Cetric de Cornusiac

We know how it is now. The shitstorm on PvE server may have come a little late, but it did come, after people realized suddenly Loki Rune works on PvE peace server and there is no peace left... Admin announced they are going to do a poll about Loki within the next two weeks, so here is (y)our chance to get rid of it as it is. But... I can think of acceptable alternatives for use of such "possession instrument", and I want to sketch them here for devs to take notice. When activating Loki Rune, player (named 'guest player' below) would get several options he chose one from (or introduce two other Runes for the other options): (A) User enters a fleet ship in an ongoing battle of another player somewhere. He can use this to help the owner. He should be able to communicate with him for coordinating their actions. He cannot sail the ship outside battle instance, for stealing it. According to friendly rules on PvE peace server, his cannon fire has no effect on his host player. Host player receives a button on his screen with whom he can kick the guest player out of his battle if needed (abuse of any kind), after which his fleet ship is NPC again. (B) User enters an ongoing battle of another player with an unarmed enemy trader ship which is spawning in without carrying cannons. Means he can only flee, like traders usually do. He also won't have marines on board. If host player manages to hunt down guest player he will find exceptionally good loot on that ship for the additional effort: think of a silver or gold chest. There is no way for guest player to take that loot for himself, as he has no means to carry it out of battle. Here is no button for host player to kick the guest out. Think of some reward for the guest player if he manages to get away intact, after at least having reached close distance of 200 meters to host player once (as condition), like 1000 doubloons. (C) User enters an ongoing battle with a warship one rate below that of host player, additional to the forces host player has in battle (including fleet). But again he is not fighting him, but belongs to the same side and can assist. To avoid exploits he should be disabled from looting any ship, so rewards stay with the host player. For giving an incentive for this option, make guest player earn combat medals by doing damage according to the rules of patrol zone. Kick button is present for host player in the first ten minutes, after that greyed out (so he can't prevent guest from earning his cm in the last second).

I just learned today that Loki works on peace server. Could not trust my eyes when people wrote about it on global chat. And it's not funny losing ships by sudden takeovers of NPC by players. Isn't that hurting the principle devs defended all the time: "No PvP whatsoever on this server"? I suggest you change this system in such way that Loki user enters into fleet ship of someone, so he would not fight against him, but help him. Of course he would not keep this ship if he just sailed out of battle. How's about that version? -- So if the defenses of "No PvP whatsoever on this server" are broken, why not the "consensual duel" thing? At least that is fair towards participants. Loki in the present form isn't. At least for PvE Peace Server.

I refer to your distraction attempt and meet it. Blame yourself if it doesn't have to do with PvE port battles. <<Just saying they were asked for by the pve server, and now we got them all, yay >> But you got them for another reason, for curbing dominating superpowers.

Wrong, we just don't want to mix with PvP'ers and be left alone from ganking.

Not really. There are mechanisms which are exclusively for PvP war server. And it's possible to have others which are exclusively for us on PvE peace server. There is no automatism that the two servers have to implement the same rules and that they would exclude themselves because of rules here or there. The opportunity to attack human players or not is the best example for this diversity. But there are others as well.

That (or similar) was the original idea in the last months, PB on international basis. But devs ignored all of us players hinting and arguing in this direction. Thus my new initiative about "Make NE fleet approaching in OW = enable intern. Screen Battle". Hostility missions meantime are alright as they are, because international players can join them like any other OW battle. This has been tested.

OK I get it. Devs don't want international cooperation in Port Battles on Peace Server. Either it is a holy cow that PB should only allow nationals and their befriended clans, or it's the standard argument "but the alts" which ruin the idea. We have stressed often enough the fate of small nations or small clans, or the combination of both (sic!) namely Poland, Russia, Prussia, when they cannot defend against 21 neutral ships attacking their ports, if... IF THEY EVER WERE ABLE TO CONQUER ONE AT ALL, in the first place. So we are reduced to small numbers in PB. But what about the attacking NE fleet [raiders], could they not be stopped in open world? - Nice try. I have done the effort and positioned myself next to a port owned by national AI which was to be attacked by NE attack fleet. We saw nobody coming. Suddenly at the appointed time, the crossed swords appeared in front of port and the battle was (mathematically) waging: 21 attackers versus zero defenders (!). Suppose the same come when this port would be in human hands. What will Poles do, when they have maybe 5 people of various rank available, if at all? But there is a solution. Or at least a hope. This suggestion. It's rather simple. I don't think big deal in programming but would be so much help. We know from PvP War Server Port Battles the custom of setting up a screen fleet which tries to take out as many attackers as possible before they reach the port. Often this is done by befriended nations or at least some befriended clans in other nations who sent an auxiliary force. Nice. But why not the same on PvE Peace Server? You don't allow us international cooperation in Port Battles, so allow us international cooperation in screen! For this you have only to change one thing: don't let NE attackers miraculously spawn in one math calculation at port, but let them spawn physically at some distance from port in OW and let them sail to their destination, so any players can attack them. Yes, any player. Defender nation or international supporters they have summoned. Like it is possible in any OW battle. Fact that NE are neutrals even does not exclude a single faction. So allied forces do the screen battle and what comes through nevertheless the national defenders in Port Battle will have to deal with. Problem solved. Theoretically now EVERY LITTLE NATION or clans without friends can defend their ports, asking other nationals for help. If all will be coming, is another question. Leave that to diplomacy.

Don't even dare thinking in that direction.

Check on the map "conquest information", there are a lot of NE ( means neutrals) attacks planned on various ports and those will become free for human conquest afterwards, in case NPC attack is successful (and I guess it always will be if it's no human defended port). Suppose that will happen on a daily basis.

PvE Peace Server: SHORT REMINDER Small nations - Poland, Russia, Prussia, even Danes, Swedes and maybe Dutch - are currently de facto EXCLUDED from conquering any neutral ports for themselves. Why? They can't field sufficient forces due to low player numbers (need certain rank, ships, and availability in time window). Because devs, against repeated hints by players who anticipated this, did not enable international alliances on this server, so clans from larger nations could help those nations in need of ships. Server is all about cooperation between players, right? So implement this tool for equalizing chances for everyone! Else, on the long run, you will see just the mistakes of PvP war server repeated on PvE peace server, and that is accumulation of players in one, two larger nations and the rest will dwindle away into obscurity. We found out at least hostilities can be done internationally, as they are OW battles like any others. But port battles are not. Tested and found obstructed. Please enable international cooperation in port battles.

Admin, you should in fact be more concerned about a player seeing your game related to Disney-fantasy, than me using sarcasm once. meme shows my degree of alienation now.

I was thinking of that joke of colony they rented from Denmark in the Virgin Islands for some time. That is all what's linking Prussia to the Caribbean. But this weak, very weak link exists.

It's a wild mix of political correctness and marketing consideration. And both lead astray from historical accuracy. Which should be one of the assets of Naval Action and partly still is. But by adding more fantasy fractions (we have already Russians, Poles, to a lesser extent Prussians, of that kind) we are drifting more into the shallows... Voices here on forum have been calling for the Portuguese. Now THAT would be a nation which belongs here! Our Chinese partners could then concentrate on Portugal and imagine it is China while everyone else sees the proper flag.

chinese fleet in Caribbean of 18th century... it's so ridiculous. Can't wait until we see also Zimbabwe mighty battlefleets cruising our waters and teaching something to Russians.

Yes really interesting. And there are remedies for the issues mentioned in reply. - make it so that admiralty also gives combat medals for merchant looting. Combined value = some combat medals, handled like the damage = combat medals ladder in patrol zone. After all, weakening enemy economy is part of the war effort and has to be rewarded. Expensive goods or rare materials may outweight the reward in combat medals when enemy is just sunk (with the stuff on board). - combine this idea with another suggestion which proposed turning ships in your fleet (in this case a captured trader) into temporary NPC which you can send to a port of your choice "on automatic". Will not be visible to other players as your ship, just disguised as another NPC. If you have already a trader with you, you could load her with your transfered cargo from inspected hold of the enemy, and once it is full, send her home, while you get free hands to continue your raiding mission. This way there is no need to capture the enemy ship and/or sink her.

For Gamelabs a reversal of player numbers on our two servers should mean nothing, don't you think? - Player is player. What counts is the staying player, who will perhaps ask someone else who is not yet customer of NA to join him. On the contrary, the reviews will become more positive and thus I would expect more player influx. Let the hardcore guys with their funny 'carebear' pictures fight it out among themselves in what will be left of their habitat.

It's alright to warm up the topic from time to time. Just so devs realize there is still a request for this content, and it isn't going away.

You realize you are part of the problem? Your name and the cynicism of your post double prove it. It's people like you who ruin the PvP part of this game. And it's people like you why the creation of PvE server was necessary at all. And if ever PvP is coming to PvE, I pray it will be with a switch like my suggestion was all about, because to your likes I will never allow to duel me.

Don't think this hasn't been proposed before, in some form.

You can't seriously compare a niche game like NA to a mainstream product profiting from the most popular real life sports in most countries of the Earth. -- Diplomatic Immunity for beginners is fine, but why not grant it also to veterans from time to time, when they either have only limited time for a game session or don't feel like fighting? For a cost in doubloons, alright, and like a redeemable could be claimed only once every 24 hours or something. Other conditions may apply as to avoid exploits (like a radius around them being enemy-free before they can claim DI).

He is talking of hauling goods, but used the term "trader missions" which created confusion with the economy missions you are refering to.

When I refer to PvE peace server (alone), I do so by mentioning it. And nobody before you was thinking of "harpoon rockets".

Yes. Let variety rule. Variety sinks boredom. Ships, woods, upgrades, port boni, cannons, soon crew... keep them coming. Talking about edinorogs, if devs hold on to tradition, we'll see a christmas present again of 30 pieces for everyone.

Thank you for your input. I did not take into account an use related to hostility missions and port battles. How's about limiting ship size which could be hidden in a minor outpost to 5th rates for deep water and 7th rates for shallow water areas? I understand those are worthless for the context you were thinking of. Still allows for traders they can park a Gros Ventre or Indiaman and in shallows a Trader Lynx.

I know this idea is not entirely new. It has been discussed in context with special features for Pirates. But I think it is worthwile bringing back and maybe with some new addition to the concept. Especially now as I see the idea being in cohesion with developers' idea to add new content to the OW sea for less afk sailing. With events on the sea, we can also present events on the shore and on numerous islands. We have so many of them and they deserve a purpose besides being an obstacle to navigate around... (1) Players can establish small outposts on any landmass they approach by ship, if only they get close enough to the beach to trigger the setting up, using a pointer on the exact position at the beach. It will require an amount of oak, iron and provisions to set up such outpost. AND you have to take some crew off your ship to use them as outpost garrison. (2) Outpost will become visible to the player who founded it. It functions as a small warehouse with limited space, like 10 slots. It also offers you one dockspace where you can leave a ship. Think of a ship which can be hidden in some adjacent river mouth, behind trees or rock formation. (3) Outpost will remain as symbol on your map so you can find it again. You cannot teleport to it and it does not have production of any kind except maybe farm (provisions). (4) Outpost can be detected by any other player if he travels VERY CLOSE to its position. The detection should be done over viewing a thing as small as a tree or rock used in OW and consist of something as unspecular as a barrel or a longboat sitting on the beach, or a small hut barely behind the beach. To make it less easy, place also empty tokens of same looks randomly in OW which change with every maintenance, so searching players don't know from a distance and for as long as possible if it is just OW decoration or really a hidden outpost of some player. You need time to explore the shore for signs of presence of another players minor outpost. Can't be done just by sailing past the coast with full sails. (5) Outpost, once discovered by other player, can be raided and plundered instantly. For this, attacking player needs to use his ship crew (against garrisoned outpost crew). Both strengths and quality (upgrades of the ship they come from matter) are compared and added by some random factor to determine a winner, with defending player being absent. So raids are only possible if owner is not present at the place. If raider isn't successful, only part of his crew returns from the amphibious attack alive and he has to retreat with reduced ship crew, making him vulnerable for other events at sea. If raider is successful and his men overwhelm the garrison, they take as much as they can from the things outpost player has stored ashore. Attacker can decide to destroy the rest which cannot be loaded onto his ship. If he choses to destroy the outpost, it disappears from the map of the original owner without a trace. Else he just gets a message it has been raided, with undisclosed results. He will have to come there for looking up what's happened. (6) A ship mooring at the hidden outpost will not be touched by a raid, but disappear as well, when attacker decided to raze the place. Attacker will not get the parked ship, we want to assume it escaped with a few men on board who cut anchors. (7) Name, clan and nation of the outpost owner will not be disclosed to people discovering or raiding the place. Also owner will not learn who did raid or destroy the place, unless the person told him so (like he knew where to look for the outpost as it was told to him). This makes this mechanism viable for PvE peace server, therefor. (8) Limit ability for players to set up three to five such hidden private outposts anywhere on the map except very tiny islands without hiding opportunity. Should come with a minimum range around it where no other outpost can get established, to avoid stacking at the same places, and with minimum distance to next port. Think of a DLC which can be sold to playerbase, offering more hidden outposts and two dockyards for ships in each of them. (9) Imagine a clan version of the hidden outpost, which would be visible to clan members. However, the vulnerability of that place should require to keep the informed circle as small as possible. Make an option in clan management which allows or denies visibility of hidden minor clan outposts to specific members. (10) There is a random chance the outpost will be destroyed by (NPC) Indians or local militia of an enemy nation owning the hinterland. On continental coasts this risk is 3x higher than on remote islands, where indigene population either does not exist or is too small and weak. A message will be sent to player when this happens. In case of an Indian attack, the ship left at the outpost will not be harmed and await players return. However, for continued operation, this outpost must be rebuilt with fresh material and crew replacement. (11) Make it possible a hidden outpost can be shared with people on friend list, not connected with clan membership. Risk of abuse apparent, though. -- Idea has following purposes: - add possible points of interest on land, with a loot promise - add more dockspace - establish logistic centers for traders where to exchange and store cargo or ship temporarily - tactical considerations, about crew being risked or not on land, in regard of following events at sea