. Recently, I took 34 leaks in one broadside from a Bellona and sank in 20 seconds and I wasn't even keeled a single degree and was angle almost 45 degrees. It has only 37 cannon on one side. The top deck is only 18 lb. Sure 18s can do dmg and pen, but should they pen a curved section of hull below the waterline when they can't pen a hull if angled?? Without using mats? You mean free repairs? If so, then no plz. However, I love the idea of having to anchor for a time. Would suck when a gank fleet is waiting for you, but I still like the idea.

@Thonys FYI, most French give way to traders. A few French will even provide escape after a good battle. PEC does not and will engage always, as should we.

No more alts needed in this game. lul. But you probaby know you can see the most aggressive clans on the map site by Select Ports On" Then the drop-down "Select Clan" and just clicking to see which clans have the most ports. Might I just suggest that you don't switch to the zerg nations who obviously need no more help. https://na-map.netlify.com/

@rediii did you always say it's not the ship that matters. No upgrade slot, no knowledge slots, and medium cannon should be just as good as a 5/5 best upgrades and all knowledge slots if the captain is gud.

Good call. Only if the color pallet is limited to historical colors. No fluorescents and odd pastels, please.

Will upgrades (and maybe cannon loadout) finally be included in the ships BR? This means you will have to set a BR for either each upgrade slot used, or you will have to define a BR for each upgrade type. Please. Please. A maxed out gold Aga should not have the same BR as an Admiralty 3/5 Aga. Having extra planking should give higher BR than extra pumps. Is anyone keen on the idea of listing all upgrades in the game and sorting them by ones that should affect BR and ones that should not.

Rank or % XP loss for an advanced player with elite gold ship and elite upgrades and full knowledge slots verse a ship loss, upgrades loss, materials loss, knowledge slot stagnation for a less advanced player. There could be a better balance. Banaished has a better idea than my OP....keep it silent. But allow us to place bounties paying for it in advance. Leave it to the poster of bounty to inform other players. If it is fulfilled by any player, then he gets the bounty reward. Set the bounties to expire after 7 days, then the poster is refunded and notified it was not completed. Perhaps in accordance with my OP, we could at least post bounties in missions tab upon nations? This could be a replacement the old politics patch. @Banished Privateer someone knows something...lol

lul typo. fixed I have no issue with ganking/griefing. I used those references in a response. A true ganker/griefer would love the idea of having a bounty against him and getting punished for his tactics.

Good point, especially with all the alts in other nations running around. So perhaps there indeed should be a loss of XP, or rank, or knowledge slot, and a Clerk announcement. If they don't like the loss, then perhaps they should change their in-game behavior to not get on anyone's bad list. lol

The testbed server had some. It looked good, the rewards just need to be better and varied between reals and doubloons, not just doubloons. I don't much see a difference in a ganker harassing a particular port over and over again, as opposed to having a bounty on your head. Gankers/griefers pick on anyone, newb or not. And any of these griefers would most likely have a bounty on their head. Karma deserves a reward.

What's a 18th century naval game with pirates and privateers without an In-Game Bounty System? Empty. We already have the Combat News Clerk that makes reports apparently from the Admiralty. So I suggest in the Port Quest screen providing players the ability to pick and post a bounty on Players, Clans, and Nations. In own nation port click on Port Quests [Q] Near the Econ / Battle / Conquest tabs would be a Bounties tab See a list of current bounties (everything would work just like how missions work) Clicking on a Bounty would show the details (last seen location) and reward (doubloons and/or reals) information In this tab it would provide any number of players the ability to Accept Bounty (and/or) the first player to click Collect Bounty It would also provide the Bounty Poster the ability to Cancel (but only after a few days lock so they couldn't escape paying out a reward) There would also be a button to post a bounty Available fields would be: Nation, Clan (can be blank), Captain Name (can be blank), Recent Location (can be blank), Reward Amount (can be Reals and/or Doubloons) If a particular player is the bounty, name search would work like Friend Find and pull player's info Combat News would make the announcement post: 14:28 Clerk: [Player Name] has posted a bounty of [amount of reals/doubloons] ...ooorrrrr, 14:28 Clerk: [Player Name] has a bounty on their head for [amount of reals/doubloons]......oooorrrrr, 14:28 Clerk: [Nation]'s Admiralty reports a bounty of [amount of reals/doubloons] Image below is a mock up idea Discuss....

I pissed myself laughing when I saw this.....but then I saw below and a brown out occurred.

#ETANOW

@admin Please consider allowing us to have a log book in game that charts our paths in game that stores in our local fie. Maybe allow us to turn it on/off for certain voyages and maybe allow us to make a special note of 100-200 character length at a certain timestamp.

Yes, I believe that was the reason. And this is why I have suggested we need to have fleet commander characters that can gain XP with use. It irks the hell out of me that our fleet ship commanders are so idiotic compared to NPC.

I liked when we had deliveries. I just wish that the delivery ships had a departure timer and would appear in OW as NPC and capturable by players. Imagine capping those fleet ships. That would seriously damage their econ.

Looking forward for the tests

We all know how people are exploit farming ridiculous numbers on the Weekly Leaderboards. (img 1) These kind of numbers detract from what the Weeklies should be providing for all captains, especially new ones. So, I propose the only battles that count are ones of the same rate +-1. If the Weekly Frigate is for 4th rates then the only battles that count would be against 5th, 4th and 3rd rates. This would prevent exploit farming as in img 1 and would closer balance these Weekly Mission results for new captains. They wouldn't feel it useless to even try. Second suggestion would be to make the number of kills per battle matter more than single kills per battle (img 2).

Should kill missions be near enemy ports so one can get pounded by enemy forts and then ganked after their mission?

Raids please...raids that take from the port owner clan. Yes, WS Bombs were ridiculous and should not have been allowed. I could see them reinstituted in a different manner maybe with more restrictions per use.