Cetric de Cornusiac

Individual access rights, once again, is the universal answer.

In this context let me remind you of this proposal, as it serves for the "regatta/boat race" event idea:

Well, "A date with Diana" is a great first event on our server(s). As someone who organized the first public event ever on Peace Server back in may 2019, I really endorse events in this game and there should be more of them. But diversity as always rules - we could contribute to the success of that principle if we had a powerful editor for setting up events of our own design. Of course this editor would have to be cheater-proof. Means, you don't store the result on your HDD but upload it to server as a "planned event" pretty much like scheduled port battle are planned ahead, and devs or a moderator could look into your event before it takes place to eliminate any fake content or cheating purposes, manipulated data or what else could happen... Data on server will be secure. Now what could be desirable for an Naval Action Event Editor (if it is DLC or not)? - different sorts of events - freedom as much as possible in planning - scheduling in time, according to availability of yourself and participants - rewards and who contributes to them (a) Sorts of Events - regattas, boat races over defined routes, following checkpoints - organized fleet battles, with parameters concerning number of players for each side and ship sizes. - durability test, like people having to face waves of enemy ships, measuring how long they survive and how many kills they can achieve meanwhile - silly fun happenings like having to fight a First Rate in tiny gunboats - achieving a score, like making the most money in trading over a defined time period, no matter with what merchandise, by buy + sell to ports. (b) Planning - user defines number of participants, classes of ships they are allowed to use, even what cannon type is allowed on them. Starting point on map or location of the event, a zone: a port to start from. (c) Scheduling - user enters time when event starts and time when it ends. Should always be a few days minimum in advance so people learn about it and can adjust their real life activities to attend, if they chose so. (d) - donations can be collected for the prizes given out after winner(s) are determined by the event, if any. Events can also be organized without any prizes. A neutral place to collect donations would be helpful to avoid cheating. Like you pay/give to "state clerk" who keeps an account of things for an event and administers the payoff according to given victory definitions.

People judge this event too much after the "payoff" they may get or not get. What is the priceless effect worth, going out on the hunt for something special you don't get anytime else, competing versus a number of equally minded captains, and discovering the desired object out of the blue at your horizon? This is the fun of events like this one. Payoff can be a nice extra cream on your coffee, but it's not all to be won. Some moan about the extra-elite capabilities of event ships which isn't corresponding to the quality found after capture, but hey, that is part of challenge to fight uphill. You can sealclub frigate packs with your First Rate all day... I had fun (3 De Ruyters: grey, green and blue)

There is word nationalities will change for event ships in future events. Actually that is only an issue for de Ruyter, as the others have alternative hunting grounds, Tumbado and Lower Antilles. Or event ships should all be neutral...

Well, that was to be expected, that the sharks are attracted by an event attended by other fishes, for ambushing there. You could have anticipated that with a little fantasy or consideration. Meanwhile, we have the PvE Peace Server and the event serves well there...

We can already claim this event is a big success. Players got excited and went out for a hunt. And it is part of the thrill that the ghost ship (rumors of Admiral de Ruyter roaming about) is so rare. I also did not get it, I found a Cecilia with masts of steel (took like 60 hits altogether and no mast came down, her hull meantime seemed vulnerable like on a normal ship) instead. As I know the event will be going on for some days, I am fine with it. I have time enough to try again. Let's find more sorts of events and do them from time to time, at changing locations. Hmm, maybe I should do a gunboat contest again...

I know devs are dealing with NPC behavior and intend to teach them "new tricks". I applaud to anything on that field, if even present NPC act very convincingly at times. We are used to call AI "dumb" in the tradition of three decades full of examples given by game industry history, but the NPC in Naval Action are quite an exception which makes hope for the future. Still, we can shape their behavior for more human likeliness. Fleeing is a reasonable human reaction when things go wrong and the opponent is stronger. We have traders fleeing per definition, which seems right. But what about war ships which are apparently outgunned and outclassed? Why do they always fight till death when any sane mind as captain would disengage and retreat? So what I ask for is: (1) Diversity. There would be warship captains always willing to fight, even larger vessels (of players), like now. But there would be a percentage which would turn and attempt to run. The bigger the difference in class to player ship, the higher the percentage of a random decision taken in favor of flight. (2) Situation-related switches. A NPC captain who was bold enough to fight us, even if he commands only a frigate and we have a 3-decker, would realize the odds are strongly against him, after receiving 2 - 3 broadsides and realizing his hull armor is done for. So introduce a (still random) decision by AI to break off the fight when it becomes pointless and threatening for their ship. They will turn away and attempt to flee. (3) Numbers matter. The strength in numbers in a NPC fleet could be of significance. People who see themselves as part of a group act more courageous than when being alone. Obvious why - chances are simply higher for a crowd, every wolfpack knows this. So larger NPC fleets should show more courage than little flotillas or solo ships when facing players. Means, the decision to switch to flight attempt is less likely to happen among bigger groups, except when odds are really hopeless (fleet of 7th rates against bunch of lineships). NPC are also proud captains, they fear being called cowards by their colleagues. But after you sank half of them, their assessment of the situation should somehow change and a retreat being ordered. -- Now players will most likely whine they want easy targets and no more NPC running away, as it is harder to sink them then. On the other side, the challenge is higher and the fight more enjoyable if you don't face suicidal squads but more appropriate human-like behavior. Also human player fleets need then new compositions. Not only heavy-weight brawlers hitting suicide applicants, but a mix of tanks and fast chasers (like it is done on the PvP side of heaven), where the accompanying hunter frigates chase the fleeing opponents and try to keep them in battle (shooting sails, tagging, maybe destroying them by themselves when they are strong enough). So more versatile NPC behavior including decisions to retreat creates more tactical fleet composition, other than the usual group of x L'Oceans, and decisions in battle on players' side. Like registering when a NPC decides to run away and what to do as response. In the sum, more interesting fights than just "sealclubbing" small fry NPC. -- Like most of my late proposals, this suggestion mainly is directed to PvE Peace Server environment. I leave it to others to think about how this would work out on PvP War Server.

Diagnosis says this is just not the right game for you. And I don't want to see it ruined for pleasing people who want everything valuable instantly. I am sure the market has enough trash games already. Have a look around. Naval Action does not have to mutate to one of them.

You don't tell where this wishlist is to be found. In a port? As menu entry behind your character name?

Well there is really no lacking of suggestions in this forum. They can't answer on all of them. If they register some of them (I heard there is some notebook for collecting ideas for later, sometime, perhaps...), it's enough for me. After all, it's their baby, not ours.

I see the furthest fine-tuning with my previously posted idea about the individual access rights. Still I can support this initiative which is basically going into the same direction, in my full glory as unimportant tiny clan nobody cares about. Have we thought of individuals who aren't even in any clans? And never will be? Individual access right lets you add these to your hostility missions and port battles as well. If you know him of course or have an arrangement with him. Diversity rules. Without offering exploits by bad boys.

That is why I proposed an "individual (international) name adding" system for legal access to hostility and port battle (on PvE server, which, like here, requires different rules than PvP). Care to have a look at my latest entry in suggestion section of this forum. This should eliminate troubles of any kind, unless someone known as reliable suddenly behaves differently than expected. But that would ruin his participation for the future.

Pointless. Not against competitors in big clans. I had prepared to get my port where the shipyard is by contracting two clans from other nations to work with me. For payment. That is now ruined. And of course port had to become neutral after that patch. Now I can do nothing. However I understand you had to fix exploits of other sorts by that. Just we... are more helpless than before now. Without any chance of foreign helpers.

No good times for small clans. Say good-bye to any hope for a port.

Couldn't there be another way to get access to port boni than owning (or sharing) a port? I don't mind if it is taking long time (labor hours) or expensive, but think of "port boni packages" which you could collect and stack for a new build, either from loot of some elite or obtainable in capitals in some way (building, or from admiralty as grants for deeds of valor). However I understand the importance of port boni for RvR conquest, so it's okay to make those alternative ways too costly in comparison to owned /shared ports for really meaning clans would have no more reason for conquest.

For bronze cannons, I would drop the iron completely from the list and make it copper and tin (true ingredients of bronze). Tin as new resource, and VERY rarely spawning. For such supreme cannons, perhaps copper would have to be taken out of Admiralty shop as well.

So why should be be restricted to shallow ports (while still facing competitors with ten ships which makes the effort useless), when we can hire some clan in another nation to work for us when targeting a deep water port, for our doublloons, rare permits, edinorogs or whatever they ask in return? It's not that the big clans don't profit from this free contracting either...

Nothing wrong with that decision of yours. It just does not fit the topic. Nobody is proposing here that small clans should profit from your precious ports just like that. I want more creative ways to compete in conquest, that's all.

Care to stay on the topic and not wonder about the inner motives of the author? Or are you afraid your big clan loses its grip on the small ones in your nation, after they can help themselves by other means? Suggestion has a mighty impact on whole server, not just my petty inner motives to move away from oligarchy to more democratization.

Where is it?

Generally speaking a tiered system for each upgrade is a good idea, but I would just make it random how it turns out, standard or elite. Having to manufacture the same upgrade again and again, for getting an "expertise" on that and higher chance for elite version, is just tedious and "grinding". We should avoid anything of the grinding kind, if possible.

Purpose of this suggestion: No restrictions on side of clan who organizes hostility mission or port battle, regarding who is participating in their conquest activities. After all, players of different nations are not seen as enemies here. That should reflect in the choices we have in teaming up. We should find agreements with them and enter them in our list of allowed participants of hostility missions and port battles (right now it is still possible to join into hostility missions but we have a thread in support section which talks about ending this by decision of admin, due to exploits on both servers). That means: - clan can invite ANYONE who is asking to a group which does hostility mission or enters port battle against Neutrals. Also foreign captains, who adapt his flag, just like in OW battles. This way large instruments of help are opened, or contract options, mercenary services, whatever people invent. The power of a few major clans will get shattered, who are now dividing up most of the map among themselves. That ends: - restrictions of admission to clan, clan friendlist, fellow nationals. Which is the reason small clans have no chance to get a port as long as they don't agree to terms of a big clan, in exchange of help. A great way to dictate conditions to small clans or abuse them anytime as big clan sees fit. That also prevents: - abuse by alts of hostile factions, because they still stay outside. YOU will be personally responsible WHOM you invite into the event. When you have been fooled, next time don't allow him to join. It's pretty much the same responsibilty which is on you when inviting people into clan and giving them rights over the inventory. -- With access for small clans to other human resources than what major clans and their "alliance system" may have to offer, competition for same major clans will increase. The field of conquest will less likely given to them exclusively. Effect is more diversity on the map, less power to major clans, more freedom to small clans. Or just a better negotiation standpoint for them, as they may anytime call cooperation with the big ones off and seek assistance somewhere else, if this suggestion of opening up their teaming options would come true. Offenders will be singled out individually, as they will get known by name. It will be micromanagement on a personal level and not much room left for foul play. But then you would have to ask yourself how you could be duped to invite them in your group list, in the first place. No blame on game mechanism possible.

More outposts by DLC, fine. Meanwhile I would like to add upkeep costs for them, which, of course, increase with number of outposts. Think of having to pay people who maintain your installations in those ports while you are absent. Not really that hard as everyone is earning tons of money. PS: could mean another source of income for port owners as this money would wander into their pockets.