Cetric de Cornusiac

What Admin said about NPC attacks on PvP server <<Raiders will only attack most developed ports of top 3 nations (mix of investments and tax rate) >> seems to apply on PvE Peace Server too, because the very first attack on a human owned port was on Carriacou, which was a minor port owned by a one-man-clan. But I had generated lots of trade, exceeding major ports of the 55point category, plus a whiteoak planation must have raised attraction for NE Raiders striking there first. Lost.

Since introduction of the port battle update and related content in game I have not heard from Pirates or from our side, concerning the implementation of this alliance in game, by agreeing on targets, by keeping out of each other's ways or by asking assistance. Strange but Pirates seem to have no ambitions yet to try conquest of a port. The project is not being taken into action, beyond original declaration and subscribing. Meanwhile, we have learned that, while doing hostility missions together is possible, there is actually no way to act as allies in port battles. As devs don't show any will to comply to that matter. Argumentation why cooperation is so important and for whom had been done elsewhere, I don't repeat myself here. Even the idea that attacking NE should at least approach as fleet in OW so screening could be attempted found so far no echo. Also we have now a new Discord server for PvE Peace Server where diplomatic things are handled in a cooperative manner. All this makes the beforementioned alliance obsolete. I hereby exonerate everybody who subscribed from this alliance, so they can follow their own obligations and will.

We are diehard optimists in optimizing. Good thing is, suggestions stay fresh.... for anytime later.

Bueno, has visto a dónde lleva eso. Entre los "especialistas" que piensan que pueden predecir correctamente el comportamiento de Francia. Jaja!

Too much random, this pairing method of yours. Sometimes people want to duel a particular person and nobody else. They won't find him by a random duel room, but other guys they have nothing to clear with. And the place can't be chosen. And a 'consensual duel' thing on PvE which is totally voluntary does not bother anyone else, so no hurt feelings there.

Despe, todos amamos el derecho a la libertad de expresión. Me alegra que un moderador te haya dicho lo mismo que quería señalar yo; que el trolling y el secuestro de un tema no están protegidos por la "libertad de expresión" y cualquier moderador en este planeta interferirá con que lo hagas para mantener limpio el hilo. Mira, exactamente esto sucedió. En lo que respecta a la conquista de Nueva Orleans, hoy demostramos que los franceses tenemos la voluntad y la organización para tomar lo que es legítimamente nuestro, y que España en PvE estaría mejor si siguiera la evaluación de Lobo Negro y cooperara con nosotros. "Quod erat demonstrantum". Por cierto, tus conflictos internos del pasado (como tú con L.N.) no deberían desempeñar ningún papel en la política de España con otras naciones. Eso suena bastante infantil, si me disculpa diciendo eso. Si así es como maneja la política en el servidor PvP, es su problema, mejor permita que L.N. y España actúan como adultos en el servidor PvE.

Dynamic port development would make lord protectors feel more responsible for the well being of their port, as it depends on their management and traders' services if the port increases or declines. A new role for players who like to manage things. Meanwhile, if nobody in the clan feels like taking care of the port, why do they own it? And in that case, they still keep a port which is just staying behind, on his minimum investment points class. Nobody is forced to make progress... We would see a competition not only on RvR battlefield but also in economy, in so far, as it will become important who has the best ports (not only who wins the static super ports). who works the best as lord protector. Wars are not only won by battles, but by infrastructure and economic power behind the navy (or armies). My idea reflects this. And offers new aspirations within game.

As I remember it is the "local goods" food category which is supposed to trim a port (only major ones, from regional capitals upwards) in such way that it spawns a few extraordinary things like Naval College Gratuates or the Artillery Diplomes etc. That's fine. And I have seen it happen. However, my idea goes beyond that. It's about dynamics in port size and importance according to commerce being done there and with effects commerce brings with it - which is growth or on the negative side, decline. So ports do not stay the same xx points ports but develop, reflecting how good or bad a clan manages the port and trade there. This we don't have, and to my knowledge never had in an earlier stage of game development.

Conte, do you give me permission I flesh out the subject a little more in a suggestion thread of my own? I don't want to steal the idea, so I ask first if you agree. Not that anyone would notice it though... as the community is mostly dancing around their "Russia so bored they" sort of topics...

I'd like to see more contract slots opened in connection with being a port owner or lord protector for your clan for that port. With your personal limited 10 contracts you very soon hit the ceiling, while the port ownership makes it necessary to have contracts serving this. When you lose the port or the protector mandate, you would of course lose also additional slots for contracts again. This would be connected with your function, not your person. -- Particularly when we see anything like what I suggested lately, about trade in that port causing growth or decline of said port. -- EDIT: these contract slots have to be locked to that port, meaning, they can be set up only in this local shop, to avoid exploits. Make them 5x for smaller ports and 10x for the largest.

Giving suggestions is in no way RANTING. You must be utterly confused.

Haha, you are not by chance an alt of admin and placed a dev announcement in the wrong section of the forum?

On PvE peace server we handle such lack of information issues by a lot of advices. This may happen to a lesser extent on PvP warserver. As far as "free ships" and "free repairs" for 30 days are concerned, I expect the awakening will just be harder after those 30 days when suddenly new players find themselves deprived of this prvilege and may not know yet how to take care of themselves, as they were occupied with other things during the first month. Like "grinding".

I don't get it why trash topics like "Russia so bored they..." get so much attention while threads which really could shape the future, namely suggestion threads which deal with problems of the game and their visioned solutions, are commonly being ignored.

¿Entonces no ves que tus amigos PvP están arruinando el tema de tu colega PvE aquí? Bueno, eso lo veo claramente.

Si alguien lanza iniciativas por el servidor PvE, los "héroes PvP" deberían mantenerte alejado de esto. Eso es lo que quiero decir sobre todos los temas del foro donde se trata de temas del servidor PvE. Lo que hace aquí es un caso clásico de trolling.

Es posible que Francia llegue a un acuerdo con España un poco más tarde. Por el momento predomina la opinión entre nosotros de no obligar. Si España no busca el conquest de NO, será visto como una señal seria, y seguramente allanará el camino para la cooperación futura. Esa es mi opinión personal.

It's basically a problem with players across whole game industry, not just for game-labs - this habit of raging, ranting and punishing if things go different than they see fit. In fact I have seen in other games much worse raging than this short one about Loki Rune on PvE peace server. Reasonable people know how far to go and when it is time to stop after the tactical goal has been achieved. And the others? I sincerely hope those who took the measure of so-called "review-bombing" take back their harsh measure, as the appropriate answer to devs complying with the player community in that matter. I asked for this today after maintenance. I have however no influence beyond doing calls like this one, and I do not share point of view of some of the stubborn type. For me it was always evident that devs as creators of games are artists - and artists are often sensitive people easily hurt. People should think about that a bit more and act less like entitled brats. Having said this, I think it was a good thing to resist to an unpopular introduction and we all will hopefully mostly agree, that, by removing it, a few more people can be kept in the game as they are no more shocked by unwanted guests on PvE peace server battle instances. This is what all of us should wish for, devs and community: player retention. I hope devs will see one day it's not "them versus us" even if some as a habit use the macho talking, but appreciate better our concerns and suggestions as they also serve the mentioned purpose: player retention, more fun, which should bring more players or those back who once left. When emotions are heating up, it shows the topic is a thing which is dear to people and they fight for their vision, they have a passion for the project. On both sides of the medal. Would be worse if everyone would be indifferent and not care. Then, faults are most likely not identified and don't get addressed. We had a series of great new content, namely the new economy system, immersive port interface design, elite NPC, port battles and wind zones on PvE peace server. Hope you will continue to invest time into Naval Action besides new game projects; ideas are plenty and all hanging in the forum, free for the taking.

Didn't you notice? Loki Rune is disabled, since last maintenance, after some heated dispute between Peace Server community and devs yesterday. So actually there is nothing to worry about any more.

Here is some new meaning for traditional trading with goods. Some people claim it has been ruined by easy money earned by economy missions. It's partly true, however their nerf has reduced this impact and still it is a very good tool for bringing money to new players in considerably short time. But I am digressing... This as usual ignored cherry-on-the-tree suggestion (sorry, it's just a habit of this fan boi trying to offer new ideas) has, when applied, following effects: - new significance for trade goods, hauling long distance, and low-priced food - stimulus for trading in general - stimulus for port owners, their clans and friends to prefer certain ports and not just sell where profit is highest - dynamic port investment situation and related aspirations to improve ports - more focus on food merchandise which is not taken due to max-profit focus by most traders Details: Turnover produced in a port has now an important effect, not just income for port owner. If certain defined levels are daily surpassed in generating income, in a given number of consecutive real life days, the port/town enjoys economic prosperity which leads to its growth. Businesses succeed, new colonists are coming to found homesteads and have a better life, and thus workforce in port is increasing with new hands. As a result of continuous growth port investment points are slowly increasing. Port owner profits by good care for his port by having more port investment points to spend, leading to new ressources and more importance of that port. Let's not reduce the port boosting effect to maximum priced goods but give food type goods a bonus in the calculation for this purpose, as population in target ports profit directly from more and better food, with a variety, and not from a thousand "madagascar jewels" or "parisian furniture" over and over again. This will lead to more trading in considerably low-price goods which are now rotting in ports as everyone loads the luxury stuff. But there is also the opposite side. A port can suffer from neglect and poor turnover. If this happens for a number of consecutive real life days, port investment points are decreasing one by one, to the minimum a port of its class has now. Means, a port can never detoriate to zero and thus become totally unattractive. If there are already built port investments and the number of points falls below the number necessary to maintain all existing port improvements, a random improvement will be destroyed (think of abandoned buildings collapsing or equipment getting stolen as nobody takes care). For a time, a worrying port owner can meet that trend by paying more port costs, which rise with the degree of neglect (for repairs, measures to secure threatened structures, hiring contractors, guards...), but it won't work forever and decline is inevitable. These costs, given the abundance of reals in our treasuries, should also include doubloon costs as the situation gets troublesome. Example for a 10000 BR /15 investment points port: First upgrade level: having met the basic 4000 reals cost x 2 for 14 consecutive days will add one new investment point. Food items count not only in reals but give a hidden stimulus due to the fact they are food. Like, when they are higher in number than other merchandise, will reduce the number of needed days for completion of upgrade by 2. Second upgrade level: 4000 reals x 4 for 21 consecutive days will add a second new investment point. Third upgrade level: 4000 reals x 6 for 28 consecutive days will add a third new investment point. etc -- Conclusion: Basically with this system it will be possible, over long time and continuous catering, to bring any port to the 55 point top level the premium ports enjoy now. That is dynamic port management, gentlemen. And opens new strategy options to smaller nations/clans not being competitive for existing super ports. The decline mechanism will follow a similar pattern. Economy Warfare will have a new importance on PvP war server as enemy nations have an interest in some ports not getting too strong. They will try to intercept traders around that port which could contribute to the wellbeing of that port. Denying the port trade stimuli means impacting its ecnomic growth and after long time will mean its decline. Pretty much like in real life. For PvE peace server there is not the strategy for players to intercept traders, but we could insert NE raids here for a similar effect.

I am each time doing a virtual facepalm when political correctness is forced upon historical truth for fitting the minds of the present.

Regarding the predictable choices of L'Oceans as First Rates, Bellonas at Third Rates etc: Randomize the set up of fleets. Imagine you get an order by your King to defend or attack a port. Or some Pirate overlord. He in his Highness has a battle plan. Means, the chosen slots have to be filled (insert random) by ships of his (not so perfect) choice. So each PB will look different because your King (who is AI random jesus) picked the ship types within the class slots. Player have to fill those slots with matching ships. Creates variety and gives use to other ships than the usual suspects. And people need to work with improvisation. Cooperation between friendly clans intensified, because you may not have exactly the required number of Wasas for your Third Rate slots your stupid King demanded, so ask friends with some to give a hand.

Handpicked from prisons in Europe. Just don't take those with a moustache.

Haha, in my role play as French Captain I was brothel and tavern owner on La Navasse for a long time already... Not that it had any effect on gameplay. Or what would you suggest those buildings would produce? One is thinking of morale boost or efficacy increasing... but we don't have a morale system outside boarding game (yet).