Cetric de Cornusiac

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.

What do you think I did during most of my two years in the game??? It earned me a reputation of being your fan boi and a white knight - and I am no longer sure if I did the right thing. Now.

You had dozens of shitstorms by your beloved PvP community over the last years. And now, that you get a first one from your carebear PvE community, and very deservedly, you act as if we commit high-treason against you. That's ridiculous. And you are threatening us with reducing your attention to PvE peace server, as we are so damn ungrateful for unwanted content infringing the principle of this place, call it testing or no testing (it's a released game, isn't it?). That's even more ridiculous. Or maybe you are trying here to create a pretext to kill our server and merge them, as Texas and the other grandson JG14_Cuz were ready to jump to conclusion? For giving your pets new prey? You know as well as we do that this will not rescue Naval Action but kill it altogether, just a bit slower than how your PvP heroes are already killing their war server. This game will survive with PvE peace server staying clean and what it is now. Your decision. Dump it all by throwing us under the bus and between fangs of your ganker club or rescue at least peace server.

No. And when you are trying to be funny, PvP hero, at least try to write understandable jokes. The expression you wanted to use is "who wet their panties". Take this hint from Grandpa.

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).

My consensual duel concept is the key to this. People are showing they are free for the asking, and still can decline, according to this: Devs really only need to pick the cherries off the tree. And hearvest season is all year around.

No. There was no (tiny) update with maintenance, meaning, game is untouched for the time being.

This whole indirect PvP concept behind Loki Rune (however I consider it a fun innovation for war server) is so alien to peace server population, I think you had to anticipate this reaction. Maybe you are used only to "fight" with your war server clientel and got surprised for once peace server community reacted toxic. It was just too big a surprise to them, and a negative one in addition. I was told guys lost ships like their release redeemed 5/5 Christian because of not knowing Loki would bring them a human counterpart in battle. That is not exactly producing sympathies, you know. If you had prepared them with some more clear words and a warning "this is a test and it will take place for a week", the reaction probably would have been less hostile. But it happened out of the blue and against how they believed the server would be all about. You have to admit, quite a shock.

So you cancelled your own idea again? Remember, poll wasn't my initiative, I picked it up when you announced it. And to answer previous post: no, it was not clear from original announcement that Loki Rune would come to our server, and with same mechanism as on PvP war server. Also we have differences between servers, like the center zone in patrol zone or (until recently) capturable SOL on PvE peace server only, which implies it's not "automatic" that we get the same as war server. On the first day Loki appeared, I read comments on global chat all the time "It's PvP server item only, it does not work here". I think the functionality was triggered with the following mini patch, as your test experiment.

I just tried it out (for knowing completely what we are talking about). You use the rune and get teleported into a random NPC ship which just got engaged by some human player, you then play as the NPC. Outside of missions, it may happen to anyone and probably he will not notice unless he is experienced enough to realize maneuvers a NPC would never do. After battle you get teleported back to the place you were before.

That is a serious issue, you are right. Admin should only allow votes from Captains who are for a minimum of one month on PvE Peace Server, to avoid poll tricks by invading PvP guys who mainly came in the last two days.

Frankly I am a bit proud of my PvE peace server colleagues as they are raising such strong opposition to an unwanted change. Not seen yet on this forum to this extent. You are no carebears, as they call you. You can fight! And while PvP server is currently in decline, we are the new backbone of Naval Action, with a more loyal community than War Server has (actually it was the case for a long time, just not so obvious yet). The responsibility is now on us to keep this game great. The poll. Watch out when it comes, Captains, and vote for or against Loki Rune in its present form. Until then, avoid unnecessary risks in your better ships.

Mainly because they are PvP heroes coming over in a large number for that "fun".

Wait for the ingame poll and vote accordingly. Meanwhile, there are some ideas how to turn this into something enjoyable for both sides:

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).