Percival Merewether

Agree - but you could also make determined defender more dynamic. eg.: let it trigger at 50/100 prep and let each point after 50 count towards the percentage. So at 65/100 It would require 15% more, and at 100/100 you'd need 50% more crew.

I have a very simple request: The ability to turn chat off. FYI: I am aware that chat can be turned off currently, but I feel the ability to turn them off individually is needed. I have frequently found myself in situations where I wish I had my chat turned off in battle. The chat can at times be damaging to the enjoyment of Naval Action - I'll include a few examples of common "chat scenarios" in Naval action - I'm sure most will agree: 1 vs 1: "If I had a better ship, I would have beaten you!" 2 vs 1: "Are you too scared to fight me 1v1 you pussy???" 1 vs 10: "Why are you running away you little prick, this is our waters! Come and fight - are you scared!!?" 1 vs Trader: "Friends..? " Because of the way this game works you can lose many hours of "productive" game-time in just one battle - nobody likes to lose a 5/5 Very Fast ship...This can cause people to react irrationally and become very offensive towards players that they otherwise wouldn't. Most games do not have this element of risk, therefore chat often becomes more personal than what's commonly seen in online games. Especially "1 vs Trader" has gotten me many times - how can you sink a guy sending that message? Basically allow us to turn off chats individually in options, I'd like to see a block chat for each "Chat-tab": Nation, Clan, Global, Trade, Help, Battle (Team), Battle (All), PMs. Possibly have the clerk list in battle-chat who has it turned off so people won't write for no reason - I think this will prevent many arguments with your enemy in battle.

Just gonna revive this old bugger - where are we on this?

That makes me think that a system like that could be used to ensure the price you agreed upon - I have experienced that a captain will want me to sail half-way across the map to complete a deal only to have him raise the price. Imagine if you could lock the deal for four hours, then I know what I'm sailing there for.

I disagree, I have one particular exchage of words in mind between admin and I that goes a couple of weeks back - I'm certain that it was rooted in a misunderstanding between us caused by a too "direct, straigthforward and no-nonsense." way of typing by both of us. though we did not resort to name-calling we both let the "dispute" get out of hand on a public forum. If diplomacy can be used to resolve a disagreement between two people then so it should be done.

Agreed.

I think hand-picked by the current staff defeats the purpose of a community representative - he is to represent the community, not the current staffs opinions. but if the current staff could give us someone to vote for, I think that'd be great.

The sinking of the Implacable (And the history of her) is very interesting, if you're interested I'd suggest you read about her - can spend hours doing so... Anyways.. back on topic; She was supposed to sink faster, the three hours was a mistake. They filled the ship with pigiron hoping she would go down immediately, the explosion ripped her apart and all the ballast fell out. As we both know ship sinking times varied greatly depending on damage and tonnage You'd know this better than I, you decided the RL to in-game conversion hours - you're the boss.. I merely confirmed @Sir William Hargood's statement regarding the Bounty's sinking time and wanted to share the rather sad story of the Implacable. Your game was never mentioned. Good point. How do you feel about further increasing realism and make looting impossible on a sinking ship? By that I mean only allow access to the enemy hold if they surrender or you board - if any skillbook/upgrades are dropped, grant them automatically to the captain who sunk the ship post-battle.

Very true, the same goes for the HMS Implacable (Ex Duguay-Trouin, 1805): Took her three hours to sink after being blown up with "modern" charges.

You presented the problem and I presented a solution, you are running circles around yourself.. in short.. No.. If there is a ship in the battle that is faster than you and insists on keeping you in the circle then you can't do anything, very much like real life.. You are however more than welcome to turn and fight it. Or perhaps reason with them (Can be harder for some than others).. no one wants to stay in battle if it's impossible to find a winner. Easy now Kid... I'm not your buddy... I was merely making a suggestion..... I did not specifically state so, but I assumed we were talking about 1v1s in this case.. if it is a 5v2 all spectators stays in battle until the entire enemy side is killed of course.. But you should be kicked out 30 seconds after it is over - you do not need to spectate your enemy sailing around trying to loot

I see the problem in every scenario you bring up, but I’d suggest a different solution to the problems: I have had the above happen to me and it is a problem.. I propose permanent control for all ships, not just those with bow chasers. Increase the radius of control to be slightly larger than the tag circle. This is an engine limitation, but in my opinion fair enough - if you insist though, perhaps adding a joining lobby to the battle so that when one of your teammates dies they can call more players in in groups of five. It is of course only possible to enter the join lobby for the first 3 minutes. We definately need to get rid of F11 coordinates, leaving battle in the same position as in battle could be an option, but then we need more time to sail away. We also need to make sure the dead player is kicked out of the battle instance prevent him from seeing where you’re heading. But remember that the topic is about going to bed, we still need to be able to logout.

Then please explain what abuse is; if a player manages to escape from me in battle then he should be free to leave in OW I consider the OW speed and distance to be abuse of game-mechanics if used to set up a revenge fleet.. that shouldn’t be possible..

That’s some attitude you’ve got there.. no clue what I did to trigger you there... I stated previously that it should be a logout at sea and not a tp.... I too mentioned the possibility of destroying all content on my ship including upgrades..... answers like yours are an absolute pain when trying to discuss sensibly and reach a compromised that can be properly presented to the devs.... And why do you feel that you are entitled to a 10v1 revenge fleet because you fought a 1v1 and lost....? Get over it...

I think the whole discussion about alts is irrelevant, we have to stop thinking about how to make the game miserable for people trying to cheat and start to make the game enjoyable for players who plays in honorably. Focus on awarding good gameplay instead of bashing people over the head because they have an alt. Since the devs allows alts there is nothing to do about this.. and do we really care if someone is forced to play with his “trading alt” for 8 hours? If you cannot find anything better to do away from the computer then I think that is enough of a punishment.! 😄 EDIT: I think a TP is a bad idea, just logout on the location of the battle.. And definately destory all content in your hold.

It was the same three guys in Fir/Fir Endymions, when one died he would get a new fir/fir ship and wait outside the battle for me - the battle was within three minutes sail from their outpost giving all three players the ability to get into the next battle. logging out in battle is not going to save my ship. It’s a pain in the ass having to surrender to people on their 4th attempt because I have to go to bed (I had plenty of repairs, they kept bringing me more). Killing the same guys three times should be enough to allow me to retreat and logout. EDIT: Ignore Dibbler’s question - he misread me - I’ll leave the explanation here though

I have to say that logging out really is a problem in-game, I went out for a quick hunt a couple of weeks back - after three hours of fighting and defeating my enemy three times I was forced to surrender my ship to them. They kept coming in fir/fir ships and there was nothing I could do - they wanted me dead. It was the same players over and over again And I wasn’t even rewarded due to the “tag of shame”. I think a logout post battle should be possible because when a battle is over, then it is over. Some players refuse to accept this and decides to throw away vessels in revenge fleets forcing you to surrender due to time constraints. I have always been against open OW battles and the idea that people could sail from one end of the carribbean to support. In reality it could be weeks before the “enemy” heard of the loss of the ship you took. the MAJOR problem with logout in battle is that it can be used to logout post AI battles and escape a hunter that way... Perhaps limit the logout to PvP instances would solve this - but I am sure it will be abused to get away anyways. Another major problem is that it is hard to accept the loss of your ship, yesterday I killed three players and realised that not even three PvP kills was enough to replace the vessel I was using. I feel there is very little corrolation between the efforts you put into PvP and the reward given. I think this is what keeps new players from PvPing since they need to invest too much time into PvP compared to what they’d get from just PVEing. I have often used the frigate available at AI price in most stores just to confirm myself in thinking that it’s possible to PvP in cheap unupgraded ships - it totally is! But what good is that for a new player who just got his Aggy after many hours of playing and wanting to use it? What about a post-battle logout that destroys everything on your ship incl. upgrades? Kind of like what @Sven Silberbart suggests?

It's true that the devs do not answer every suggestion thread, but this does not mean they are ignoring them - if an idea is convincing enough for them to feel it will contribute to the game I'm sure they will take it up for consideration. I see it as a postive that the devs do not get directly involved with the suggestion threads to avoid swaying the discussion in one way or another. We all know the threads are being read though, as evident from the occasional reply here and there (Eg.: My thread regarding Determined defender + boarding). I disagree with @CaptainSparckles and do not believe that daily redeemables will contribute to player numbers. But there is no need to instantly close the debate by claiming the devs won't respond. I'm sure the people posting in favour of this suggestion have previous experience with daily redeemables/gifts and that that is what motivates them to support this - You on the other hand have neither stated whether you are for or against the suggestion, or why you are either one of the two; thus making your post redundant. I'm sure people would be more interested in your opinion on the actual suggestion than your rant against the devs.

But do you actually think that a daily redeemable is going to raise the player numbers? Why not instead add a daily event: Something like the final exam that you can ONLY do once a day, if you fail you have to wait until the next day - if you consistently do these daily events (could last 30 mins) the special drop rate would increase up until day 5. This is content, and could potentially keep players in-game for longer than a few clicks to get their money. I very much doubt the effect of a daily redeemable - It will only add to inflation.

Personally I'm not in favour of this... In order to make people login I think the reward has to be of such a size that it would have a negative effect on gameplay. As it is right now, you can go outside a freeport and attack an AI fleet and get anywhere between 100k-500k in 20 minutes. To keep players logging in you'd need a 500k+ reward; and who's to say they won't just login to accumulate money over time but not actually play more. "Paying" people to play the game in the form of a daily reward is not a good path to go down - we need to encourage players to play because it's fun and entertaining. EDIT: This reminds me of a story my 15 year-old cousin told me... How she'd wake up every morning and send a 'snap' to her friends to keep their 'snapstreaks' going.. I believe it gives them a little icon next to their names and some sense of accomplishment. Are you really sure you want this? Perhaps it's just me who can't get into that mentality..

As much as I agree with you - wouldn't it be an idea for the "final" exam to sink 5 players in OW PvP to get them into it? - give them a redeemable cheap ship to do it in. Something like a Sab/Crew Space Frigate - I've had plenty of fun in those.

C'mon guys! No one can disagree with this suggestion - I'd love to see more fire ingame.

While I personally like determined defender I know there are people out there who are unhappy with it in it's current form, this is mostly related to larger ships were 30% of 1000 crew is too much. I'd like to propose the following: Make it impossible to board a vessel with determined defender only if you have less crew than your opponent, - if you have 324 men and he has 323; then you can board. Make it impossible to board when in any kind of shock (crew, rigging, reload, fire) Make boarding impossible when sinking. Make sinking, force disengage (Cannot win a 5 minute long boarding action if your ship was 10 seconds from going down). What do you guys think, am I being unreasonable?

I think automation is a bad idea.. Sometimes @NethrosDefectus behaves poorly in battle forcing you to give him a stern rake or two to get him back in line. Jokes aside... I think a combat log post battle would be more appropriate - this will help to punish the right people during a tribunal because it is obvious who did what damage. If I accidentally fire a broadside of double into a friendly frigate during battle but both of us knowing it was an accident, then there's no reason to punish me for it.

No no, just tried to get his attention here on the forum, he needs to see the post

@Sir Loorkon