Navalus Magnus

That‘s probably even better than Liqs suggestions, because you wouldn‘t spoil the OW feeling with artificial „you-can‘t-escape - fight-and-sink-missions“. But if devs changed the character of the patrol missions, and you would be able to just have decent PvP fights without the arena feeling / circle of death, it would also be fine imo.

+1

Bravely fighting a battle is a fine thing! But having no choice to do otherwise feels artificial - even if it‘s just the battle instance that doesn’t allow running! ... why do we even have the options of chainshot or the possibility of demasting inside patrol missions? Using these options wouldn’t make any sense with the circle of death implemented. In other words: I like the patrol missions! I don‘t like the circle of death / the inability to escape! Plus: I like the idea of the dynamic BR controlled battle entry rights mentioned by @vazco!

Those PvP zones would do as a motivation to bring the ships you‘d like to see, because everyone sailing in such dangerous waters has to expect defeat! These rules are neither necessary nor do they feel right for an OW game imo! They are arena like!

That really sounds nice! I think getting PvP marks as rewards is pretty much enough motivation to stay in the fight! Why do we need these strict rules? Imo these rules create a feeling that arena games do. If players want that, they could just as well play NAL. I'd vote for patrol missions without such strict battle rules!

@Slim Jimmerson To bring in more variety is a good idea! But i‘d rather have new ships implemented into the game - even if it takes time - than a new version of every ship, that looks like its twin. I also think that NA already has lots of ships! Therefore the priority of the devs should still be to finetune the ballancing between the existing ships / to get the best out of the existing variety! I think devs are on a good way to achieve this, they just need a bit more time.

4. @admin You said you want the Vic to be the fastest 1st rate. Speed trails indicate, that the Vic is slower than the Santi though, concerning bearings between 35 and 55 degrees to the wind. Even if it isn‘t that much, i‘d vote for changing that, and make the Vic the fastest 1st rate on all bearings.

3. Make the sailing crew required in battle dependent on the setting you use: e.g. full sails = full sailing crew required, battle sails = 20%-40% sailing crew required.

1. Yes! 2. Change or take away „determined defender“ of you haven‘t done that already. Right now you need to have 30% more crew as your enemy to be able to board, right? That‘s too mighty a perk imo.

... and imo it wouldn‘t make any sense to have Navy and Non-Navy versions of all SOLs! I would be very surprised if any private person back in the age of sail was able to get a SOL to sail around and fight private little wars!

We had a similar thing before the last wipe, called „regional bonuses“. I don‘t know why devs removed them. Concerning the new boni: 1. I like your idea of linking them to certain ports. 2. But I don‘t know if that lead to more RvR, because as far as i know the actual boni are not that much of a buff. Increasing them in a system like yours wouldn’t be a good idea though, because this would possibly widen the gap between the powerful and rather weak.

Quite an interesting perception of reality mate!

TBH I‘d propably ragequit the game if I need to unlock all of those shipslots again!

That speaks for itself mate!

I'm wondering how long this activity will continue after your move.

@admin Could we please have a machanic, that allows clans to attack other clans of the same nation!?

What if there was a global market for ship contracts?

I don‘t know you mate, but I doubt that you are able to make 10 million in 3 hours, by doing missions! Apart from that: Yes, many people have too much gold for it still being a valuable currency. But it‘s a hard task to get the right ballance, so that every type of player has the chance to achieve something in a reasonable amount of time (the occasional ones as well as those hard core gamers). So what would you suggest to both keep the ballance and increase the value of gold!?

This would really be a nice thing! @admin Fleet practice could even start with 4 players! ... or at least reduce the requirements to 6 players.

1. That might be a good idea! If the playerbase grew devs could even create a safe haven / area to train things for each nation, back in Europe / North America. There every player could do some missions, even trade and afterwards move to the carribean (frontier) with all stuff achieved so far. 2. Of course others mentioned other ideas before. For example to let safe zones stay like they are, but only for players up to a certain rank! The downside of this particular idea is it’s potential for exploits: Low level alts could be used for purposes of safe trading. With the above mentioned idea (1.) this kind of exploit could be denied.

That‘s what i‘ve tried to tell you the whole time! So just to make it clear: - right now the attacker still has all the advantages inside the hostility missions - in future the defending fleets will have an advantage if they manage to get into the fight quick enough! That sounds reasonable! I just asked because I would like to have a way of making hostility missions, which end up in PvP battles, evenly matched!

Hm, ... i thought I participated in a hostility mission two weeks ago, in which 25 attackers fought 10 npcs!?

But in this case there could be 25 attackers instead of 10, isn‘t it!?

Yes, they do! And maybe it will all work out fine. Lets just see and try to fix it if it doesn’t work.

Well, if it‘s that way round the 10 npcs will make a big difference when defending players join! Imagine 20 1st against 10 at close quarters, with the new thickness values! It would almost every time end up in a slaughter!