Rate the patch 9.97

[admin]

future patch notes will always come with a poll

 

Please rate the patch 9.97

patch notes here 

 

 

[Daguse]

Awesome idea. May I suggest doing the same for you proposed changes? I understand no all of them can be voted on but some feed back prior to development may save you some time. 

[Fluffy Fishy]

I am really pleased you are doing this, its a very easy way to get a better understanding of what players liked/disliked about the patches. Good Work Admin, more of this kind of development attitude please, my only criticism is the idea happened so where you can see release from the crows nest

[Havelock]

Voted Good in general. Would change it to Excellent if land in port battles will be good

Pros:

• Fine Woods are gone, thats a plus (but its not an addition, rather something bad being taken out)
• Events are a good addition for plannable PvP
• PvE challenges are good as tutorial "quests" and a fun way to try new maneuvers without loss
• Ship delivery decreases boring sailing time

Cons:

• Hostility system is still not fun
• PvP Events could take place more often, and 4h is too long imo (its hard to get into leaderboards when you only have 2h)

[Liq]

Great patch. Fine logs had to go, didn't work out with the amount of fine logs dropped and the current playerbase (everyone had wood forests).
Love the idea of a daily pvp area event, had some good fun there.
Also the PvE challenges are a nice addition for people to compete at a fix given task. But I think everyone should get the same ships for a pve challenge, same stats/specs so rageboarding wouldn't be possible anymore.

[tipsypo]

Good in general, nothing is terrible. Removing fine woods was good, and these challenges are welcome to. Forgot to mention negating the bombs is good.

Good that there is now an ship delivery system, however would have been better were this mechanic akin to the cargo delivery delivering the ships upon an timer countdown with times and prices dependant on distance and size. Though its impact or worth seems somewhat reduced considering that the post battle Send To Outpost continues to exist. As such seems at least in my nation is not being used quite so much and instead someones teleporting service seems to continue to be in much demand.

On ‎21‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:00 PM, admin said:

In the new content patch captains will be able to request ship tow from outpost to outpost. Its a long overdue feature that will untie our hands in several other mechanics (for example for ship capture). 

 

On ‎22‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:32 AM, The Spud said:

Oh, thank god for that. Instead of "bending" the rules to get ships TP'd we can now use a real game mechanic.

I'm guessing this means that a capped ship in a battle now can't be TP'ed but needs to be crewed and sailed out. I'm guessing that is what they mean by "untie our hands in several other mechanics"

 

On ‎22‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 11:13 AM, Aegir said:

Good.

Hopefully this will make capturing enemy ships work out better - instead of simply teleporting their/your ship out, you now have to add it to the fleet (with minimum crew) to get it out, and provides an incentive for people to reconsider their AI fleet usage if they have to scuttle a ship to bring back a prize.

 

On ‎23‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 7:29 AM, Sir Texas SIr said:

Though we need to remove the magic teleport after a mission too.  Prize ships should be sailed back to a safe port.  If your going to still allow the magic telport do it where a prize crew has to deliver it and takes so much time.  hell do the same with the delivery.  Each delivery takes up a small amount of your crew for that set amount of time.  That way you are limited to how many ships you can have being moved around by how much extra crew you have.  I think if we tie up more crew it will also make folks use less AI fleets.  Cause you need to have the spare crew to get that prize back after a battle, but if they are tied up on the two ships you have with you or in deliveries than you won't have any extra crews to get the ship back to port.  Than add in any you lost in the battle?   

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by tipsypo

[Pagan Pete]

Its a small step in the right direction.

[_Masterviolin]

I'm all for the patch; though, flooding the server with golden Endys and Indies is a bit extreme! Sure, I adore the Endymion and its fun to have one, but now everyone's got one.

 

[Vaan De Vries]

The game practically became the WOWs arena with sailing ships. Don't know why we need OW anymore. Ships costs nothing. OW PVP means nothing in terms of RVR.

The immersion is killed for me. 

The devs didn't understand that a LOT of people LEFT game before fine woods because the game was becoming more and more carebear.

Now they are making it even worse. 

Carebears will be happy for a while but then they will find another game as they always do. And players who really wanted to play this game for IMMERSION won't come back to a session based WOWs with sails. 

The devs have chosen events and WOW-like casualistic economy over true PVP sandbox. I wish them luck..

[jodgi]

18 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Fine woods actually worked

You like the eco and sandbox stuff, right? How does 43000 bermuda logs thrown into Flatts shop at the end of 9.96 fall within the "actually worked" definition? Maybe not "player dissatisfaction" but crafters simply stopped making stuff until they had fine logs and could get back to making their idea of an optimal build ship. 

[Vaan De Vries]

3 minutes ago, jodgi said:

You like the eco and sandbox stuff, right? How does 43000 bermuda logs thrown into Flatts shop at the end of 9.96 fall within the "actually worked" definition? Maybe not "player dissatisfaction" but crafters simply stopped making stuff until they had fine logs and could get back to making their idea of an optimal build ship. 

it worked 43000 times better then without fine woods - that's how.

At least with each capped/sank enemy exceptional ship I felt like I made a tiny-tiny small but difference in the big RVR capture. 

Now it will take more time to sink/cap ship than to collect enough money to gather resources for 3 ships.. Cause you can easily earn 2mil in an hour. The OW is not needed. Now it will be just session based game with events and PBs. Not differing a lot from WOWs. Only in battle instance mechanics. Why then go all this way with OW if they could just left Sea Trials?

[Anne Wildcat]

Overall, good.

 

Yay for removal of fine woods but I can see what some are saying. Maybe require them for SOLs.  But since fine woods are removed I feel more comfortable solo hunting again. 

Why an increase in OW speed? People who do not like the open world are still going to cry.  Don't think it was needed.

PvP tournaments, as posted before, I'm against as it tries to satisfy those seeking an arena game.  There is already the small/large battles from the missions tab for that. But if people like it, then fine. 

[Konali89]

For now i have chosen Good in general, because imo the best has yet to come still. Land in PB's

Although i understand why some people are worried about the removal of fine woods ( although they had to go, unless we had more outposts available to us ) and increased OW speeds that might have effects on RVR.

But i thought we where testing , the patch has been out for a day or so, let's test it. And if it is really affecting RVR much, document it and show it please, all i see now are words and things people are affraid of.

[Angus McGregor]

37 minutes ago, Anne Wildcat said:

Why an increase in OW speed? People who do not like the open world are still going to cry.  Don't think it was needed.

PvP tournaments, as posted before, I'm against as it tries to satisfy those seeking an arena game.  There is already the small/large battles from the missions tab for that. But if people like it, then fine. 

I'm kind of in the camp of not wanting the OW speed increase. The Lynx is definitely fast enough to water ski behind now. I do wish the indicated speed was adjusted to ignore the accelerated rate though. Don't tell me my sloop is doing 30 knots in the OW. That throws immersion out the window which is a shame with this gorgeous game.

IMO - the PvP tournament areas are just an experiment to see if people who want PvP (or say they do) are actually willing to go to a designated point on the map to get it. People who say they want near-instant fighting aren't currently using the Small/Large battle arenas. There's no point in dreaming up thematic Admiralty mission content if no one will participate in a basic designated OW PvP format either.

[Hethwill]

I like the wargame sandbox experience in the age of sail so I am totally sympathetic with some of the voices pointing out "arena-zation" as a negative.

I also could see the logistics needed were too excessive. Given the resources are still localized let's see how it works now with less strain.

Chosen good because of what affects my playstyle directly, mainly the removal of the Coward perk.

Suddenly it gets counter balance with OW speed increase with the same 20 secs tag timer...

okay... it is a test, fine, all good.

 

Truth is naked though. It is impossible, nigh impossible, for a player with a full score of ships with 5 durabilities to ever need another ship. Pronto.

Crafting isn't the hard part when there's no loss involved.

 

 

 

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, Vaan De Vries said:

Now it will take more time to sink/cap ship than to collect enough money to gather resources for 3 ships

That may be true.

If I squint my eyes, forget myself, drink five pints and do a ballerina spin I can agree that there is a little fun in the whole getting mats thing. At the very least I recognize that it gives some atmosphere and immersion to the game. I totally see that some of you love that stuff to bits, so I've been tolerant to the inherent boredom of it, for your sake. You're welcome.

As far as what makes a guy like myself want to fire up Naval Action.exe, eco stuff is not an important motivational factor. It is in fact a tiny negative, but I'll keep that to myself.

I could be wrong, but based on the topics and levels of whinage on the forum over the last year I'm afraid the majority are "shooting at ships" oriented players.

Now, look at your quote at the top. People don't mind spending more time shooting at ships, it is what they came for, it is what is fun. Make crafting and eco stuff "complex" and  "challenging", which simply translates into time consuming for those who mainly came for the shooting, and the bitching and moaning will have no end.

Anectode:

I've done quite a bit of Naval Action promotion on other sites and among friends. It may be that all my friends are similar PVP-airheads like myself but out of the seven players that I know started playing due to my efforts none remain today. They're not mad, they even say they like the game, but the time consumption of all things eco has eroded them away. I made them golden ships for free but that can only ever be a temporary bandaid.

And now, the all-caps provocative one-liner that is my opinion and TLDR;

ECO ORIENTED PLAYERS NEED PVP AIRHEADS MORE THAN PVP AIRHEADS NEED ECO ORIENTED PLAYERS.

(subscript: For your eco sandbox to ever stand a chance you need to accomodate the PVP airhead instead of chasing him away, he is the true content provider and consumer of your eco) 

This seems to be the idea of the developers, will you fight them over it?

 

[Black Spawn]

nuff said

[The Spud]

Polls are way better then having one patch the casuals complaining and another patch the hardcore players complaining.

[Blaatand]

I voted good in general but miss the nuance in voting....

Kind of the same as the change all and see what happens instead of tuning.....

R&D has no value if you do not know what parameter resulted in which change...

In other words - small patches changing a few parameters and NEVER parameters that are co-dependent!!

Same with votes here - a general vote says NOTHING without comments - have a general vote for the patch BUT the vote should then be split into the patch headlines so you vote on each of the main changes made  - now you actually get a picture of what was good and bad....

 

Last for the discussions so far: Until all realize that diversity is the only way to achieve a lasting game it will not succeed.... Please stop this PVP is the only important thing... PVE is only imp..... Crafting is...... My playstyle is the only important way crap.........

 

RVR (and PVP) is broken without small port raids.

Trade/crafting is broken without fine woods and mills (agree with @Wraith here)

PVP is broken with mega fleets and Marginot lines

PVE is broken without trade fleets with maybe a single escort and some content like mission spawns while cruising open ocean.

Send to port upon capping is broken without an officer and crew to place onboard for the duration

Hostility is broken without small port raids being an option for raising hostility

BP is broken when it is tied to ships construction

[Yar Matey]

4 hours ago, Hethwill said:

 

Truth is naked though. It is impossible, nigh impossible, for a player with a full score of ships with 5 durabilities to ever need another ship. Pronto.

Crafting isn't the hard part when there's no loss involved.

 

 

 

ahh yes!  It is finally time to move to a 1 durability system for all ships and not just for those ships at the top of the food chain.

Capturing player as well as NPC suprises, trincs, connies, bellonas, ect..  will be so much more rewarding and the loss so much more real.  Combat will be much more fulfilling and real with a 1 durability system.   

Please devs.  make 1 durability happen.

PS:  As far as the patch, I must say mostly positive.  We are a long ways away from a great game.  I would have given a higher mark if port battles were plentiful and land added to the battles.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Yar Matey

[Guest]

The crafting drove off a lot of players and I recon it's good they've removed the fine woods for now. I like the idea that's been proposed to make 3rds and up dependant on fine woods (or 4th as well since I consider 5ths and below the "natural" patrol ships) as it would restrict crafting 1st rates.. Another proposal I liked was put forth by Wraith (I believe) to make ships craftable over time - so a 1st rate didn't just spawn magically but rather a few day after creating it (this can be added to all ships to make the crafting a bit more realistic).

 

I think there's a lot of bugs that still needs to be rooted out and it'll be good if devs started to prioritize some of the potentially gamebreaking bugs like the alliancebug (what happens when two nations are allied and one comes under attack before voting day and after the voting round they're no longer allies and can't help eachother in PBs..

The PB bug definately needs to be fixed.. PBs shouldn't close early and it's a rather large problem considering the fact that there no longer is a huge number of PBs.

 

The PvP is still hurting and now even more so. The AI fleets should either be restricted to 5ths (and numbers) or removed all together (and perhaps keep AI traders) - combined with the forts (which should be removed from areas that aren't regional capitols) they remove a lot of the PvP. The new speed increase in OW is great for trading/crafting but as tag timers haven't been reduced it'll remove a lot of PvP as well. It shouldn't be a surprise as it's rather straightforward.

 

All in all - a mediocre patch that still leaves a lot to be desired but definately improves some aspects of the game.

[Blaatand]

14 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

The crafting drove off a lot of players and I recon it's good they've removed the fine woods for now. I like the idea that's been proposed to make 3rds and up dependant on fine woods (or 4th as well since I consider 5ths and below the "natural" patrol ships) as it would restrict crafting 1st rates.. Another proposal I liked was put forth by Wraith (I believe) to make ships craftable over time - so a 1st rate didn't just spawn magically but rather a few day after creating it (this can be added to all ships to make the crafting a bit more realistic).

I think there's a lot of bugs that still needs to be rooted out and it'll be good if devs started to prioritize some of the potentially gamebreaking bugs like the alliancebug (what happens when two nations are allied and one comes under attack before voting day and after the voting round they're no longer allies and can't help eachother in PBs..

The PB bug definately needs to be fixed.. PBs shouldn't close early and it's a rather large problem considering the fact that there no longer is a huge number of PBs.

The PvP is still hurting and now even more so. The AI fleets should either be restricted to 5ths (and numbers) or removed all together (and perhaps keep AI traders) - combined with the forts (which should be removed from areas that aren't regional capitols) they remove a lot of the PvP. The new speed increase in OW is great for trading/crafting but as tag timers haven't been reduced it'll remove a lot of PvP as well.

I agree - and the real time construction is discussed here:

I do not know if it has been discussed before as well??

[van der Clam]

If you want a more responsive poll, create questions for each bullet point on the patch notes.

[Yippee Ki Yea]

I love losing the fine woods and the tow feature is handy.

Is there a way to add the Heavy Rattler, Agamemmnon etc blueprints to the rewards for the PVE and PVP events? Many of the players that got them during the special events in the past don't play any more and the ships are getting harder to get.

I like the PVP zone- but have one question/suggestion. Would it be possible to have to zone be an instance- like an epic battle- with crossed swords to mark the location? That way players from all nations could just sail up and join- and escape if they are able. You could even make the area surrounding the "Join" location a 1v1 zone so one one would get ganked as they approach.

Good job though devs. I still love the game and (fine woods aside) every patch has made the game better.

 

[Rychu Karas]

I voted "Good in general"

Bad changes are better than no changes!!!

BUT. Most of the ideas are in general good. The real problem are NUMBERS. Very often you use "change" "decrease" "increase" "adjust", but you don't say how much it will change. For example from the last patch... "lowered" splinter damage what the fk. it mean? or "Brace reduces incoming crew damage significantly " seriously? significantly? i tested it, and didn't saw ANY change...

I want to say, no ideas are broken but only a wrong implementation of the ideas. The same story is with fine wood, the idea was good, but the implementation was broken.

Region idea is great, but ATM your solution drive away a lot of ppl cause of lack of PBs.

SO please don't say that "players want it" because in most cases it's not a problem of an idea.