Patch 11.0: New ships, Unity 5, Improved clan based conquest, and many other changes.

[admin]

Just now, Peter Goldman said:

Limit should be changed. Yesterday British got Cartagena to 100% but we already had 3 PBs... Then Danish came and grinded it to 100%. Now these 2 nations are "fighting" for hostility and PB again. In fact... Danish are logging out and running away from British fleet and they can dock to all neutral ports like Cartagena/Barranquilla safely to hide. Today again both nations will have it at 100%...

limits under review

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 minutes ago, admin said:

It was not working correctly before and we reset the battles manually - the fix is coming. The battle should set up next day 22 hours after hostility reached 100% if it this time (+22 hours) is within the window. 

regarding the drop to 0
for hostility 100% drop is a parameter. We can change it to 50% so only 50% is dropped during maintenance leaving some breathing room. But it might create edge cases which might be confusing. And will provide less incentives for defenders to react. What do you think?

I think 0% is best, as much as I feel for the SEA players if you didn't get a port flipped by server down time you really need to start over cause we should n't be having port battles exactly when the server comes back up.  So if you have to start over on the grind than you need to take the hour or two to flip it and get a good time.  I like this too cause than we can run hostility up on ports just to get OW fights and not worry about some one necro flipping it when your off line to lock in ports from being able to have your 3 port battle per day.  Though I think since you listed this is all clan base than the 3 limit should be per clan not nation.

[Knobby]

1 minute ago, springby said:

vasa OP? lol

"As Vasa passed under the lee of the bluffs to the south (what is now Södermalm), a gust of wind filled her sails, and she heeled suddenly to port. The sheets were cast off, and the ship slowly righted herself as the gust passed. At Tegelviken, where there is a gap in the bluffs, an even stronger gust again forced the ship onto its port side, this time pushing the open lower gunports under the surface, allowing water to rush in onto the lower gundeck. The water building up on the deck quickly exceeded the ship's minimal ability to right itself, and water continued to pour in until it ran down into the hold; the ship quickly sank to a depth of 32 m (105 ft) only 120 m (390 ft) from shore. Survivors clung to debris or the upper masts, which were still above the surface, to save themselves, and many nearby boats rushed to their aid, but despite these efforts and the short distance to land, 30 people perished with the ship, according to reports. Vasa sank in full view of a crowd of hundreds, if not thousands, of mostly ordinary Stockholmers who had come to see the great ship set sail. The crowd included foreign ambassadors, in effect spies of Gustavus Adolphus' allies and enemies, who also witnessed the catastrophe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

why is it even in game? the hull was fail constructed, it didnt even make its maiden voyage x)

For the millionth time, DIFFERENT WASA!

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 minute ago, Peter Goldman said:

Also, it is hard to find the enemy mission. It takes a long time to scout the area even in 6th and 7th rates or 5th rates. Mission spawning area is huge!

We pulled some up at Kidd's mid day to test some things out and it was on the North West side of North Islet.   When we flipped San Iago we had missions all the way up and down that cost line but just picked the first 4 we rolled up on.  Yah I think they need to be tighten up in area they drop in a little bit.  I should not be doing a mission for another port in front of the port down the coast or other side of an island.

1 minute ago, springby said:

vasa OP? lol

"As Vasa passed under the lee of the bluffs to the south (what is now Södermalm), a gust of wind filled her sails, and she heeled suddenly to port. The sheets were cast off, and the ship slowly righted herself as the gust passed. At Tegelviken, where there is a gap in the bluffs, an even stronger gust again forced the ship onto its port side, this time pushing the open lower gunports under the surface, allowing water to rush in onto the lower gundeck. The water building up on the deck quickly exceeded the ship's minimal ability to right itself, and water continued to pour in until it ran down into the hold; the ship quickly sank to a depth of 32 m (105 ft) only 120 m (390 ft) from shore. Survivors clung to debris or the upper masts, which were still above the surface, to save themselves, and many nearby boats rushed to their aid, but despite these efforts and the short distance to land, 30 people perished with the ship, according to reports. Vasa sank in full view of a crowd of hundreds, if not thousands, of mostly ordinary Stockholmers who had come to see the great ship set sail. The crowd included foreign ambassadors, in effect spies of Gustavus Adolphus' allies and enemies, who also witnessed the catastrophe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

why is it even in game? the hull was fail constructed, it didnt even make its maiden voyage x)

Wrong ship

[Hawkwood]

10 minutes ago, admin said:

It was not working correctly before and we reset the battles manually - the fix is coming. The battle should set up next day 22 hours after hostility reached 100% if it this time (+22 hours) is within the window. 

regarding the drop to 0
for hostility 100% drop is a parameter. We can change it to 50% so only 50% is dropped during maintenance leaving some breathing room. But it might create edge cases which might be confusing. And will provide less incentives for defenders to react. What do you think?

I do not think that this would help. Either the battle is set or it isn`t.

Leave it as it is please.

[Jeheil]

11 minutes ago, admin said:

It was not working correctly before and we reset the battles manually - the fix is coming. The battle should set up next day 22 hours after hostility reached 100% if it this time (+22 hours) is within the window. 

regarding the drop to 0
for hostility 100% drop is a parameter. We can change it to 50% so only 50% is dropped during maintenance leaving some breathing room. But it might create edge cases which might be confusing. And will provide less incentives for defenders to react. What do you think?

TBH its easy to flip, so im cool with a wipe, EXCEPT, we had ports at 100% which shouldn't reset, they should flip, ideally always...but if you keep the 3 limit, then on freeing up the queue.

This is a problem, coz one Timezone can setup 3...and everyone elses will just fall off...as happened to TWO ports today.

So please consider @admin that the 3 limit does not include AI Neutral towns

 

[Jeheil]

Same Ready, we had 5 ports on 80% or more and one on a 100%...but now...they are all lost, like tears, in rain. However we are all billionaires !!

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

4 minutes ago, Jeheil said:

TBH its easy to flip, so im cool with a wipe, EXCEPT, we had ports at 100% which shouldn't reset, they should flip, ideally always...but if you keep the 3 limit, then on freeing up the queue.

This is a problem, coz one Timezone can setup 3...and everyone elses will just fall off...as happened to TWO ports today.

So please consider @admin that the 3 limit does not include AI Neutral towns

 

The easy way would put the limit on clan, only 3 ports per clan.  I think after we get the land grab out of the way it won't be so bad, but the other thing is just take the limit off for a week or so and see how things settle out and than put it back on.  I know the limit was to keep from zerg a nation, but maybe bump it up to 5-10 for a week or to if you don't take the limit off.  Though I think the best thing is three per clan as some big clans might actually have more than one fight in a day.  We have a good number of SEA players along with our US so we wouldn't want to be limited to sharing port slots with other clans when we can easily field 2 port battles back to back in US prime time and than prob another in AUS/SEA times.

[Captain corn blower]

Did any one else  lose any thing after your system updated . left the game Sunday night with 6 million in change logged in and my system updated and I had 6 hundred thousand in change .and I only noticed it after trying to put a contract in for pair_furniture and I didn't have enough.reported it 

[mikawa]

No I lost nothing.

[sveno]

I cant loose anything as I am constantly broke.
 

[Grundal]

600k in 40 mins is to OP.  that should not happen.  needs to be dialed back a bit.

[fox2run]

Drop the clan idea. Nations will ally against the strongest anyway. You can't make a balanced game like this and players not in a strong clan will never be able to fight big battles. It's an unbalanced and bad feature. 

[mikawa]

2 minutes ago, fox2run said:

Drop the clan idea. Nations will ally against the strongest anyway. You can't make a balanced game like this and players not in a strong clan will never be able to fight big battles. It's an unbalanced and bad feature. 

Too early to state this. Lets first test it properly. And besides, even a big clan with only 5 players online is a weak clan. The friendship option is for that. Not so bad, I guess.

[Liq]

9 minutes ago, Captain Two Toes Magoo said:

600k in 40 mins is to OP.  that should not happen.  needs to be dialed back a bit.

Better than back when we could rageboard 1st rate fleet Missions and do 1.5m - 2m per battle

This might actually be doable again. Get all the boarding mods on a crew space buc or vic. Surgeon even lets you recover crew every 5 min now. And use pressgang perk

How much gold do you now get per sank ai 1st rate?

Edited September 12, 2017 by Liq

[Jeheil]

Just now, Liq said:

Better than back when we could rageboard 1st rate fleet Missions and do 1.5m - 2.5m per battle

This might actually be doable again. Get all the boarding mods on a crew space buc or vic. Surgeon even lets you recover crew every 5 min now. And use pressgang perk

How much gold do you now get per sank ai 1st rate?

160k ??

[victor]

4 minutes ago, Captain Two Toes Magoo said:

600k in 40 mins is to OP.  that should not happen.  needs to be dialed back a bit.

600k for a coordinate effort of a battle group, that will pay only the 6 initial days of port maintenance it does not seem to me so OP.

Keep in mind that the problem of the new conquest system will NOT be taking a lot of ports, but paying the fees for keeping up a lot of ports.

[Grundal]

7 minutes ago, victor said:

600k for a coordinate effort of a battle group, that will pay only the 6 initial days of port maintenance it does not seem to me so OP.

Keep in mind that the problem of the new conquest system will NOT be taking a lot of ports, but paying the fees for keeping up a lot of ports.

Ok. 

We will test and see

[mikawa]

Any clue for now about any change in rewards when you are together with a group in battle?

[Kair]

32 minutes ago, sveno said:

I cant loose anything as I am constantly broke.
 

Well my dear friend Sveno, welcome to my new word ! Just back since 3 days to NA since almost a year, and I was having a terrible time making enough money to do anything ! But missions seem to give more wealth since the patch so...

[Kair]

In fact, the "my dear friend" part seems obsolete as Sweden and France dont seem to be getting along that well. A lot of things changed, where did all our diplomatic efforts go since last year ?

Edited September 12, 2017 by Kair

[Galt]

3 hours ago, admin said:

we will update the PB times to times when they should have happened manually (but one time).
 

Bless you gentlemen, thank you for your understanding!

[fox2run]

4 hours ago, mikawa said:

Too early to state this. Lets first test it properly. And besides, even a big clan with only 5 players online is a weak clan. The friendship option is for that. Not so bad, I guess.

We have been testing clans for some time now. They dont work properly. Once a clan reach a certain size, it will divide when leaders dont agree. The splitted clans wont be as solid and usually split again. Any mid-size and small clan is very, very hard to make work. My clan has around 15 members, but halt of them didnt log in for a year and the other half not for six months waiting for the next patch or some more action. I was a member of a bigger clan, but there where a lot of disagreements and it splitted up in fragments. Another clan took leadership of the nation, but it meant a kind of an oligarchy where normal players had to follow what "was best for the nation". All in all a pretty bad gaming experience.

The fun part is battles some trading and shipbuilding. How can we experience this without the clan-based stuff? How can I have this feeling as fighting for a nation, participate in the big battles, defending, figting etc without being dependant on [clans]? (Its ok to have these but please dont make them nescessary to have the full gaming experience). Clans split a nation and hence the game-community. We need to put players together not dividing them into atoms.

1) Port battles open FOR ALL.

2) All ships should be able to be built by single players within reasonable time.

3) Nation-mechanisms should be favoured before any clans. (Like scoreboards, arena-like battle setup-options in OW like patrols/areas of control etc.

thank you
 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removed backhanded insult - no worries.

[Captain Lust]

4 hours ago, admin said:

admiralty builds them and gives distinguished captains (owning combat marks) the chance to get them straight from the government

I like it, good addition to the game imo. 

[mikawa]

3 hours ago, fox2run said:

Port battles open FOR ALL.

The problem are players joining in minor ships. So the decision was to restrict port battle participation only to clan members.

I agree that clan environments are a pain but this is common in all multiplayer online games ... sad but true, nobody sees you so people feel like they are protected by anonymity ...