Angus McGregor

No worries on separating the discussions... I reread your "Vets" proposal and that first "popular" response was a negative reaction just to losing the rank and crafting XP levels... Henry didn't mention assets. But you're right in that there are definitely people who want to get to the top asap and stay there. And as I said, then they will often turn around and complain that the game is boring at that point. Honestly - the game will lose those people anyway, it's just a matter of how quickly. In the meantime, I don't think their issues should dampen efforts to find ways of keeping NA challenging and rewarding for more than just 6 months. I say that due to a nagging feeling that with the way the resources, regions and alliances currently work - 6 months is about the best we could hope for. The map was reset with the new regions when... early/mid October? So we're coming up on 4 months on this map and the situation is not good. 2 uber alliances facing off without much really happening and player sentiments turning ugly due to boredom and frustration. So now there are negotiations underway to artificially allocate a minimum level of resources and regional bonuses to keep all nations viable. How bass-ackwards is that?

I guess my brain works differently. After a hard-fought national campaign, especially a losing one - I would look upon a wipe/reset as a clean slate and a fresh chance to do better. Even if I'm in a nation that isn't likely to finish first - there would be the challenge of trying to achieve a new personal best before the end of the next "season". Gets me that people seem so fixated on the destination and not care much for the journey. Conversely people will often squawk that the excitement is gone and it's boring once you reach maximum rank. Spurring requests for ranks to be extended beyond the existing upper limit. People are stupid ... weird that way. I read your proposal and a redeemable for a small fraction of your former possessions would be a good jump start to the economy of a new map. Not sure I'd agree with the "winning" side getting a bigger fraction. I'm uncomfortable with starting a new season giving a competitive edge to the nation that just won the last one. Maybe that's just me. I would far rather it was a custom paint scheme and/or ship's plaque for each season given to the "winning" nation. Maybe also to the pirate clan that outdid all the other pirate clans... cannot be sold or traded is removed from any ship when capped is infinitely reusable by the player for all their ships will be retained by the player through future wipe/resets as a legacy I should think that such a permanent "trophy" would appeal more than a few extra redeemables good only for the next season. Beyond that - I don't think losing your rank XP and crafting XP are on the table at all. I'm 99% sure I read a post by admin that those are tied to your Steam account and that's why they're common to the accounts you have on the separate NA servers. It's a major hairy deal to get them changed since *you* have to submit a request to Steam Support to have them reset. Man it's nice to have a civil conversation!

Sir Texas Sir suggested every 2 months. I bumped it to 3 months. Yar Matey suggested 6 months. The length of time is open to discussion. If it isn't just after alliances get cast in stone, or a nation gets stomped down to just their Nat capital ports - it didn't come quick enough. Given that a wipe/reset is scheduled, the whole game changes. The only way a stockpile would make sense then is if it's part of a "win" condition towards Admiralty currency for the next cycle. Otherwise any player or clan that has a huge stockpile of resources or gold at wipe/reset time wasted a bunch of effort and didn't devote enough towards actually engaging the opposition.

1. You're absolutely right - I didn't realize that I had worded it so it looked so much like I was suggesting *just* a map reset. I even did it the second time around. Apologies... my bad. I was meaning a complete wipe. Map, ships, resources, outposts. 2. Well that's the point, now there's regions that give major strategic advantages. If you cannot field the ideal PB ship with the ideal regional mod, you aren't likely to win any offensive PB unless you flip it during the defenders low pop time. Even if you do that chances are you'll immediately lose it when facing an attacking fleet comprised entirely of the uber ship-du-jour and you have few, possibly none.

So you're buying into "there is no victory condition"?? A nation gets stomped down to just their Nat capital region no access to gold/silver or buff regional bonuses. There is no coming back. Switch nations? That's an answer? So an entire nation becomes a placeholder with no function whatsoever - new players join that nation, see the situation and hope they can still get a refund. A whack of players in the crushed nation who don't want to switch nations just leave. If a reset/wipe is scheduled, they at least *might* check back to NA then and try again if they're a big fan of this genre. If no reset - they *never* come back. People voluntarily join the smaller nation to bolster it's numbers? What for? See point #1. Other nations voluntarily give up regions to get pauper nation back on its feet? It took PvP2 coming to the brink of extinction to spur that kind of cooperation - you think it'll happen when the rich nations are doing just fine thank you very much? NA needs a method to keep the national RvR viable or it's screwed. Either the national alliances and politics are taken out of the players hands, or a way to recover from a complete FUBAR map is provided. The bottom line is this... are pixels more important than a player base to perpetuate the game? When NA releases there will be a big influx of new players... but then what? Either NA has mechanisms to preserve the player base, or it will fade quick as more abandon it than new players buy it.

I don't think Anne was advising you to join the PB, just lurk around the edges and look for an opportunity to jump on someone who gets careless. It's doubly good if the alliances situ allow you to go for the PB attackers. The picket ships stand off from the main PB attack fleet and there's plenty of opportunity to get someone in a 1v1 battle. Other than that I can only advise you to wait for release and hope the server population climbs above 2000 during peak times. That will bring back the glory days for you. Right now you need a moba and that isn't NA since virtually no one uses the large and small battles. Brace yourselves - incoming rant (hopefully as constructive criticism)... Yes, there's things that could improve the PvP situation even for the lean populations now - some seem very obvious to me. I know other people feel the same way too. Blockades and raids as map hot spots and used for PB hostility jump to mind. Why weren't they next down the pipe and put onto the test server? No idea. I tried the PvE events but I suck so that's a wash. Good grief, the qualifying ship has only been Rattlesnake for how long now? Not that would make any difference to my performance but still. The lack of attention to simple things... People have tried getting clarification on specific points of new features by addressing them specifically to @admin and been totally ignored most of the time. What the hell is the deal with asking us to test without knowing the boundary conditions? You can't be bothered to take 2 minutes to respond? I see no reason to waste hours of my time trying to accidentally discover the weak spots. The long planned "in the next patch" game entry polls to better gauge the attitudes of all players on specific issues and not just forum residents. Incredibly valuable source of info neglected for months now. The difference in level of developer dialogue between NA and some other early access indy games is huge. It can be done right, and when it is it... encourages and motivates the "testers" reinforces the fact that they are "testers" and not paying customer players better equips testers with direction on where the devs think the problems are, which results in more productive testing. Don't even get me started on the futility of changing multiple factors at a time and thinking you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the results.

I think it would take just 1 day for virtually all regions to be claimed. My quick thought was to pick maybe 1-2 high priority ports and send ships in force to claim them. At the same time send small numbers of ships, maybe just 1, to other ports with lesser but still desirable regional bonuses or resources. This would result in virtually all ports being claimed by somebody after the very first maintenance cycle. 6 month cycles would be long, but perhaps not to the point of RvR stasis/stagnation being a problem yet. Could work. A fixed duration cycle would also afford an opportunity to transfer to a nation that has chronically low population without penalty as everyone starts over together. I hadn't thought of placing the regional bonuses randomly. Interesting! It would start the new map with a true discovery phase where nations send out explorers in basic Cutters or possibly Lynx's. They would scout which regions have which bonuses prior to a nationally coordinated effort to send enough ships to claim prized regional capital ports. But I would not consider doing random resources since some of those (live oak) have firm basis in reality and moving them would seem strange and violate the principle of building on preexisting knowledge. (Love this video - 20 Game Design Lessons - thank you @KrakkenSmacken) Pro's: each new map would be different in a fairly significant way with randomized regional bonuses. exciting 'Gold rush' discovery/claim staking phase on day 1. Con's: combinations of fixed resources and random regional bonuses could make for some very overpowered regions. But restrictions in the randomizer code could ensure certain top regional bonuses cannot be paired with valuable resources? IE: Strong Hull never with gold, silver, Live Oak...etc. ??

Wow - this thread just set a personal record. 10 posts in a row from people on my ignore list. If I was a new player to NA and just visiting this forum for the first time, I would be sincerely doubting the wisdom of having bought this game. Edit: My new signature - "This is why we can't have nice things."

LoL - I had to go look for what you were talking about. "Stars??" Geez - I didn't even know those were there. Possibly why the star ratings are so low. I keep hearing that recovering from a wipe wouldn't be that big of a deal. I agree that it would be difficult for a casual player. Another effect would be the futility of stockpiling mountains of materials, spurring more production of ships and mods.

*glares at Yar Matey* "Shush!"

Wanted to comment on this with an idea that's been bouncing around in my head. Spawned a new thread to not drag this one off topic.

Guaranteed suicide more like it

Rather than drag that thread off topic... Beginning to agree that periodic map resets would be a good idea. Picky - but I would suggest every 3 months so it's quarterly. Also had an epiphany about what a map reset could look like. What about a 'discovery' state at the beginning of each new map reset?. I know this is more work for devs and quite late in the development cycle but think about it... At map launch, each nation ONLY owns its national capital and rookie capital region. All other regions are known, but unclaimed... 'neutral'. No nation starts off with an advantage in regional bonus's other than by being closer to some than others. 'Neutral' ports are not 'friendly' to any nation. How are 'neutral' ports claimed? All nations have the first day on the new map to pick their highest priority regions and send captains there. During daily server maintenance, 'neutral' regions are awarded to the nation with the most captains in the capital port. Kind of like a blind auction situation. Screening other nations away from the port you want would be a major strategy since 'Escape to friendly port' will bounce ships right out of the region. This is prone to bias in favor of nations with higher player counts, but let's face it. NA will always have that problem. Smaller nations would have to choose their targets carefully. The strategy of what to do on 'rope drop' and every nation has to decide which regions to prioritize? Your nation may succeed in claiming it first but can you hold it? The port battles that would trigger!! Edit: changed title to reflect that I was meaning to suggest a complete asset wipe too. Plus the fact that it doesn't *have* to be quarterly. The time interval is certainly open to discussion. That was just my initial thought.

That's definitely one of them. Just wanted to see if there's a way to mark certain threads to be left out of my main Activity display. I come to the site and check and there's pages and pages of crap. A lot of the threads are heavily populated by people I've already got marked for ignoring. It's getting old.

I see there's an option to follow a thread. What I'm looking for is an option to 'Ignore' a thread. Can this forum software do that? I think you likely know which thread(s) prompted this question.

At one time it may have been possible for NA to head in a totally pirate clan oriented direction. Leaving nations only as NPC entities that all players either sought letters of marque from, or avoided like the plague. But now the course has been plotted and the NA ship is now sailing on a completely different tack. What we all have now are national identities which more or less force ALL of the points you dislike above. We don't even have independent pirate clans or rogue pirates (one man clans), maybe in the future - who knows? The only role currently in NA that comes remotely close is a smuggler since those can try to go wherever they please and haul whatever cargo seems good to them. But now I'm not even sure that's going to have a future. This whole "I wanna fire my cannons at whoever I please" isn't something NA is remotely geared towards. Certainly not as an individual captain, or even as a clan. Like it or lump it, them's the facts. We have been given limited abilities to determine the relationships between nations. For the greater good of each server, this requires negotiation. Which requires spokesmen. Or we stick with the national roflstomp zerg dance and watch the bored and the alienated leave out of frustration while some get to cheer "We won!" as GameLabs shuts the servers off.

I've never thought that the Admiralty events were intended as a permanent fixture. Pretty sure this was a trial run of features to be utilized with port blockades and raids. In the short term it also gave ppl a place to look for a target rich PvP environment. The only major issue overlooked was the guaranteed gankfest it encouraged. With 20/20 hindsight I think they should've used the rookie zone 1v1 RoE. Anyone who wanted fleet battles could've just used the zone as a pseudo-lobby to meet & arrange such battles beyond the perimeter.

I love the idea of there being little persons stranded on random beaches around the OW, waving frantically for some observant captain to spot them, sail close enough to shore to click on them. A little graphic of a jolly boat going from your ship to the beach and back to retrieve the person would be icing on the cake. Once 'rescued' the castaway would present a reward - such things as chest of coins, ship's blueprint, Admiralty points (gratitude) or sealed bottle. Objects small enough to be hand carried.

Good suggestion! With a little planning, the devs could tie the Admiralty points reward system mentioned in the 2017 Road Map, with a (negative) reputation system suggested by others and echo'ing your idea above. Do good things and get rewarded, do bad things and get more and more notorious. That could result in a PvP event being spawned by the game. "Attention captains: Curse Koltes is hereby under penalty of death for his many crimes against the interests of the brotherhood. A bounty is hereby offered for the sinking or capture of him and any ship he may be aboard. Arrrrr!!"

Oh brother. If you guys are kidding - it's not amusing. If you guys aren't kidding - it really isn't amusing Mods - please delete this whole thread

Are you selecting the 4 boxes under the Ignoree's name and then clicking Update?

Welcome to my ignore list troll

For my money, GameLabs made a huge mistake when they used the word "clans" for national groups of players. They should have called them "squadrons". Pirate clans maybe. National clans - no way. "Clans" gives people funny ideas about operating as independant militias. I can't believe that actual green on green conflict within a nation would have ended well for those who decided to go rogue. Monarchies didn't tolerate independant thinking by factions within its colonies. The scenario quoted above is a rebellion, and would have gotten your group branded as pirates or seditionists under a death sentence. Not saying that what you're describing wouldn't be enjoyable. But IMO if NA is to allow warring clans within the same nation, we'll have to drop the pretense of being in the historical Caribbean and just drop it into an alternate reality setting.

Agreed - you shouldn't hardly notice an ideal RoE. It should just seem natural. Agree again - if RoE is wrong - it will sour everything else. Yes - but NA is a MORPG with limited MOBA options. It isn't pseudo single player unless they're happy with the PvE server. Pardon the bad metaphor, but beyond that I struggle with wolves wanting to cut a ewe from the flock with the rams and guard dogs inexplicably deaf and blind. Just sayin'. We have to assume PBs will be more plentiful and more easily attended after release with higher server populations or NA is dead anyway. It shouldn't be part of our discussions on basic mechanics. Statistics are good for showing that virtually all groups are arranged as a bell curve. Individuals can (and do) rant and fume all they like but if the dev team concentrates on the central majority and doesn't sweat over the extremes at either end - NA will do well. One thing that will help is getting feedback from more than just the forum dwellers. They've said an NA entry poll for important issues was coming in the next patch - but that was months ago.

Ahh - okay. Betraying my lack of PvP experience. Still seems like 10 seconds doesn't leave much opportunity to do that. *shrug* This is very promising. It avoids issues my suggestion had but introduces a few new ones. Hopefully discussion can iron a few out. Visual range - headache over fog and intervening islands since that would add computing line of sight (LoS) tests for every ship. May not be as bad as I'm thinking though. Suggest ships without LoS shouldn't see crossed swords in their client at all. Its not much of a diff but I'd make it relative to the crossed swords. (Just being picky. Its my OCD ). Suggest using location of original target ship, live or sunk. This is way less computation intensive. Intervening islands could again be a spawn-on-land problem if land is low and LoS is still okay.