Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

[Hodo]

5 minutes ago, Red Dragon 13 said:

Devs, the only thing that needs change is Pirate Mechanics. Please see what Sir Texas Sir said.

Would you be so kind as to link it?

[Red Dragon 13]

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

French, Spain, GB, US, DUTCH/DANE/SWEDE(combine these) would give you 5 nations.  Than make Pirates a Privateer faction where if they have a LoM they can work for a nation, if they don't they are pirate/outlaws.  Only work out of free ports/pirate havens and no conquest.   

To Hodo: here is what Sir Texas Sir said that I liked

[Hodo]

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

French, Spain, GB, US, DUTCH/DANE/SWEDE(combine these) would give you 5 nations.  Than make Pirates a Privateer faction where if they have a LoM they can work for a nation, if they don't they are pirate/outlaws.  Only work out of free ports/pirate havens and no conquest.   

I would expand on this slightly.

I would also reduce the production abilities out of free ports.  Shipyards can only be built up to level 1 in a free port.  So no more 5th and 4th rate fleets being built out of free ports.   Yes I operate out of free ports currently.    And I do most of my work in 6th and 7th rates.   But nothing stops you from buying a bigger ship from a player who can build them.

 

I would also flat out just drop the Danes, and Swedes from the game.   No offense but they had no real impact on the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th century.  

[Sir Texas Sir]

18 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Would you be so kind as to link it?

I posted many times about turning them into Privateers and doing a proper reputation system.  Pirates/Privateers shouldn't even be a starting option. It should be something you become in game and used to switch nations to or as a Privateer work for other nations and help small nations fill port battle slots.    Think of Merc Units in MWO how they get +/- for working with certain factions towards there credit and xp.  You get a LoM from Spain on our server you get a big bust to credits and xp.  You work for GB which is one of the bit you take a hit to xp/credits earned.  You will only be a Privateer while you have a LoM, any other time you will be classified as an Outlaw/Pirate or you can just stay one.  This will allow a British Player to become a Privateer for say Spain in game.  Pirates/Privateers/Outlaws would only have Freetown and Pirate haven ports to work out of.  They don't have conquest.  Only allowed to have level 2 shipyards, but can use SOL if captured or bought.   While they hold a LoM for a nation they can enter those ports, but can only put an outpost, but no buildings. 

Reputation system can be tied into trading too.  Why would a nation trade with you if you sink there traders all the time.  This will remove the need for the smuggler flag to use other nations ports.

I think it would help to bring it to 5 nations instead of the 8 we currently have.  Prob shut off the Gulf of Mexico to as the map just is way to big. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[mikawa]

According to the OP one of the main reasons for this is that new players don't know if the nation they are joining is big or small. I don't have the slightest clue whether this matters at all, I am in a small nation and I like it. But if this is really this big problem, then why not let players join the game "neutral" without flag, and give them a special neutral channel, where experienced players of all nations might make advertisements for their countries and help the new ones with Q&A. These neutral beginners are excluded from outposts & buildings but can freely explore the world and do missions to gain gold & xp (which practically all do in the beginning). After a time they can choose a nation and have all the rights & duties a national player has.

[Red Dragon 13]

6 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I posted many times about turning them into Privateers and doing a proper reputation system.  Pirates/Privateers shouldn't even be a starting option. It should be something you become in game and used to switch nations to or as a Privateer work for other nations and help small nations fill port battle slots.    Think of Merc Units in MWO how they get +/- for working with certain factions towards there credit and xp.  You get a LoM from Spain on our server you get a big bust to credits and xp.  You work for GB which is one of the bit you take a hit to xp/credits earned.  You will only be a Privateer while you have a LoM, any other time you will be classified as an Outlaw/Pirate or you can just stay one.  This will allow a British Player to become a Privateer for say Spain in game.  Pirates/Privateers/Outlaws would only have Freetown and Pirate haven ports to work out of.  They don't have conquest.  Only allowed to have level 2 shipyards, but can use SOL if captured or bought.   While they hold a LoM for a nation they can enter those ports, but can only put an outpost, but no buildings. 

Reputation system can be tied into trading too.  Why would a nation trade with you if you sink there traders all the time.  This will remove the need for the smuggler flag to use other nations ports.

I think it would help to bring it to 5 nations instead of the 8 we currently have.  Prob shut off the Golf of Mexico to as the map just is way to big. 

I agree completely, except regarding the Gulf of Mexico, if we think expanding the player base

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 minute ago, Red Dragon 13 said:

I agree completely, except regarding the Gulf of Mexico, if we think expanding the player base

Lets be honest how much is it used on EU?  If you confine the map to a smaller area you will have nations closer together and fighting over areas of control next to there borders.  Right now nations can get about anything any where and go off and hide in the Gulf or on Bermuda/Kidds and ignore the rest of there nations and basically have a PvE game.  

I just looked at the EU server map and looks like the only region that has changed hands in the GoM was NO that the brits own and I bet that is only cause it's a 3 point region.  Hell the is the only reason the pirates took it on Global.

[Red Dragon 13]

8 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Lets be honest how much is it used on EU?  If you confine the map to a smaller area you will have nations closer together and fighting over areas of control next to there borders.  Right now nations can get about anything any where and go off and hide in the Gulf or on Bermuda/Kidds and ignore the rest of there nations and basically have a PvE game.  

I just looked at the EU server map and looks like the only region that has changed hands in the GoM was NO that the brits own and I bet that is only cause it's a 3 point region.  Hell the is the only reason the pirates took it on Global.

Maybe you are right.

On the other hand, historically, even pirates went hiding at certain times, traveling as far as Madagascar to settle there and raiding the coast of Africa. Interesting point anyway.

[Vizzini]

3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Lets be honest how much is it used on EU?  If you confine the map to a smaller area you will have nations closer together and fighting over areas of control next to there borders.  Right now nations can get about anything any where and go off and hide in the Gulf or on Bermuda/Kidds and ignore the rest of there nations and basically have a PvE game.  

I just looked at the EU server map and looks like the only region that has changed hands in the GoM was NO that the brits own and I bet that is only cause it's a 3 point region.  Hell the is the only reason the pirates took it on Global.

I don't see making the world smaller at the start as a good choice, it may well be that a company needs to move to a slower / less active area to rebuild. Or do what other nations / clans do and hide under  a " we pve " banner to support their hostile friends

 

Theres some good stuff to be thinking about , too much change to the OW IMHO won't help moving forward. People wanting instant battles are likely never to be seen 2 minutes after Legends is released anyway

[Raekur]

Wow this thing grew fast..too much to read while I am at work..So I will ask and hopefully not annoy anyone if they have already been answered.

Clans -> War Companies - I think a Clan should commit to a war company fully, No possibility for members of a Clan to be part of multiple war Companies else you risk the chances of members of a clan being hostile to each other and causing questions of loyalty. Clans should be in or out a war company not partially due to "trying to have the best of both worlds" approach and possible exploits this could cause in regards to who can attack who. For instance, Clan X is part of Company 1. Company 2 is hostile to Company 1 and wants to attack any of their ships. Company 2 locates a Clan X ship that is not part of Company 1 - Company 2 starts generating complaints because Company 1 is using ships that are immune to attack by not having a Clan X ship in the war company.

I think one way that nations will still be important is that nations are hostile to nations, therefor it does not matter what company is involved. War Companies should be contained to a single nation for the same reason that Clans should be part of only one Company. This will permit non Company members of a nation the ability to attack other nation vessels without restrictions. So a US player can attack any Swedish player regardless of the person being in a company or not.

Contracts at Nation Capitols - I think one thing that would help a lot is that no contracts can be placed in a capitol region. This would prevent "monopolies" for specific goods by large groups and thus making the solo / small clan groups unable to purchase items. Buying an item out completely would still be there but to do so would require someone to actually be online to buy up the resource instead of it being automated. 

Limiting growth of a Company - Perhaps a maintenance fee for number of port could be setup and needed to be maintained. Failure to pay removes control of that port from the company and the port reverts back to neutral status. Payment could be done either by direct withdrawal from the clan warehouse or setting up a Port Maintenance Account that can be pulled from at server reset so someone does not have to be online to take care of it. Payments in advance might not work due to changes in ownership from PB's. So if a company takes a port during the day it will not increase the PM until after the reset. The balance to this is that since the PM only changes at reset any ports that are lost are still paid for unless all the ports owned are on a listing and the company leader can pick and chose which ports are paid for and which are permitted to be released to neutral status in case funds run low or if a company decides to focus on a new area.

[ShereKhan]

Having read/skimmed most of this thread, would like like to drop my 2 cents.......

I would hope that War Co's would be limited in size, at least no more members than a clan....

I would hope that Taxes would have some sort of game regulated cap.....

I would hope that complete access to ports map wide would be limited to trading vessels, who the hell wants a group of bad guy  Connies popping out of port the minute you try to start a trade run...

I would suggest to developers that 'Free' Port could be 'Tax Free' port, where trading between players would  obviously be tax free, allow a base, but no production of any kind. I think that could open lots of interesting possibilities.....

[Spitfire83]

Personally I don't like this new direction, it seems like making everyone in a war company you are just making temporary pirates who plunder a town and hold it to ransom through taxation. 

Also players who are considered or consider themselves great at pvp are likely to form a elite war company so they are not let down etc by average players causing great unbalance in the force. With the average vs the best who is likely to win especially if the best already have access to the better things in game .. there are actually  numerous other reasons most of which have been covered by other members..

[Fowler1414]

How will this improve the experience for new players? It is a steep learning curve for new starters as it is, this will just confuse the hell out of them. At least previously they just had to choose a nation, now they will have a bewildering choice of clans/ companies etc, with no real idea of how the system works. Far too complex a system. Besides it feels as though you are just doing away with nations and turning everyone into Pirates under a different name. I just don't get it.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Fowler1414

[Prater]

15 hours ago, Bearwall said:

Why not remove the current map and all national factions. As @Christendom identifies this is basically EVE with sails so lets forego with the historical context, get a better map gameplay wise and kill of all nations as national membership will have no bearing compared to company membership and historical context is thrown out of the window anyway. The days of mercenaries were dying by the time of this period in history and at sea it died a lot earlier than it did on land. One reason was the economic considerations of national ownership of ships and especially warships. By the 18th century only the Netherlands and Britain had privately owned shipyards that made warships and they did so purely to nations (and in britain it had to be England otherwise the proprietor of the shipyard would be liable to charges of treason = national membership mattered).

There is no need for a different map.  The one in place has taken over 1 year of development and tweaks.  Having to start from scratch with unpassable shallows, unenterable ports, tweaks, and such would be a very dumb move and an extreme waste of resources and past testing.  The map didn't start in its current state but took a lot of time to iron out bugs.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater

[Dragonfire]

So from what I see so far once again your trying to get ppl to pvp by trying to open up company within a nation verses company in same nation to fight each other as another option?

Super nations with player base will repress smaller factions , nations through taxation and if you don't like that nation tax it hard ?

Well organized nations able to basically run over fractured ones you figure they will work together ? Doubt it history has shown in this game they will either Quit. or move to another stronger nation as gameplay will be way too grind intensive or hopeless.

Just finally get it over with split the map in the middle and have it east v west or North v South countries , direction it is heading.

Your not in a strong nation,  the stronger nation and clans are gonna take till it hurts and tax the max allowed to keep you repressed.

Going to be a go big or go home style

Only thing going to be missing now is religion. Got the death and taxes part coming now lol.

Now can make use of pray button I guess lol.

You want hard core grinder types only to play the game direction it is headed.

 

[Prater]

16 hours ago, Bearwall said:

 By the 18th century only the Netherlands and Britain had privately owned shipyards that made warships and they did so purely to nations (and in britain it had to be England otherwise the proprietor of the shipyard would be liable to charges of treason = national membership mattered).

 

This part is not true.  Prior to the finishing of the 6 original US frigates, the US did not have a navy.  The last frigate of the Revolution was sold years before, and between 1794 and 1798 the US navy did not have any frigates.  Foreign privateers were causing havoc among US shipping, with the French alone capturing over 300 US merchants in 1797, and the US had no means of protecting merchant shipping at all.  Because of this, the US populace got together and privately funded and built several frigates, including:  Essex, Boston, Philadelphia, John Adams, and New York, carrying 32, 32, 44, 28, and 36 guns.  There were four sloops-of-war built, the Merrimack, Maryland, Patapsco, and Trumbull, carrying 28, 26, 24, and 18 guns.  In 1800, privately funded and built warships increased US naval power by 62%.

So one of our ships in Naval Action is actually a privately funded and built frigate, the Essex, which after launch was given to the US government.  The cost of over $130,000 was raised by private citizens of Massachusetts.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater

[PIerrick de Badas]

I'm sorry to not have the time to read all the good advice that may be given here. 

As first impression, having a reflexion on what could be the rvr is great.

I always have been for a system like an eve one where clans are co teollings ports.

The idea now about Are company have to be think and think and think to not allow abuse.

It's not bad but seems complicated although on the paper it seems great.

For example I'm know to own multiple account. All French. It seems I may have a big advantage by having my main character playing the war and the others one not in the clan to beeing allow to join any port. In the same hand beeing part of rvr clans seems not so good for people that love pvp but want some peace.

One more time it's greats ideas. Just take the time you need to make it perfect before release it.

[Blackjack McGee]

I commend the Devs for their thinking outside the box when it comes to this latest suggestion.  As with most things the devil will be in the details upon rollout.

A couple of comments:

1) I do not think this solution addresses the new player experience.  I don't see how it solves the initial grind and initial easy prey for PVP.

2) I do not think this solution addresses the ALT situation.  It may change the way alts are used but ways to exploit ALTs will be found.  People may now try and use ALTs within nation in different war clans etc.

3) Minimizing the "national identity" is risky business.  Not sure how it will pan out as many people tend to identify with their nation and are not all that interested in joining clans.  Small clans may become a thing of the past and this may drive people to leave if they don't want to be a part of a large clan.  Remember, there is normally a lot of bickering going on in large clans and for many that alone can drive them away from the game.

4) Realism.  One advantage of the new system is it moves away from the "realism" factor that has driven much of the previous development.  I believe, that now, more "game friendly" aspects can be added, for example, higher OW speeds, teleporting (I know many do not like this), etc.

5) I know it has been mentioned but please allow people to be in the "home clan" and join a war clan at the same time.  I think the two should be different groups.

It may be good, it may be bad, but it definitely will be interesting.

[Vernon Merrill]

As someone who has never played EVE, does anyone care to give their feelings on how these possible changes compare to that game?  And do you feel that game is enjoyable?

[Blackjack Morgan]

Let's just get that Naval Action Legends testing underway and good luck with the Guild Wars meets EVE meets RNG lottery system! 

[Hodo]

Just now, Vernon Merrill said:

As someone who has never played EVE, does anyone care to give their feelings on how these possible changes compare to that game?  And do you feel that game is enjoyable?

Eve is a bit different animal.  

It is based around corps (clans) from the start.  It even lumps you into a national corp as a noob for training, then you can leave and join a player run corp or another npc corp.   But if you are in a NPC corp you dont have to worry about having war declared on you. (wardeced)  

But it also means you will not be able to actively take part in wars.   The nations in game have a RvR component but it is VERY limited in regions that change hands and is mostly an after thought in game.  Most of the games action is based around corp wars.   There is NO national identity at all in game.  No point in being Amarr or anything else.   But the game is also MUCH larger and has the ability to support non-PVP oriented players in otherways.   They can have a fun and meaningful gameplay experience through well thought out in game events and mission story arcs.   

These changes are like a VERY poor mans version of Eve.... I am talking less than 5% of the Eve version.  

 

[Hethwill]

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

game events and mission story arcs

[HardyKnox]

19 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

As someone who has never played EVE, does anyone care to give their feelings on how these possible changes compare to that game?  And do you feel that game is enjoyable?

Also, EVE, which had full release several years ago, presently has over 2,000 average players, but falling atm.   http://steamcharts.com/app/8500

Alpha (Pre-Release) status Naval Action has recent average under 700.  http://steamcharts.com/app/311310#1y

So, EVE must be doing something right.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by HardyKnox
add info

[Michael Corvinus]

Yep New Orleans was given away to the Danes

 

[Hodo]

20 minutes ago, HardyKnox said:

Also, EVE, which had full release several years ago, presently has over 2,000 average players, but falling atm.   http://steamcharts.com/app/8500

Alpha (Pre-Release) status Naval Action has recent average under 700.  http://steamcharts.com/app/311310#1y

So, EVE must be doing something right.

 

Most of EvEs players dont use STEAM though.  So those charts are off.