Grunf

I tend to agree with him Black. Given amount of aiming and skill it takes to take down the mast, the repair time (and consequently hindrance untill repaired) should be more significant than 20 seconds and 1 repair kit. Given, maybe not 20 mins, but i was merely thinking the gravity of the dismasting vs repair time. Insert some sensible timer there

Although I do not agree with the in-combat repairable masts (perhaps to have an option to disable it in options - as game difficulty mechanic), i can understand and appreciate why it's there from gameplay reasons. I would however suggest the following: Put some sort of a long timer it takes to repair a mast (or a few extra mechanics like): Clear debris (as someone suggested - this would require crew to cut off dragging part of the mast that still may be attached by rigging (use older movie Capt. Hornblower - with Gregory Peck as reference) After debris is clear a second timer for rebuilding the mast section (the further down damage has occured, the longer the timer - as it would 'simulate' the difficulty of replacing a mast, so i.e.: top 1/3 of a mast would take 2-3 minutes, middle third up to 10 mins, while the whole mast (or just lower section) would take up to say 20 minutes to repair This would still simulate 'disabling' your ship for a while (giving other players advantage), and giving you a reason to temporarily withdraw, 'lick your wounds' and then get back into the fight. I also like the idea of partial loss of yaw control due to dragging debris. (if this is doable from the programming perspective, that is a different matter) Also the masts should not be that easy to take down (i heard that got fixed in last patch though). It would take several very skilled shots from proximity to damage mast and riggint to the point where they would break (at least the lower section that is. This could be used to balance out the above from gameplay reasons)

Well, as a player who has just gotten the game this friday, I do not think you would need to get more if you are handicapped. If you are more skilled, and say run circles around connie with your cutter (exaggerating, but bare with me), you will pound it with more cannon fire, and consequently do more damage. And if you are not careful a single broadside from connie, can be your death sentence. So basically, your speed is your asset....untill he gets his guns to bare. Then it is time to pay :-) These facts forced me yesterday (when playing against connies, and victories alike) to stay on the outsides, taking cover behind bigger ships and pound the enemy Victories with chain shot, to cripple their already slow movement, and give my teams first rates an edge. Also when I saw enemy's Victory firing a broadside on my small cutter, almost made me cry for mommy , fortunately for me his aim was off Loved every minute of the fight, and although i did not play it much, I would not like it to change

Actually, since friendly fire is a thing, this way you need to pay attention to your target's flag. If he is on a different team, you know what to do ;-)

Beating to quarters when transitioning from travel to battle when open world comes. For battles, I would like to se a fog (that you could hide in), although it should be rare (thinking master and commander here)

I would say open world first. Note, for the first instance, it does not have to be a big open world (2-3 small islands, 2 small towns, 1 village) I like the fact that you can already choose your ship and go into combat. That means basic game mechanics are in place. Adding open world would close a game loop, and you would have a playable game, not instanced battles. I would like to compare this development to Elite: Dangerous which launched today: First they had Alphas - which was same as here. Ships, flight, graphics, and a little bit of combat (scenario based). Few ships just to test core mechanics. - To me it looks Naval Action is about to pass that stage Premium Betas - A Very limited Open world (not sure how many, but I think around 5 star systems, with 1-2 space stations) (out of a galaxy with millions of star systems). This gave them the chance to close the game loop, and see how would a person travel from A to B. Also how a player would interact with stations, and how a player would be getting in and out of combat. In my mind regarding Naval Action some stretch of sea, 2-3 smaller islands (i.e. 2 inhabited town, village whatever, and 1 sandbank style) should do it, and then expand from there Betas - up to 10 ships and 20 star systems in Elite (adding Trading, Exploring and Mining - 1 per beta1, beta2 etc). In terms of Naval Action (adding 1-2 more islands, perhaps 1 with bigger town protected by a fort), few more ships, and adding a exploration aspect, or trading Gammas - "Almost Done". With most of the mechanics in place, they were mostly balance, bug fixing, and adding content (more star systems, more ships), some game mechanics (Missions). In terms of Naval Action, hereby I would add a layer on top of all (ships going from town A to town B - why, what is their purpose - traders, raiders, etc) Not to bore everyone too much, the core idea is VERY simple. Whenever introducing NEW game mechanic with few examples (2-3 not more). I.e. 2 secret island locations to explore (or 2 ships for combat). This gives a chance to debug the mechanic, not the actual example. Then scale up from there I am taking Elite Dangerous as an example, as their every release introduced something new, while refining and fine tuning other aspects. However I believe they are around 170 ppl strong which means for Naval Action this has to be taken into account. My favorite game was Sea Dogs by Akella. No game after managed to get that same ship to ship combat feeling. AC4 did help popularize it though, however I agree they weighed more towards assasin gameplay than pirate lifestyle. Still it was a great game :-) I have just pre-ordered Naval Action today, after seeing Sidestrafe play it. Can't wait for friday :-)