JDMonster

I like the general gist but I have a number of questions. 1. When you say that all guns should be able to penetrate a ships hull within 100m's, is this for guns against the ships that carry them (eg: an 18lb'er or 9lb'er against a Trincomalee) or for any gun against any ship (eg: 4lb vs Santissima)? 2. How much do you plan on affecting accuracy? I agree that it should be decreased, but combined with the accuracy increase of large caliber guns I'm concerned that we'll get a World of Warships type situation where the low tier ships are laughably inaccurate even at extremely close ranges while bigger ships are virtual snipers. 3. Is the effective range thing more of a guideline or is it a hard rule?

Someone probably already asked this, but are patrol zones exempt from this system?

Devs are from Ukraine....

Practice fight system against friends/people in your own nation One of the biggest complaints that new players have is how steep the learning curve is. This in itself is not an issue, but what it takes to learn is. New players who may not be in a clan probably won't be able to afford to lose ships in PvP to gain experience (not talking in game XP, but them actually learning how to fight), and when they do get attacked they often lose quite badly not just because of ship differences but individual skill levels being extremely different. Giving them a way to practice against friendly players would allow them to gain valuable experience without major loss of resources. This will result in a better new player experience and thus higher new player retention. Requirements/details for the practice fights: Players must be in the same port Players must be in the same nation Players can only play with ships that they have and are in the same port Battle ends when hull (center bar) hitpoints reach 25% and or boarding action is completed (Done to preserve a small semblance of realism) Repairs consumed during the battle are not refunded. The ships still sustain the damage received during the battle and thus need to be repaired/replenished. This is done so that there is a small cost associated with the practice fight (Irl military exercise's aren't free) No rewards (XP, Reals, Doubloons) are rewarded for the battle

National Voice pack DLC ($15-$20) Adding voices of the various nations in game would add to the immersive experience of the game without changing gameplay Downside is that US/GB would require extra work to make it worthwhile for them Pirates would require extra work to have "piraty speech" in the various languages.

Should have just made it always fall on Russia.

Actually I was talking about mechanic abusing and cheating, not zerging.

You're also forgetting that these guys are some of the best and most prolific PVP'ers on the server, so they'll have access to upgrades that will turn their ships into UFO's.

I disagree with server splitting. The playerbase is small enough as it is and splitting the server would kill the game. Remember when the US had their own server? Nobody played on it. The only exception to this is maybe giving China their own server. While so far I haven't seen too many complaints against Chinese players (or rather none that other nationalities haven't done as well) I don't think it's warranted to force them on their own server. However this may just because they are spread out across multiple nations and not concentrated in one nation. I hope I am wrong, but the trend with other games I am not holding my breath.

I feel that if a Loki surrenders control should go back to the AI.

Just found this page. Perfect reading material for the quarantine!

Simple enough: A moon during the night.

Did he suffer 50 other kill casualties after the first round of combat?

And on his stream he boarded, you disengaged, and then he crashed.

I was watching Captain Smile's stream, he crashed as well.

Real men want pictures of spiderman

Absolute lack of international trade/economics. One of the reasons cited for the American Revolution was Mercantilism. "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world" - Declaration of Independence Alts. Especially ones in other nations that join battles just to loot any ships that get sunk and not actually participating in the battle. Demasting meta. I'm working on a detailed proposal for that, but as it stands demasting is a death sentence in game when irl it was a major hindrance, but ships could still effectively fight. How rewards for battles are handled. Losing gets you very little xp, even if it was against a larger enemy force. Ganking is incentivized significantly more than even fights. Historically accurate? Maybe, but from a gameplay perspective it isn't fun.

The problem with trading in general is that killing a player gives much better rewards than capturing. I've been attacked multiple times in traders with halfway decent cargo just to have the attacker not even try to board me or anything. They just want the kill.

@Sir John Hey man, could you share the file your map if you finished it? It looks amazing.

Right, am I the only one who thinks adding more nations is a bad idea? Some nations are already spread thin, others non existent (see Poland). Addressing the issue of adding China to the game. The whole realism debate aside, seeing that 25% of of the playerbase is from China (and who else would play China in a game such as this other than the Chinese), imagine how dominant they will be in game. 25% all in one nation with the remaining 75% split along 11 nations, 10. if you remove Poland. We'll see the same issue we see now with Russia absolutely dominating the game map, see image below of distribution of ports per nation. The only way that level of domination would be through in game forced diplomacy, not the wishy washy diplomacy that we see now where even within individual nations certain clans/individuals do their own thing and ignore diplomatic relations. So if you do add China, what I would like to see is an in game, enforced diplomacy to help counteract one nation dominance. All voted for based on active players in a nation, regardless of clans. For instance: Alliance: Nations in an alliance cannot attack each other in PVP (PVE is still allowed), all ships (warship or traders) can enter each others ports, and forts of an allied nation will not attack you if you're doing PVE. Can be dissolved by either side by popular vote of either nations player base. Leads to a temp NAP between nations for a short period of time, after which it goes to neutral. If a third party declares war on one of the nations involved, the other nation is NOT dragged into the war automatically, but can vote on it. If they vote against joining the war, the alliance is dissolved and the two nations cannot enter an alliance or NAP/trade agreement for a period of time. Non Aggression pact/Trade Agreement: Players cannot attack each others traders, but only traders can enter each others ports. PVP between warships is allowed and is recorded by the game for all players of the respective nations to see. Can be dissolved/enacted by vote, or if enough PVP action occurs then it will go straight to war. Neutral: All interactions between players are open, but cannot take hostility missions against another nation. Raids can still be done though, but with a cooldown. War: Hostility missions become available, raids can be carried out whenever, traders cannot enter enemy ports, and if player has assets in an enemy port, they are seized and given to the ports controlling clan. Clans still have a good amount of power (investments, port control, better organization), but now one clan can't just mess around with diplomacy as easily as before, and one nation dominance will be easier to counteract. The PVP zone is not affected at all by nation diplomacy. Edit: A diplomacy feature would also improve the new player experience, as they'll know who is friendly and where they can go (relatively) safely. TL/DR: If China is added they will dominate the game even harder than the Russians are right now. An ingame diplomacy feature would be required to create meaningful interactions between nations that aren't at risk of being ruined due to one clan/individuals issues.

Other players have been wanting ship names added. Perhaps a compromise would be that in the open world you see an enemy ship's name and not their username or Enemy Player. You can still contact them, but it wont show their username, only the ships name. You only get to see the player name when you are in battle, like now. So Enemy Player gets replaced with the ship name that the captain chose, I can still message them but I wont see their username, only the ships name, and I see their username when I enter a battle.

I think they should re balance the perks. Some of them are useless (admiralty connections for instance. Reduced crew purchase cost is meaningless). Some are almost mandatory for PVP. If they really want to change up the perk system, bring back the officers from a while back. Make it so that you have two officers, with ways to get more. You can assign it to an outpost or to a ship. Make perks only apply to where that officer is present and resets harder to get. That way perks are more meaningful, can be tailored to what you want, and are more engaging.

Under definitions and Acronyms you have two PVE when one of them should be PVP as it's defined as Player vs Player

Maybe make it so that Ship names are nation specific but with a DLC you can use ship names from other nations?

Will AI buffs be adjusted to reflect their improvement in behavior? Because if they retain the buffs they have all while fighting in a manner more akin to a player they will be unstoppable.