Dear Devs (structured analysis and solution to current situation)

[Knobby]

wow, looks like i'm agreeing with Lord Vicious

[Cmdr RideZ]

8 hours ago, Lord Vicious said:

where ships tag with told double circle system and battle stay open 10 mins, but every 30 sec the spawn point get further away from the original spawn points 

 

everyone that join starting from 30 sec later, they spawn 100? 200? 300?mt away from such positions      in opposite direction     <-------A         D---------> 

this system allow more realism, allow the role of tacklers , and give equal chance for defenders and attackers to get more ppl in, avoiding also the issue of ships vanishing from OW.

I do not think there should be "tacklers".  Big ships are slow, smaller ones are supposed to wait them.  Tackler is kinda just helping to gank, or is there some other purposes?

 

BR equalization should be available when ever, and ship spawns for balancing players should not be that far.  So if your tackler was able to catch a bigger fleet, you would be able to join with as many ships as possible to equalize the BR.  There should be a text announcing the player and ship, eg. "Player A(ship) has joined the battle".

 

I play a lot of small fleet battles, I know people who play in 1-3 ship fleets.  Tackler and gank fleet following in the battle, this is not cool.

[Cecil Selous]

9 hours ago, Lord Vicious said:

land could be counted as limit, so the spawn point cant go too faar away if there is land involved, system favour defenders also since attackers spawn behind and need to chase while defenderrs get reinforcement probably in front of them  faar away where they could run to and regroup.

Is just an idea, still better then what we have now

 

Quick annotation to that idea that might be good or maybe isn't: Instead of let the players join at a increasing distance to the initial tagger position in the instance I thought about translating this system to the OW. For example we take the OW pull circle and it will expand over the given join timer (2, 5 or 10 minutes). It could be debated if we take the pull circle for that because it is already very large in the beginning and thus make this whole matter of joining late obsolete if you spawn too far away.

So perhaps it would be suitable to draw a new circle after battle start which includes all ships who entered the battle at the start. It would vary in size everytime according to the dispersion of ships in OW and then starts to expand. So people who just missed the pull circle by a little margin can enter then. If you were too far away and maybe can just join close to the timer end it would be very well possible that it isn't worth to join anymore or at least you are very far away in the instance (bad for baiting tactics).

 

This way you can still join the battle from another direction if you were there before in OW. Of course further away and not on top the enemy. Or you join a bit closer if the ships in the instance sailed into your direction during the join timer (though this difference would be marginal.

The expanding circle also counters the possibility of sailing past the initial battle location to join from the other side cause you won't make it in time simply due to your lower speed. Joining from the opposite side or a different direction only if you were there initially.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Cecil Selous

[akd]

1 hour ago, Cecil Selous said:

Quick annotation to that idea that might be good or maybe isn't: Instead of let the players join at a increasing distance to the initial tagger position in the instance I thought about translating this system to the OW. For example we take the OW pull circle and it will expand over the given join timer (2, 5 or 10 minutes). It could be debated if we take the pull circle for that because it is already very large in the beginning and thus make this whole matter of joining late obsolete if you spawn too far away.

So perhaps it would be suitable to draw a new circle after battle start which includes all ships who entered the battle at the start. It would vary in size everytime according to the dispersion of ships in OW and then starts to expand. So people who just missed the pull circle by a little margin can enter then. If you were too far away and maybe can just join close to the timer end it would be very well possible that it isn't worth to join anymore or at least you are very far away in the instance (bad for baiting tactics).

 

This way you can still join the battle from another direction if you were there before in OW. Of course further away and not on top the enemy. Or you join a bit closer if the ships in the instance sailed into your direction during the join timer (though this difference would be marginal.

The expanding circle also counters the possibility of sailing past the initial battle location to join from the other side cause you won't make it in time simply due to your lower speed. Joining from the opposite side or a different direction only if you were there initially.

Principle of expanding join circle as solution to land in battle problems has been suggested many times before.  Anyways, as illustrated here, it would be better to avoid getting pulled in initial circle and join late to either spawn near friendlies, or sail through circle and cut-off enemy or gain wind advantage, thus broken just like previous ROE.  Only works logically and fair if join circle is the outer pull circle and expands from there, but that would become enormous.

Edited November 17, 2016 by akd

[Cecil Selous]

No, you got it right. I mean that the size of green circle will vary according to the ship in the pull circle which is the furthest away from the battle center. So if one ship is only just inside the pull circle the expanding circle will be also almost the size of the pull circle. You are right though, it has to expand fast enough to deny any advantage if you avoid the pull circle to join later. People who miss the pull circle by a few seconds or meters may join a bit closer than they should but with fast expansion it can be a very small advantage (if it really is an advantage at all. You can't join closer than the ships which were pulled in.

But yes, you have a valid concern.

[Lord Vicious]

3 hours ago, Cecil Selous said:

Quick annotation to that idea that might be good or maybe isn't: Instead of let the players join at a increasing distance to the initial tagger position in the instance I thought about translating this system to the OW. For example we take the OW pull circle and it will expand over the given join timer (2, 5 or 10 minutes). It could be debated if we take the pull circle for that because it is already very large in the beginning and thus make this whole matter of joining late obsolete if you spawn too far away.

So perhaps it would be suitable to draw a new circle after battle start which includes all ships who entered the battle at the start. It would vary in size everytime according to the dispersion of ships in OW and then starts to expand. So people who just missed the pull circle by a little margin can enter then. If you were too far away and maybe can just join close to the timer end it would be very well possible that it isn't worth to join anymore or at least you are very far away in the instance (bad for baiting tactics).

 

This way you can still join the battle from another direction if you were there before in OW. Of course further away and not on top the enemy. Or you join a bit closer if the ships in the instance sailed into your direction during the join timer (though this difference would be marginal.

The expanding circle also counters the possibility of sailing past the initial battle location to join from the other side cause you won't make it in time simply due to your lower speed. Joining from the opposite side or a different direction only if you were there initially.

 

good point instead a shrink circle a circle that get larger with time for who join after   but the issue with circle in ow is that ppl join from all directions blocking escape route,  willbe better if doesnt matter from where you join from ow circle, you always spawn in the initial spawn points (like when you do a mission )

Edited November 17, 2016 by Lord Vicious

[Lord Vicious]

10 hours ago, Black Spawn said:

I definitely agree your points and sugestions to fix them in the most part.

But I think that some points are extremely time-intensive from a developers stance. For example your point on pirate politics.

I think the mechanics do not allow single groups or clans to act in the way you are proposing and i think it requires major change and therefore a lot of effort. As far as i comprehend we got the "players" acting as the toplevel object with "nations" as attribute beeing assigned to them. The given mechanic is either players with the same "nation" are either hostile or friendly entirely. With the alliances added nation to nation relations. For the mechanic you are supposing we would be looking into clan to nation relations - simplified - which i guess is rather tricky to implement regarding the database and its entity-relationship-modell. So i think workwise pirate mechanics will devour a whole patch itself and have few benefit for most players.

Looking at the devs agenda their are priorizing things that take relatively few time but have great impacts for now - efficent content if you will - since the mechanics are already in the game and therefore "only" need adjustment or implementing by using given tools.

I fully support your ideas of the provided chart which mostly "just" require tweaking of variables in my eyes, but most of the playerbase atm just sees the greater cause but not necessarily the workefford put in it. I guess what i am trying to say is that you should try to see things from a devs perspective as well...

Cudos for your collection of suggestions.

 

they spent soo much for do alliance system that favour nations, they can spend time for a pirate patch wich we waiting for since a year and half,  on release  the server will have 40% pirate population , so hardly a bad investment.   When server was at 2000+ player biggest pop where brit and pirates.  And pirates are completely undone at moment and even excluded to politics mechanics,  they did fishing crafting and other stuff that where much less important then pirate mechanics

[Jean Ribault]

Thanks for posting a summary of issues LV, along with suggestions to fix.  I like some of your fixes.

My opinion on port battles (probably not popular I'll wager) is I'd like to see them disappear from the game entirely.  They are boring, senseless, and always problematic.  Right now mechanics are such that you raise hostility and then earn your port battle 2 days later.  OK, fine but think about why not once you are able to raise hostility to 100% you are now allowed to attack the regional capital in the OW, not some predefined limited battle.  It takes a while to get hostility to 100% and everyone sees it happening, you have time to react.  Make it an open battle against the capital forts, open until the BR limit is reached.  Anyone who is following the hostility levels or fighting to raise/lower them is already doing missions and pvp in the area anyway.  If a nation or pirates can elevate the hostility to 100% and make the forts now attackable and then is able to defeat the forts then they get the region.  The hostility bombs by war supplies would need to be limited and reduced as has been discussed elsewhere.  But quite honetly I don't even see the need for a formal battle 2 days later that just slows everything down.  Keep the pvp going with an open battle in the already hot regions, that's my opinion anyway.  This in a sense renews the flag carrier concept because that always brought us constant port pvp on both servers.

[Yar Matey]

Another thing that is killing this game on the crafting side, which you touch on briefly, is the open world travel required in trade ships, which has been exacerbated by not only the addition of regional bonuses, but also the transport of fine woods.  I have to sail from a port that I have built wood production buildings, then sail to the closest free port, then ship the fine wood to another free port close to where I want a regional bonus, then again sail in OW on a trade ship to the port with a regional bonus I want with the fine woods.  Crafting used to be something you spent 5 to 10 minutes a day doing and once in a while sail in a trade ship to go pick up some recourse you were low on.  Now, crafting requires the constant running around in open world with trade ships gathering fine woods to produce ships, add to that there is almost always a pirate or enemy nation player sailing around pulling me into battle trying to take my goods.  Thus, running around doing my trading has become a large portion of my game play now, which is time I am not spending in my warship looking for PvP. 

 

Needless to say, my time is limited and I would much rather be sailing around in my warship looking for some pvp than running around in my trade ship half the night after I get home from work.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Yar Matey

[Anne Wildcat]

Even POTBS has AFK sailing in it for Econ (but w/out risk).  After the patch 1-2 years ago I'd sail from my live oak (or was it white oak) farm in Louisiana to my shipyard in Ruddy Cove in Antilles once or twice a week.  I'm glad there are freeports near every region, except Bermuda, here. You don't even need an outpost at a Freeport to send a delivery, just an outpost at the free port you collect.

i do not like how ship building is getting more complex. NA Econ used to be a welcome relief from POTBS Econ where it took a week to make a frigate, having 2 alts for Econ too. In POTBS, there were so many materials & so many structures. And even worse, the new standard ships for PVP required special structures to make, like the ironworks and cove shipyard.  I really would like to see ship building remain simple in NA so I can get out there, fight, and not be afraid to lose my ship, but that might just be me.  I do not PVP in POTBS anymore as it is too expensive for a noob like me to replace a ship. If NA Econ eventually goes the way of POTBS Econ, I will be sad.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Anne Wildcat

[Benass]

Alienate casual players and u will have 100 hard core pvp ers crying  for no action. 

 

Tagging system is not working.  

 

2 min tagging system wast'n working either. 

 

No more casuals to kill. Game gets empty.

 

Remember casual to hardcore player rate is 1 to 10 or even more.  so with every 100 hardcore there is 1000 casuals.   

 

Chase them out of the game by ganging and bullying in ever way possible, by restricting there game play, by denying reinforcements, and you get empty server. 

[Yar Matey]

21 minutes ago, Benass said:

Alienate casual players and u will have 100 hard core pvp ers crying  for no action. 

 

Tagging system is not working.  

 

2 min tagging system wast'n working either. 

 

No more casuals to kill. Game gets empty.

 

Remember casual to hardcore player rate is 1 to 10 or even more.  so with every 100 hardcore there is 1000 casuals.   

 

Chase them out of the game by ganging and bullying in ever way possible, by restricting there game play, by denying reinforcements, and you get empty server. 

The tagging system has been improved significantly since the 2 minute timers.  It is really hard to gank players right outside of friendly capitals and other friendly ports now with the new ROE.  You have tower defenses, and NPC fleets everywhere.  The solo player in friendly waters has never had it better.  I haven't lost a single ship in friendly waters sailing solo since the patch, the gankers always pull in fleets or I happen to be able to get in close to the towers.  Free ports on the other hand, are still very dangerous.  But I have to agree that the 2 minute timers alienated many players and the free reign ganking by elitist squads was left unchecked for too long. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Yar Matey

[SeaMist]

Talking purely PVE server here. 

There are not enough resource producing ports. You now have to hunt everywhere to gather resources to build anything and the ship reset demolition move makes it not worthwhile to build anything anyway. So why do PVE at all.......and I think you will discover that numbers have dropped so low on the PVE server as to be meaningless, 

Now PVP.

I congratulate Lord Viscious on his analysis although I note that many of the recommendations ( as they do from pirates) tend to favour pirates....quelle surprise. 

I tried PVP2 and was enjoying it until the last patch. For me it took a game that was working and turned it into something else.

It was again the resource distribution. I was doing ok with the give away Bucentaure but it's a resource you can't risk unless you can replace it. Coming across as a level 50 crafter you can't replace it unless you can get the blueprints and get the resources. To get the blueprint you ( I believe) need to construct ships and to give yourself a % chance that needs to be one that uses notes.

I found I couldn't get the resources for a basic no note frigate due to the lack of silver, gold and redwood needed for furniture, let alone use notes to build a better one to give self access to more blueprints so that eventually I could build better ships. The resources are simply too difficult to obtain unless you have a fortune to spend on contracts, which coming across you certainly don't. 

So there you are, you can't build, you can't even risk a ship in a port battle because you can't replace it. You can't even build a smaller ship. So I gave up on it.

And went back to PVE where because you can use the smuggler tick box you can access resources. (Yes you can do that in PVP but it's like carrying a "sink me" sign). But then it's not worth building anything anyway because you are about to destroy it. 

It was bad enough having to shift the entire clan and resources to the USA seaboard but the promise to destroy everything we create has about done us in. 

 

[John Swigglebottoms]

As Lord Vicious points out the various flaws and offers possible suggestions, I do feel that I should represent the, in my opinion somewhat underrepresented, fleet sailors. Many points are made, understandably from a pirate's perspective. Therefore, I would like to share part of my perspective. What I would think would really boost the game, ... again in my opinion as a fleet sailor, is more fair (BR limited?) fleet engagements. Lord Vicious correctly points out that most big fleet engagements have disappeared with the disappearance of the flag system. I feel like there should be more incentive to sail in organized fleets as that is the content I and many other players seem to enjoy.

I could summarize my day as gameplay right now as follows: A certain nation wants to contest a port, so sets out to do missions (or even worse Warsupply-bombs, which I think has been mentioned enough), the other nation notices it and tries to respond. As enemy resistance is noticed a bigger amount of players amass in the region of both sides and some cool fleets are formed. However, right now the tendency is to amass a fleet bigger and more numerous than the opponent so that the opposing fleet could easily be crushed. Eventually, one fleet will end up the biggest. Once the two fleets meet, mostly the following happens: the smaller fleet runs and the larger fleet chases, EVERY effort with respect to preventing PvP between the fleet is taken by the smaller fleet, which succeeds rather easily with the new tagging system. My point is... there should be some sort of incentive for fair FLEET fights, maybe BR based... I do not know the specifics. If someone could maybe propose a plausible idea I would be forever grateful!

I hope this was in any way a helpful contribution to this thread.

Regards,

 

J. Swigglebottoms

Edited November 21, 2016 by John Swigglebottoms

[Marques]

It seems to me...

WHAT MAKES GAMES SUCCESSFUL? FACTORS THAT GUARANTEE THE SUCCESS OF NAVAL ACTION GAME.
1. Surprise! Constantly keep the player trapped in the game. Create a story that advances in time, and if does not have, copy the history itself, events and battles and reproduce. Do you have this in Naval Action?...
2. I will do it before you. Competition Human by nature, especially the player, likes to stand out, always be at the top of the podium (but watch the competitions of the Olympic Games), so games can take a lot of this by focusing on the game at levels that Allow us to overcome ourselves, or the friends your clan we have.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...

3. Each story is unique. Those games that allow multiple combinations of the game and that challenge the player to make decisions or define what course the game will have, as it progresses in it, are those that in trend make a relative difference. Example of them we have games like Resident Evil did anyone find Nemesis? Another example of games are those where you have to create your own civilizations or build your own world, develop farms or mines. The combinations are hundreds. You must define a plot, choose an avatar and create a game profile.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...
Even though we just talked about how great gameplay trumps a great story, it's important to point out that the story still plays a key role in a game's success. A great story to keep the player immersed in the world (Historical) you've created. They should feel attached to the characters and want to continue playing to see how the story unfolds.

Story, history, and gameplay are 3 vital for having a great game like Naval Action. While game playable is important and in many cases can drive a game without much of a story, it does not always save a game. This is true if the game is a single player-only experience like the Batman Arkham series. For games like that, the story is more important than games that have multiple types of gameplay, like multiplayer. For Naval Action Story and History should be joined.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...
And finally...
4. Great Art Style
Graphics are extremely important for any video game; it’s what the player sees. Everything from the environments, the characters and even the lighting all play a role in the look and feel of the game. As hardware advances so do the graphics being presented to the player and more and more games are gravitating toward a hyper-realistic experience to help immerse the player. Naval action has a very good ships, and some good effects, but lacking animations, crews, characters, boardings and many more things.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...

Conclusion.
 Game playability, story, and history, are 3 of the most important aspects of a successful game like NA; once you have the story established it can help you create an art style that will fit the world. Lot of work remain for Naval Action Devs. Please do it...
I Like currently and the future of this game, Thanks anyway.!!!

[Seaside]

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎18 at 5:38 AM, SeaMist said:

Talking purely PVE server here. 

There are not enough resource producing ports. You now have to hunt everywhere to gather resources to build anything and the ship reset demolition move makes it not worthwhile to build anything anyway. So why do PVE at all.......and I think you will discover that numbers have dropped so low on the PVE server as to be meaningless, 

Now PVP.

I congratulate Lord Viscious on his analysis although I note that many of the recommendations ( as they do from pirates) tend to favour pirates....quelle surprise. 

I tried PVP2 and was enjoying it until the last patch. For me it took a game that was working and turned it into something else.

It was again the resource distribution. I was doing ok with the give away Bucentaure but it's a resource you can't risk unless you can replace it. Coming across as a level 50 crafter you can't replace it unless you can get the blueprints and get the resources. To get the blueprint you ( I believe) need to construct ships and to give yourself a % chance that needs to be one that uses notes.

I found I couldn't get the resources for a basic no note frigate due to the lack of silver, gold and redwood needed for furniture, let alone use notes to build a better one to give self access to more blueprints so that eventually I could build better ships. The resources are simply too difficult to obtain unless you have a fortune to spend on contracts, which coming across you certainly don't. 

So there you are, you can't build, you can't even risk a ship in a port battle because you can't replace it. You can't even build a smaller ship. So I gave up on it.

And went back to PVE where because you can use the smuggler tick box you can access resources. (Yes you can do that in PVP but it's like carrying a "sink me" sign). But then it's not worth building anything anyway because you are about to destroy it. 

It was bad enough having to shift the entire clan and resources to the USA seaboard but the promise to destroy everything we create has about done us in. 

 

The reason PVE is low is there is no EVP.

Imagine any game - say Call of Duty for example where you can simply walk up to the enemy and he doesn't react to your presence until you shoot him.

I think the Devs are missing a huge audience by not addressing this aspect.

 

 

[SeaMist]

16 hours ago, Seaside said:

The reason PVE is low is there is no EVP.

Imagine any game - say Call of Duty for example where you can simply walk up to the enemy and he doesn't react to your presence until you shoot him.

I think the Devs are missing a huge audience by not addressing this aspect.

 

 

I wouldn't mind EVP. It would make life more interesting certainly.  I don't think that's the core problem with the enormous drop off on the PVE server though. Consider the current PVE audience. Crafters, traders and those who simply don't like PVP. Crafting has been completely nerfed. This ( to me) is the major disincentive. Trading is there to make cash and to support crafting. You can't craft and as it's all about to be destroyed why would you. Hence why trade. 

I am currently trying to work out the new trading system. So far I am unimpressed although that might be that I don't yet have the hang of it yet. 

Missions are still fun but crew losses are too high in first rates. I miss having anyone to run a mission with as my entire clan is now  playing infrequently. 

On the positive side it is much easier for a cutter to cut down the crew on a trader to enable boarding. That's good for new players and the captured ship often has a decent cargo in monetary terms. That bit is excellent. 

Apart from that I can't see any benefit from the last patch despite the massive amount of work that must have gone into it ( sorry devs) From a PVE player point of view and even a PVP player perspective the game has not been improved as a result of this patch......more the opposite. 

[Seaside]

10 hours ago, SeaMist said:

I wouldn't mind EVP. It would make life more interesting certainly.  I don't think that's the core problem with the enormous drop off on the PVE server though. Consider the current PVE audience. Crafters, traders and those who simply don't like PVP. Crafting has been completely nerfed. This ( to me) is the major disincentive. Trading is there to make cash and to support crafting. You can't craft and as it's all about to be destroyed why would you. Hence why trade. 

I am currently trying to work out the new trading system. So far I am unimpressed although that might be that I don't yet have the hang of it yet. 

Missions are still fun but crew losses are too high in first rates. I miss having anyone to run a mission with as my entire clan is now  playing infrequently. 

On the positive side it is much easier for a cutter to cut down the crew on a trader to enable boarding. That's good for new players and the captured ship often has a decent cargo in monetary terms. That bit is excellent. 

Apart from that I can't see any benefit from the last patch despite the massive amount of work that must have gone into it ( sorry devs) From a PVE player point of view and even a PVP player perspective the game has not been improved as a result of this patch......more the opposite. 

I agree with the things you are saying but for me the non hostile NPC's in open world are still number 1.

I rarely play now although I want to. The game is beautiful and I enjoy the time period. The mechanics are well done.

When I do get in the mood to give it another try I sail for a while (I don't mind not running into an enemy every 5 minutes - feels more realistic that way)

I sail past and through enemy ships that are stronger than me which takes any "danger factor" to zero.

If I don't find an enemy my size I wind up attacking an enemy trader or contraband of lesser combat ability. (I could attack a stronger ship but why intentionally setup to lose You should have to escape stronger vessels not deliberately attack them).

I want the ship for its value since most of its cargo will be lost when I send it home if my cargo is full. (It usually is if I've been at sea for a few days)

So I blast away at the rigging til its at or near zero which takes quite some time.

Then I just lay across its bow and blast its crew to zero which takes another long time.

No real danger that another NPC might show up, then I send the ship home.

I head home myself as my hold is now full and fiddle with my outposts. I can afford much more powerful ships than my level allows me to command.

I think about whether I want to bother to go out again and instead turn the game off and play something else. I check back from time to time to see if there are any improvements.

If my experience is what other PVE players find then its easy to understand the low PVE servers.

I don't like PVP, for that you either need to join a group or be a victim and from my old Halo days well - I just don't like PVP.