Slim McSauce

damn, that sucks.

The "old way" sounds like the right way to me. There's a fair amount of world building and decision making that kind of shapes what age of sail is about, piracy, real piracy is one of them.

No need, we can have the specific chats in game where everyone is. Most if not all MMO's have this very chat feature. Very little coding for the return you get

Why not make his map THE map? It has way more info and a bunch of game tools than the one in game. New players need this sort of thing in game.

Hail enemy ships on the OW, a request that has to be accepted in order for two parties to mutually gain info on each other, opening up potential for communication. Certain info that may be revealed, name, clan, rank, perks, ship info, knowledge slots, hold contents. Lasts for several minutes until regular hidden status is restored. Good for honest duels, RP, identifying new players. Indentifying friendly/allied players of other nations, keeps ability for someone to deny and remain anonymous.

It's very frustrating. I seldom buy extras for games I can get by without in, I enjoy customization and support it but my support feels betrayed because I'm not getting all that I know there is to offer, I have much less customization than I expected and the worst part is that it's there in the files but we do not have them, nor a reason as to why.

post-ironic non p2w

A chat window for clans in alliance with each other. Benefits are its is better co-ordination, less clutter on nation chat, less potential for spying.

I just bought the Painter DLC a few days ago, I'm very disappointed and angry with what I recieved Only 5 of the 5th rates have customization options NO 4th rates NO 7th rates ONE 6th rate (niagara) 2 3rd rates, the bello and USS US and 2 1st rates no L'ocean That's not even half the ships in the game. I'm going to recommend against anyone purchasing DLC until this is fixed and we get the full selection of paints in the game. Disgraceful practice, releasing unfinished DLC of all things. At least release the ones you have, we know you have them on file I'm looking at them right now.

It's funny because you'll say you cannot do those things in real life, but defend it for sake of gameplay like most would, but you won't concede that you can as many outposts/buildings as you can afford in real life (context age of sail), yet won't allow it even though it's both the positive of being context-accurate AND gameplay-beneficial. So just like Vernon you don't really know what you're talking about or know what you want, because your logic is all contradictory. It's not even really more people ask, it's asking for not less, below minimum. Doing things right. Not being expedient.

It's not strategic, it's simply daft and out of the world of context. In real life you do not delete the progress behind you. Territory taken remains to be yours as you move forward. If you can afford to open 10 outpost and upkeep 10 outpost, you should be able to do so. Being artificial about it is not a solution. Chess is a real game. NA outpost opening and closing is not comparable to any game that I have the pleasure of knowing.

It's not strategic, strategic would be taxed outposts that require upkeep and logistics, this is just a paywall for another account, or a hard limit on how many ports you can use on the map. It's not even a feature it's a lack thereof. Can't figure out how to create a soft limit on expansion? Make a hard limit. Everyone equal. Same thing with buildings, no enterprise, you have to buy an alt to hit to high end of production. Here's a great analogy, if every food chain was limited to 5 stores in the whole world. In the lack of restaurants your solution would be for every person in the world to open 5 unique food places, just so we can reach the same level of production as we did in expansionist-style economy.

Awful analogy. If I just literally lead my clan to capture X port, does it make any sense that I can't then drop off some fish there, or dock a ship there leave and come back? See not even E.V.E is so stringent, you can store goods anywhere you do not need the artificial boundary of an "outpost" to use what you own.

I can't say because I am not a trader but the balance isn't there against missions. So I would do something else like increase investment cost for the missions while simultanously bumping up the regular trade goods rewards, or decreasing their weight or something. Not being taxable makes missions a liability on the economy.

Well it's great that we agree there but this is not that suggestion. Urgent repair is pointless, it has no weight to it's function and is taking up a valuable spot as a secondary/auxiliary repair true to it's name, "Urgent" not "Module". And again, if it is just "module repair" then it may be removed because if there's no ingenious to give more purpose to a entire repair scheme that immediately repairs a number of 2 modules that already repair over time and are about 10 seconds away from being mainlined as just that. Justify that, please. It's a gun placed meticulous on a table in a scene of a movie that does get used in the final act. It's wasted resource for something potentially substantial. A misdirection, not crafty. It could be improved, would you believe it? It's not that difficult. It's simple, try it. Watch the dynamic rise. You can nerf repairs with it too, it will work better.

Right, so if your clan captures a port you can't use it because you don't have an outpost there, so no storing goods or ships, even though you own the port, and that's because sailing game. Nope, that reasoning does not quite add up. When you only look at teleporting sure, I see what you mean, but everything else points to the opposite. Since outpost is required to store goods then you need more than 8 outposts to store at more than 8 ports, even though you and/or your clan owns the port, production, docks, and supplies.

People are farming these missions for large quanities of silver. They're very easy to find and do and you can take multiple passengers in a ship even as small as a lynx. There is no considerable advantage to regular trading which is riskier, takes investment, and requires knowing the map well. These mission need a nerf in some way, they're stealing away trading.

Your responses are lame and shallow. Your fallback is transparent and all 3 posts you made in this thread are self serving garbage. If you're not willing to extend into discussion you should not be posting on the forums. If you have no contribution besides "Nope" followed by non sequitur then you might just be a effin' hater with no taste for ideas. Kay? Thanks.

You haven't tried either it's all theory crafting as far as I'm concerned. Urgent repair objectively has 2 minor functions and could be removed tomorrow and it would make little difference because those modules already repair over time. They do not need 1/3rd of repair designation. They hardly do any real "urgent repair" which if you did change it to "module repair" you could remove it, that would be like admitting defeat, there's only 2 modules to be repaired and again, they repair over time and don't warrant a whole repair type. I'll say it one more time, 2 modules that repair over time by themselves, do not need a whole repair designation to themselves. Now if the repair did more, like if you kept the name urgent repair and added more "urgent" repair functions, like a minor 5-10% hull/sail repair as well as module repair then yes, that is good designation as an auxiliary repair. Otherwise, no it actually has so little purpose as module-only repair that it could be removed (and in fact is already set up to be removed) from the game without much noticeable difference.

Holy shit get over yourself. If my clan captures a port I cannot use the port for either building or storage unless I have an outpost. Even if I own the port I cannot use it. Your hard limit is hard headed, the silly limit you defend makes no sense.

No you aren't, you're just saying that. You don't even like regular repairs as the are. You obviously want a substantial change to repairs "I think that regular repairs should never give more than 5-10%." "If you are completely dismasted, you should be helpless." Didn't liq do the demast tutorial in less than 2 minutes? You think demasting is bad now, just make it so you can't recover from it.

Do you know the other's position for repairs? I bet it's 3 repairs max, same as mine because we've had this discussion before. 3 Repairs, with little cooldown but once your out your out is my position on repairs. But left with 0 masts you need an urgent, and I mean URGENT repair to regain sail. Being left without masts in a battle waiting or slowly sinking by one tick for 7 minutes while you can't do anything is not fun or good gameplay. 5% hull is just enough to get your water taking lower than pump rate if you were on 1 bar of structure, not enough to save you from 0 10% sails is enough to bring back half of a bottom mast. Not enough to regain a masts back, but enough to repair a topmast. After 2 repairs or 10 minutes you have gained 10% structure, or about a full tick, and one bottom masts with full saillage. That is not a lot of repair, but it's not suppose to be it's an URGENT, supplementary repair.

Trade missions should be what you do when you can't find good routes through trade goods. Missions are easier than actual trading and net you many times more silver making regular trading a waste.

"Repairing is stupid" ok guy, I get you don't like repair stacking bonuses to 50%, no one does obviously. Doesn't have anything to do with a 2ndary repair scheme that works as REAL urgent repair. Not a fake feature like repairing a rudder and pump only. 5-10% internal structure is not a lot. Same with sails. Being completely bias against repairs doesn't make you a good proponent of discussion, no matter how many me-me arrows you use.

Urgent repair already exists and it's damn near useless. You only repair rudder and pumps with it. That's all you deem as urgent. In that case rudder and pumps can repair over time and urgent repair removed since it serves no gameplay purpose.