Angus McGregor

I will admit to being baffled for why ppl want the tag timer. Is it purely to give the attackee a chance to evade? Someone please explain to me what I'm missing. I mean that sincerely. Reducing the tag timer to 10 seconds is nearly the same as doing away with it isn't it? I would think a savvy attacker would just get closer before tagging and thus make it virtually impossible to get outside attack circle in just 10 seconds.

The 2017 timeline just released puts shipbuilding changes in the Backlog category (and not either of January or February): Finalization of ship crafting (delayed until content wipe) So it would appear that unless people are going to write NA off until after release they may as well stop waiting and just use the system as is. I can only say that I'm really not having any problems selling the ships I craft if I keep the price reasonable. And by reasonable I mean I usually undercut the going rate but still make a goodly profit. The flip side of the coin is that I'm crafting *only* gold ships (& using officer perk) to maximize my chances of getting blueprints and level up. Hoping to not lose those in a reset but if I did it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Unfortunately I think they overestimated the willingness of the cats to cooperate in being herded.

Hmmm - good example of thinking outside the box but methinks it's too drastic a reduction on the actual number of ships in the PB. I would dearly love to see a 2 week test of ship rating quotas something like: 8 - 1st through 3rd rates 12 - 4th and 5th rates 5 - 6th and 7th rates With the larger ships present, it's my hope that the smaller ones would have to be quick and maneuverable. A lot less of the strong as bull, slow as ox stuff we have now.

Now that's hilarious!

Don't think it's network lag - my ping is 130 to 160 and my close ups of other ships through the spyglass are rock steady. So maybe it is hardware related... one make/model's video card drivers or possibly SLI support? You guys should compare notes.

Good grief this is ridiculous. They aren't forcing anyone to pay extra to keep playing. I may be entirely wrong but this doesn't even sound like an expansion pack situation, where only those who pay get the extra ships. It reads like if others do fund the kickstarter and you do nothing, you'll end up with the chance to acquire the added ships too. I don't see how it could be any other way without specifically preventing the kickstarter ships from being capped during combat. How confusing would that be? I'm totally satisfied with the 38+ ships we have and how they look, but others aren't as well adjusted as me . So those people are being given a chance to personally contribute to the development and 3D modelling needed to add yet more US ships and enhance the Constitution's appearance. Doing this only enhances Naval Action and will help to make it more popular when it goes to full release. Especially if other nationality ship packs are created through kickstarter too. If you don't want to contribute to the kickstarter, don't. I don't care if you do or don't, and I doubt anyone else does either. If you still have an issue with the entire concept then kindly go troll elsewhere.

The TLDR version is... Everyone wants to fill every slot with the the most effective ship for a given class of PB. In each PB class, there's a fairly clear 'best in class' ship right down to the build options and mods it should have... so people who bring those get first dibs on getting in. It also *used* to be a big advantage to have all the same ships since they all turned the same and moved at the same speed. A good thing when maneuvering nose to tail at arms length in a line. Not so sure the commanders have gotten over that yet with the new much more fluid nature of the PBs. It is very unlikely that the 'bring only the biggest and best' approach will change unless we're forced into it by mandatory multi-class quotas in the PB entry rules.

It would be my guess that they are offering an American ship pack kickstarter first because Americans are the most common player nationality. If it doesn't work with the biggest player block, it likely isn't worth trying for any other nationalities. If it does fail, it will be up to players from other nations to convince the devs that they would do better. It may be easier (and cheaper) to recruit some 3D modellers who play or are friends of players, to create the assets and 'donate' them to the cause.

Exactly - I've been helping with the wiki and NA is very much a moving target. Bad enough trying to keep the ship, mods and perk stats up to date without whole game mechanics being abandoned and reinvented. Recently added a new section based on the zone control PB system. Anyone sees any mistakes or think something's missing, PM me (or Olav) here in the forum. Wiki

To get spyglass screenshots, remap the Steam screenshot key (F12) to be Shift+F12 in Steam->Properties->In-Game->Screenshots key. Can be Shift+'anything' but it has to be with Shift too so you stay in telescope mode.

I paid $39.95 for NA, and I guarantee you that paid for minutes of development time. I don't know what the dev team size is, but I'd guess probably 3-4 people minimum. Just for perspective - back in the day 20 years ago, yeah 20... I was paid on salary but it worked out to about $25 an hour. When I became a manager it went to over $30. I would also venture a guess that GameLabs isn't operating out of anyone's garage. You want more perspective - Google how much it costs to lease decent office space. Add in other overhead like paying the people in charge, computer equipment, office support staff & supplies, utilities etc. Having a workplace isn't cheap. So - just to drive the point home. A 4 person dev team working in an office is going to run north of $300 an hour to keep the seats filled and the lights on. Think how the devs feel - now that after been given FAR more than what was targetted, some ppl in here are squawking blue murder about a voluntary kickstarter event for *some* players to help fund the effort to craft even *more* than the 38+ ships we currently already have. This dose of reality has been brought to you by a former software developer and manager with some clue as to what he's talking about.

This kind of crap is why admin is more than a little inclined to stop communicating with us testers. There's ways of saying this without going out of your way to paint the devs as idiots. Ask for clarification, say you hope they reconsider, state your preferences, be frigging civil about it. Pretend you're talking your grandmother or something. PS - This isn't directed just at you Ned. This is more of a blanket rant. There's a ton of people in these forums that routinely spout off at the devs like they're leaving snarky comments in Reddit. NA is a game, but the devs are not fellow gamers you can talk smack to and expect it to just roll off.

This pretty much nails how I feel about the PvP events. I do see what the devs were trying to do. Fast easy PvP in a known hot spot with nice rewards. What's not to like about that?? IMO one of the main problems is it only takes one team in the zone to make all the solo captains realize they have a giant 'Gank Me!' painted on their sails. You can't force players to form into teams, if they wanted to they would've already. Solution... rookie zone RoE with 1v1 only. The request to allow green on green attacking... well YMMV but for me that's throwing all immersion and atmosphere right out the window and reduces NA to a lobby-less 'World of Sail' MOBA. Yuck.

I doubt your protest will influence how GameLabs manages/funds its own game. As has been pointed out by admin and other players, they've more than fulfilled their Greenlight commitment on ships. It's actually 4x over the original statement which was for only 8. Steam Greenlight page We have 38 now. More actually but I didn't count trader versions of combat ships separately. I'd say that's more than generous and a very good return on investment for the money we paid. The free ride of extra ships is over, it was nice while it lasted.

People seem to be overreacting to this statement. It says nothing of reducing or curtailing communication, it really only speaks of changing its nature. To me it implies they will be more guarded and less candid, which in most respects is a shame. The devs do need to be a little more careful about dropping premature bombshells that lead players to temporarily stop playing. Beyond that I sincerely hope the dev/tester dialog continues much as before. I don't have a problem with them being human, unlike some others here in these forums that are accusative or abusive at the drop of a freaking hat.

Sweet! Thank you!

This quote is from the 2017 development roadmap post. In it there are lists with imbedded lists. A second indented level. I have not been able to figure out how to do this since we switched to the new forum system. How is this done? Secondly, is there a way to indent an entire paragraph without using a list?

1. With no tag timer, there's no need for 2 circles. What exactly does the attack circle do? Isn't it just a way for... ...the attacker to change their mind and abandon the attack if it looks like the odds will not be in their favor at the end of the timer? With no timer, the situation for the attacker is WYSIWYG. If you've initiated an attack you better be ready for the consequences. ...the defender to escape by the end of the timer? By the same token I also see no reason for allowing the defender to escape out in the OW where the ship's relative speeds are wonky before the battle even starts. 2. I have no dispute with this. Sounds entirely reasonable to stop players from being locked in the BI by hail Mary sail shots. You pull far enough ahead, you've escaped. 3. It looks like our thinking here is actually pretty close. We both want the BI to stay open for a period of time. We both want the ships that join an existing battle to spawn into the BI at a heading and distance determined from the OW. You're suggesting the distance to be the horizon, I'm suggesting the current large pull circle perimeter. Not *that* different. There are some pretty heavy technical issues hidden here, especially for the situation you raised about leaving a port with multiple battles being in range. Ugh

The elephant in the room is... the current state of the RoE. As I said in another thread, IMO it isn't horrible, but it isn't good let alone great. People are talking about making the signalling perk standard, but that's just saying leave battle instances open. Doing that raises its own problems. The following are mostly not even my ideas, but IMO are better than what we have now. Fair warning - some depend on others being in place too to keep things balanced. This isn't an a la carte kind of thing. A: Tagging - should not have a long timer. What's the delay for? Give the target a chance to evade? That should happen in the battle instance. If I can get you inside tagging range- you're 'it'. B: Pull circle - its crazy huge right now... based on replacing open timers with some sailing distance in ideal wind? This proposal brings the timers back, but we need a pull circle to ensure that NPC ships/fleets are more than just eye candy. So let's find a middle ground on its size. IMO two thirds of its current size would be a good compromise. All players are also pulled - you can't just blithely ignore the battle off your port bow. C: Battle instance (BI) open/closed? Yep - forget the signalling perk, just bring the timers back. Should be open for at least 10 minutes if and only if point 'D' is adopted in some form. D: Joining an existing BI should not drop you within pistol range of the original battle. That is hugely unrealistic and unfair to the opposing ships. Yeah - war isn't fair. Unfair circumstances are one thing, unfair game mechanics are quite another. joining a BI by proximity at the edge of a 'join circle' instead of clicking on swords. I see this as the only solution to ships not spawning into the BI at pistol range and not on land. Read on. Optional: clicking on swords from beyond join circle could display nations involved, total number of ships and who has BR advantage - no hard numbers. when join circle reached, the BI 'join window' pops up automatically. Join circle size? I'd say the current pull circle size, even if the pull circle is made smaller in point 'B'. I'd also like it to be invisible to try to stop maneuvering for wind advantage, or cut off escape with accelerated sailing in OW. BI join window much like now with BR details and Join/Withdraw options. Join - you join the battle. Withdraw - the battle marker is gone and you proceed on your merry. The BI join window will not go away unless you choose an option, enter port, or sail some major distance away. Spawning into BI puts you to your position and heading on the join circle when BI join window first appeared, NOT where you are when you get around to clicking the Join option. Solves the issue with 'johnny-come-laters' suddenly appearing at <200m with 'prepared' broadsides. New arrivals appearing at the join circle perimeter gives existing combatants time to prepare or flee (if possible). There's still an issue if the battle shifts to where the join circle perimeter is, but I don't see a solution to that without flirting with spawning on land again. E: BR balancing - same as used for current signalling perk, which may need adjusting/fixing. I dunno. If there are glaring opportunities for abuse in this proposal, feel free to point them out. PS - It should go without saying but PvE mission BI's (if not for hostility, geez - not for hostility) are a different animal, they should close instantly.

The updates don't happen for everyone at once. They seem to be doled out at intervals to one player at a time, probably to save server bandwidth and keep lag down for critical realtime situations like battles. You exiting and rejoining is forcing it to update your map now. On a separate note: Something that always irritates me are games that don't let you retrieve past notifications. You just catch something out of the corner of your eye while taking a swig of coffee and "Too bad, so sad... you missed it. Hope it wasn't important!" How frikkin hard can it be to code in an option to retrieve the last half dozen in text form with time stamps?

I hear ya. I'm also waiting for word on what is next, and the general roadmap beyond that. Personally - I'm not playing much cuz my eyes just can't handle this UI much anymore. I can't even read the ship build info where it says wood type, regional build bonus, etc. There just isn't enough color contrast to be able to read it.

Bingo! I was wondering why ppl kept talking about raising hostility as a multi-national effort. Can't be done. On Dec 29th, admin said they were focused on port battles and hostility. The port battle rework is out and seems to be in good shape, so we have yet to see what they've done for hostility.

Admin said they'd try to get it out by end of last week. It wasn't promised.

Thank you! I've never understood why having Marines on your ship is a hard-to-get 'mod'. Say what?? They were on *every* military ship as far as I know.