Patch 29. Sextant, shallow water changes, improvements in the User interface.

[Marquis de la Fayette]

5 minutes ago, EdWatchmaker said:

Ahoy Admin, Devs et Capitaines,

Merci, Admin, pour l’information sur le nouveau correctif à venir et, même si je n’en ai vraiment pas besoin, le sextant qui facilitera les choses.

Après avoir lu plus haut une idée de placer la carte européenne sur le serveur PVE et d’échanger PVP et PVE de temps en temps, j’ai pensé que je devrais ajouter mes 2 centimes. J'aime absolument l'idée. Une chose que j’ai remarquée est la stagnation de la RVR lorsque la RVR est terminée et que les choses deviennent lentes et ennuyeuses sur le serveur PVP. Le serveur PVE a tellement besoin de contenu et je me rends compte que la petite équipe de développement ne peut pas tout faire et doit se concentrer sur une chose à la fois et, espérons-le, bien faire les choses. Si les joueurs pouvaient sécuriser leur port d'attache sur chaque serveur afin de ne pas tout perdre lors du retournement, cela devrait fonctionner. Ce serait un moyen de garder les choses fraîches et dynamiques pour tous les styles de joueurs. Les noobs peuvent apprendre sans se faire écraser, les PVE ne doivent pas s’impliquer dans le PVP sauf s’ils le souhaitent et le PVP s’attache davantage aux nouveaux ports à conquérir tous les quelques mois. PVP pourrait bien avoir plus de convertis parce que certains PVE pourraient se rendre du côté PVP pour un peu d’excitation et l’aimer. Le PVPer qui en a eu assez pendant un certain temps peut revenir au serveur PVE pour se reposer et faire son commerce et sa fabrication sans entrave.

Je sais qu'il faudrait beaucoup de travail pour que cela fonctionne, mais je pense que cela vaudrait la peine de garder les choses fraîches et de satisfaire les deux types de joueurs.

Voile équitable et joyeuses fêtes. Maintenant de retour au travail. 

Bonjour,

Là encore je partage l'idée générale. Bien sûr que les nouveaux joueurs ne doivent pas être dégoûtés, et bien sûr qu'il faut lier PvP et PvE. Mais attention :

1) le PvE ne doit pas enterrer le PvP qui est la raison de vivre du multijoueur ( il y a le mot 'multi')

2) le lien entre les deux mondes doit être intelligemment pensé, le risque est le farming en PvE.

Mais encore une fois, l'idée est bonne.

Cordialement, La Fayette.

 

[LeBoiteux]

7 hours ago, admin said:

yes. 

BUT - they are already not popular and are used by specialists who know how to use them who will continue using them. Due to sandbox nature of the world  - people use particular ships and most 6th rates are not on the list. 

does it imply that there won't be any new 7th-6th Rates in game some day ?

Edited December 13, 2018 by LeBoiteux

[Barbancourt]

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

  Though honestly I would of loved if they did the concept of turning the GoM into the PvE zone with French and Spain being the PvE/PvP nations and tall the others PvP.   If you want to come play in the RvR/PvP part of the game all you have to do it sail over to that part of the map. If you want to be safe than you play in the PvE part of the map. 

 

PVE players don't want to be restricted to some corner of the map.  They want to PVE over the entire map. 

[GhastlyGhost]

10 minutes ago, Barbancourt said:

PVE players don't want to be restricted to some corner of the map.  They want to PVE over the entire map. 

but 99 % of them do PvE missions in front of capital port .....

 

[van der Clam]

10 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

If you don't make the Hercules and requin craftable these changes will be hard to test. Why craft a surprise or another shallow ship if you get a Hercules with 18s or requin with crew an sailing profile for free? 

@admin All ships should be craftable, even the DLCs. People who buy the ships save time, resources, and reals by not having to craft them. Regular players just wouldn't have that luxury, but at least we wouldn't always be out-maneuvered, out-gunned, and out-manned.  

9 hours ago, admin said:

all ships must be able to participate in all activities. in terms of value - why not capture 3-5 suprises for free? You can only use 1 herc in a day. but you can use as many captured ships as you want. 

All ships should be capturable.

9 hours ago, staun said:

The value you get for paying a ship is you save time, the price is you only can redeem on a time interval. I do like you have made it on the amount of LH used. Like less you only can have one in habor, But think it is a fair compromize. But thats just my opinion.

This ^

1 hour ago, admin said:

Sextant is in because trader tool is getting out. Position is less important to us compared to finding trade deals by sailing. 

Trader tool is the same as historical word of mouth. There is no reason to remove it.

1 hour ago, admin said:

yes. 

BUT - they are already not popular and are used by specialists who know how to use them who will continue using them. Due to sandbox nature of the world  - people use particular ships and most 6th rates are not on the list. 

Absolutely no "specialist" will use a lesser qualified ship, unless it is their only option. I am willing to bet that ALL "specialists" you are thinking of have already bought the DLCs and will almost always use them first.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, admin said:

yes. 

BUT - they are already not popular and are used by specialists who know how to use them who will continue using them. Due to sandbox nature of the world  - people use particular ships and most 6th rates are not on the list. 

could you for example increase the shallow area in the port battle instance different places, so for instance a snow or niagara can sail and fight at an important area but a surprise or renomme would get stuck?

[van der Clam]

1 hour ago, Wyy said:

could you for example increase the shallow area in the port battle instance different places, so for instance a snow or niagara can sail and fight at an important area but a surprise or renomme would get stuck?

Yes please! I have forgotten what admin said to this last year but I always envisioned 3 different Ports: Shallow, Medium, Deep.

Shallow would have all 3 cap zones in shallow waters.
   This would allow only 6th rate

Medium would have randomly 1 or 2 cap zones in shallow water.
  This would allow no ships above 4th rate

Deep would have none.
  This would allow ships up to 1st rate.

[Barbancourt]

3 hours ago, admin said:

yes. 

BUT - they are already not popular and are used by specialists who know how to use them who will continue using them. Due to sandbox nature of the world  - people use particular ships and most 6th rates are not on the list. 

"Specialists"?  Shouldn't 7th and 6th Rates be used by newer players for quite a while, even with the Tutorial levelling?  I was using Mercury and Snow for months when I started.  (However, with the new AI spawn there's an unfortunate lack of other 6th and 7th Rates to attack.) 

[Barbancourt]

10 minutes ago, van der Decken said:

Yes please! I have forgotten what admin said to this last year but I always envisioned 3 different Ports: Shallow, Medium, Deep.

There is already a variety of BR limits in port battles.  Though shallows are a bit of a different animal than low BR deep water ports.  

[Celtiberofrog]

Special Xmas patch:

For upcoming festive season would you announce a full week with thousands of extra bottles (refreshed every day!!) drifting in the whole sea map ?

with nice special new loots to fetch.

Give us some goodies to help waiting

 

[Barbancourt]

More Paints, Poods and Kritimati masts? 

[van der Clam]

1 hour ago, Barbancourt said:

There is already a variety of BR limits in port battles.  Though shallows are a bit of a different animal than low BR deep water ports.  

Yes there is a variety of BR, but that doesn't much change what ships would be needed or desired if the plan was to cap the zones. Having random zones being shallow for the 2 low rate PBs might do this and might also give some visual variety in PBs.
I also wanted to see the towers in water come back, not have them only on shore, but 1 or 2 towers that are capturable to be strategically placed in the PBs.

@admin, what is the possibility of the clan leader of the clan that wins the PB being able to appoint another clanmate as governor to the port? Possibly giving that Gov a reward like a special title or mark, maybe even weekly dbls or reals from the Admiralty? This might make more of an incentive to partake in PBs.

Also, the Hostility needs to last longer and not reset so fast. Make it last a few days allowing both sides to react to it. As it is now, all the potential PBs are negated so fast. This also gives no chance for possible PvP around these hostility ports.

Also, any chance of making ports upgradable via player interaction, much like the game Gloria Victis? Give Govs the responsibility to upgrade their forts and towers and capital buildings. This means Govs would also be responsible for supplying those resources to do the upgrades.
 

Edited December 13, 2018 by van der Decken

[van der Clam]

On 12/11/2018 at 6:32 AM, admin said:

Improvements

• Added indication to Hunt and S&D missions to show 3 nearest regions where your targets can be found
• Added 5th rate S&D missions in common non capital ports

Looking forward to the update. Have you considered fixing Hostility Conquest Missions?

• Make hostility last a few days to give both nations ample opportunity to respond. This will increase PBs and PvP when nations try to increase or decrease the hostility level.
• Make it possible to take Conquest Missions from more than just our nation ports. i.e. Went to a neutral port (one not occupied by any nation) and the Conquest Mission said to take from my port or a Free Port. Went to nearest Free Port (shown on map as a yellow circle +) owned by GB and the Take Hostility Mission was greyed out.
• Make OW NPC kills count more than they currently do.
• Create an Lettered Indicator to let players know that we are inside a port's zone, so that we aren't attacking NPC fleets thinking we are going to raise hostility near a port, yet it not counting because we are in "International Waters". heh

[Sir Texas Sir]

4 hours ago, Barbancourt said:

PVE players don't want to be restricted to some corner of the map.  They want to PVE over the entire map. 

I would love a million dollars in RL but that doesn't mean I'll get it.  The problem is we have a half ass server for them that gets little work on it.  I would prefer to see one strong serve that caters to both type of players.  You want to play PvE only you go play in the safe zones, many games are like this.   You want to PvP/PvE you play on the rest of the server.  Remember there was never a promise of a server just for them.  The only resent promise has or almost expires (since they left it at 18-24 and we are at 21 months).   Instead of paying for a server that has hardly 100 players on it they can take those resources and put in actual PvE content for all players alike. 

Sounds more like they are just being selfish and want the whole cake and not just happy with a slice of it.

1 hour ago, Barbancourt said:

More Paints, Poods and Kritimati masts? 

I'm all for more paints.  I still got a few Kritimati mast in stock as I only used it to test it once.  Makes you way to slow for what you get unless your into dueling.  Poods you can buy if you know where to look, hell I bet you there are some sitting in a port right now that haven't been bough, right @SS Minnow?

[Licinio Chiavari]

Interesting updates underway.

Giving some love to light 5th rates, giving them some more uses (in PBs) is very nice.
Moreover it opens shallow PBs also to small clans vs bigger: a small clan can join with a small group of 5th rates, ending to fight the bigger clan sailing or a bunch of smaller vessels or a similar set up.

In any case, we need to see this in game and then we will be able to really evaluate.

On the other side, this could even more reduce the use of unrated ships. One solution could me setting some ports with very low BR limit... just dropped there as a simple idea.

 

And as usual in a matter of few posts the subject moved around DLC and Requin in particular.

First:
I consider an error having DLC as full ships.

I (as wrote in the past) far better solution having DLC as redeemable (and tradable) ship permit.
Personally I'd suggest, after some polls among DLC owners, to move them as permits on 24-48 hrs CD.
On one hand we'll have to build them. This way adding future new DLC ship will be feasible without ruining (furthermore) ingame economy.
On the other will put them, economy wise, on par with other ships.
Moreover they will be tradable: this way any player will be able to access them. And DLC will be also a (probably small) ingame income for DLC owners, as often MMOs allow real cash for ingame cash.

Someone says that it is unfair. Partially I reply.
There are players with huge ingame time... making them often "uncatchable" for more casual players.
Cash for ingame currency ends reducing the gap. Plain and simple.

 

Moving back again on Requin.

First note: I was dreaming about a xebec more than a couple years ago. Sincerely I got the DLC the same day it was available even if I barely tested the first redeemable. So it was not, in my case, a "looking for P2W". It was utter love.

She ended being perfectly fitted for my previous raiding style: fast boarder. She is exactly this. So I used even more than espected, and the more you use a ship, the better you'll be with her. The more kills you'll get... the more she'll be your main ship... a virtuous (vicious for others) circle.

 

I know I can be considered a "specialist". I suspect almost nobody has the same ingame time sailing and especially fighting with a requin like me. Not bragging: just stating. Surely 200/300+ in combat hours with her. I did some estimate: like 600/700+ boarding done with her in last 6 months; I think I started a boarding in any possible (and impossible) way. And slight less kills, from Yachts to Bucetaures (fighting some 1st rates too).
And I have still to understand why sterncamping to death a SoL with a Snow is skill, the same exact with a requin (with a far crappier turning rate BTW) no.

So I'll try to "debunk" a bit (again).

I think there's no need to underline her profile strenghts and weakness... even if still plenty of old players get tricked with a few manouvers OW as in combat.

No ship ingame got so harshly nerfed nor so fast like requin (wanna speak about Wasa Stardestroyers of the past?).

She has less side armor that a H.Rattlesnake; her broadside is barely better than a Niagara; her turning rate is inferior to Hercules. And her mast are nothing close to "strong".
Her unique sails are a boon protecting them.. and a nemesis too. I am sure no ship can be dropped from 100% to 23% in a SINGLE frigate chain broadside. It could (seldom, being a mix of firer skill, requin distraction and luck) happen to a Requin (happened to me); simply not all "good positions to chain a square rigged ship" are good for a requin; others are.

She is a very specialized ship: a fast upwind strong boarder. Period. Nothing more. Nor less.
I do not see a similarly so specialized ship. Surely: we can go around gunning on a requin... but it's a pain. A bunch of players simply has no idea of firing from the rolling deck of a requin that is so low on water that if you dont check incoming waves you can fire a well aimed broadside directly in water (especially fighting other low profile ships... and why should a requin ever going for a gunnery duel against bigger ships!?).

That's the problem: due to difficult manual sailing (especially with force mods) and totally different handling, difficult aiming (like on all small ships), sheer hate ("not a true ship" crap), and her capabilities as killer around... too many people has simply ZERO clue about her (aside insulting those using her).

As Devs add a new ship, or as we meet a rare ship (like Cecilia), a captain is not totally surprised: still "more or less" they all behave similarly.
Manual sailing is the same (so it is guessing enemy manouver by sail position), they have top speed around broad reach (some a bit leeward other more windward); they complete a tack between few kts backward and up to 6 kts speeds. Etc. 90+% of captains has all their experience on that kind of true ships... and simply dont understand the "magic" of the requin zooming in, pushing them in a few seconds, boarding and easily killing them.

There's no magic. 50+% of requin successes are ONLY plain errors of the enemy. Like letting her on leeward side; like closing haul; like being crappy gunners; like having no clue about different boarding manouvers (no: it's not only the bow push from downwind). And silly errors fitting and defending from a boarding.

Some quick facts:
- Requin CANT push a full sail Trinco or bigger 5th rates... aside if the Trinco is so kind to let the push starting at beam or more close haul. Again: defender error.
- yes: Requin can go for head-on ram to stop and insta-board; like any ship. But it is an error of the defender, AGAIN, falling to this trick.
- Requin CAN push anything smaller, GRANTED she got a correct position hull v hull. STILL any decent Surp or Hercules CAN TACK over 3.5 kts (granted no dirty tricks by requin).

And still in all these cases requin captain needs to know how to handle her... because I saw requins being unable to stop next to me while boarding another ship: they keep surpassing me full speed... or coming back full speed (it was funny indeed).

- Requin obviously push any 6th rate... BUT, like a Prince, they can easily tack well above boarding speed... AND they have turning rates superior to her by a good share. I cant stress more: boarding a Prince is a NIGHTMARE for Requin. And gunning a Prince down is another pain (similar gear and superior turning). I'd rather fight an Agamennon+ ANY day.

- even with Musket mods a Requin CANT kill a boarded Hercules with Barricades+Axes (TESTED)... and probably even without Axes. Please note that now Barricades gives FIREPOWER PROTECTION and not BONUS. The defender has only to stay in BRACE 2-4 rounds. [but let's keep a reworking of boarding game to another thread - YES it is needed... but it's so damn easy defend yourself that I cant imagine an easier defending side... EVEN with muskets].

IF you do not fit any boarding defense AND you skip DD AND you dont prep while risking a boarding... I-T I-S Y-O-U-R fault; a fault against ANY boarder, not only requin.
Like having no mast protection mods in duel... or not repping sail even if at 90% but knowing you get a bunch of mast hits.

Well noted I already wrote more than acceptable...

So please, really: Stop whining about Requin. Get one, learn to use her... and then comment.

PS: debug the GUNBOAT! it's a shame she's utterly unusable. Thank you!

Edited December 13, 2018 by Licinio Chiavari
PS - THE GUNBOAT.

[LeBoiteux]

28 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

 The only resent promise has or almost expires (since they left it at 18-24 and we are at 21 months). 

 re-read the phrase : '18-24 months after official release' 🙂

Edited December 13, 2018 by LeBoiteux

[Dakk Elleron]

36 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

The only resent promise has or almost expires (since they left it at 18-24 and we are at 21 months).   Instead of paying for a server that has hardly 100 players on it they can take those resources and put in actual PvE content for all players alike. 

Sounds more like they are just being selfish and want the whole cake and not just happy with a slice of it.

First, you should re-read the post because it states 18-24 months after the official release. As far as I am aware, the "official release" has not occurred. 

Secondly, why is there this theme on the forums from the PvP players wanting the PvE server players to be second rate citizens on their PvP server. This is absurd!

You state "Sounds more like they are just being selfish and want the whole cake and not just happy with a slice of it." This is extremely hypocritical considering you want the whole Caribbean for the pvp players but the pve players only get a 10% of the map. Sounds like you want the whole cake yourself.

Additionally, unless I am mistaken, the pve server is just a mirror of the pvp server with a few simple coding changes to account for rules of engagement. Therefore, I can't see it being that much of a drain on resources that you claim it to be.

Lastly, time and time again I read about complaints and problems from the pvp server.  Do you really believe, forcing people from the pve server onto the pvp server is going to fix all the Le Requin and Hercules problems?  Do you really think forcing them onto the pvp server will all of a sudden make RvR amazing? I read multiple threads regarding safe zones, will bringing pve players to the pvp server fix that situation? The answer Mr. Texas is no.

I purchased this game because I am a huge fan of the age of sail and wanted an immersive age of sail experience. If I could play this game solo in an offline version (that was balanced for solo play) I absolutely would. If I was forced onto the soup sandwich that is the pvp server, I just wouldn't play anymore.

Back on topic:

These look like interesting changes. I am worried that the 6th rates will largely become unused which makes the Bahamas unique. However, I do like that the smaller 5th rates are more useful now. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

13 minutes ago, Dakk Elleron said:

First, you should re-read the post because it states 18-24 months after the official release. As far as I am aware, the "official release" has not occurred. 

Secondly, why is there this theme on the forums from the PvP players wanting the PvE server players to be second rate citizens on their PvP server. This is absurd!

You state "Sounds more like they are just being selfish and want the whole cake and not just happy with a slice of it." This is extremely hypocritical considering you want the whole Caribbean for the pvp players but the pve players only get a 10% of the map. Sounds like you want the whole cake yourself.

Additionally, unless I am mistaken, the pve server is just a mirror of the pvp server with a few simple coding changes to account for rules of engagement. Therefore, I can't see it being that much of a drain on resources that you claim it to be.

Lastly, time and time again I read about complaints and problems from the pvp server.  Do you really believe, forcing people from the pve server onto the pvp server is going to fix all the Le Requin and Hercules problems?  Do you really think forcing them onto the pvp server will all of a sudden make RvR amazing? I read multiple threads regarding safe zones, will bringing pve players to the pvp server fix that situation? The answer Mr. Texas is no.

I purchased this game because I am a huge fan of the age of sail and wanted an immersive age of sail experience. If I could play this game solo in an offline version (that was balanced for solo play) I absolutely would. If I was forced onto the soup sandwich that is the pvp server, I just wouldn't play anymore.

Back on topic:

These look like interesting changes. I am worried that the 6th rates will largely become unused which makes the Bahamas unique. However, I do like that the smaller 5th rates are more useful now. 

You do know the Gulf of Mexico is almost 50 % of the map.....and by giving up half the map they are giving up areas too.  Again being selfish in stead of getting the devs to worry about one game you want it all to your self.  While we are trying to give up half the map to make a better game for all.  It would even give folks options to play both styles when they want to.

Combining the servers has nothing to do with the RvR or PvP issues, it's called putting all our resources into one place to make it easier to make a better game, but you keep playing on your 100ish player server and all your empty neutral ports with no content......I love PvE just as much as I love the RvR/PvP side of the game, but for me and many others that just seems very boring being on a server with little to no content or goal.

56 minutes ago, LeBoiteux said:

 re-read the phrase : '18-24 months after official release' 🙂

Actually good for pointing that out I didn't even notice that part and I don't remember it saying that before, but I could be wrong.

 

Ok I was wrong about that time, though would love to still try to test that out.  Let them have there dead broken contentless server but let those that want both worlds test out having a large PvE zone with two nations being the example (France and Spain would work great for this since they have second regions over there) and see how folks like it.  Hell might get more players to come back simply cause they aren't forced to PvP and have the option.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Sir Texas Sir

[Macjimm]

Closing the peace server and forcing our PvE lovers into a portion of the War map, or making them have a slice of a large pie, or giving them no choice but to move aside an make room for the PvP culture will not increase the population pn the war server.  Leave the Peace server alone.  Wrecking the gameplay for them will not improve the War server.   Attempts to stuff PvP down the throats of players who peacefully play on a separate server will just create bad feelings.  It will cause a bunch of players to quit.

Perhaps there is another option that will satisfy.  Many PvP players:

1. Hate sailing
2. Want a small map.
3. Hate PvE.
4. Want PvP fights often, without waiting or sailing.
5. Hate grinding.

So give PvP players a little corner of the map where PvP will be concentrated, and no-one is immune to attack.  All players can attack any player from another nation. (including the pirate nation).  PvE lovers can avoid the area and PvP'ers can go there to find battles.  Perhaps then we will hear less complaining that there is no PvP.  On the rest of the map PvP is prohibited unless you hoist a "battle" flag, then you are allowed to attack any enemy player with a battle flag, but you are also vulnerable to be attacked.  For everyone who flies the flag, the server will be the same, except there will be a small hot spot of PvP only.  A danger zone.  A furious fight area with less sailing and less PvE.

Perhaps then the PvE players will come over and enjoy game play on the war server. Voluntarily.

But leave the Peace server alone.  It doesn't hurt anyone.  Wrecking it will not increase PvP on the war server.

[Barbancourt]

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

You want to play PvE only you go play in the safe zones, many games are like this.  

 

There are no "Safe Zones". 

I went through the whole PVE/PVP forum war in Elite Dangerous years ago where I play entirely PVE, and they did the right thing with keeping them (mostly) separate so everyone could enjoy the game (mostly) in their own way. PVE players don't want to be confined to a "kiddie pool" section of a larger game world. 

 

[Draymoor]

2 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Closing the peace server and forcing our PvE lovers into a portion of the War map, or making them have a slice of a large pie, or giving them no choice but to move aside an make room for the PvP culture will not increase the population pn the war server.  Leave the Peace server alone.  Wrecking the gameplay for them will not improve the War server.   Attempts to stuff PvP down the throats of players who peacefully play on a separate server will just create bad feelings.  It will cause a bunch of players to quit.

Perhaps there is another option that will satisfy.  Many PvP players:

1. Hate sailing
2. Want a small map.
3. Hate PvE.
4. Want PvP fights often, without waiting or sailing.
5. Hate grinding.

So give PvP players a little corner of the map where PvP will be concentrated, and no-one is immune to attack.  All players can attack any player from another nation. (including the pirate nation).  PvE lovers can avoid the area and PvP'ers can go there to find battles.  Perhaps then we will hear less complaining that there is no PvP.  On the rest of the map PvP is prohibited unless you hoist a "battle" flag, then you are allowed to attack any enemy player with a battle flag, but you are also vulnerable to be attacked.  For everyone who flies the flag, the server will be the same, except there will be a small hot spot of PvP only.  A danger zone.  A furious fight area with less sailing and less PvE.

Perhaps then the PvE players will come over and enjoy game play on the war server. Voluntarily.

But leave the Peace server alone.  It doesn't hurt anyone.  Wrecking it will not increase PvP on the war server.

Is that not the same as the Patrol Zone?

[admin]

6 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:

 re-read the phrase : '18-24 months after official release' 🙂

Let's get this comment straight

The problem is that we expected to have a release date after hardcore patch in 2017. So that comment meant 18-24 months from the estimated release date that was considered realistic in march 2017. Hence the optimistic announcement in the 2017; the number of players coming to the PVE server allowed us to fund it. And our estimates shown that that situation could continue for 18-24 months after 2017. There were a lot more players starting accounts on the PVE (Peace server) in 2017 then now though. And despite proper descriptions there is still more players coming into War server now as well. 

Current comment on the war/peace (other)servers is. We do not plan to change the Peace server in early access. The final decision on the number and geography of servers will be done before final launch. 

Now please move to patch discussion ONLY. off topic will be removed. 

[Marquis de la Fayette]

10 hours ago, van der Decken said:

Oui s'il vous plaît! J'ai oublié ce que l'administrateur a dit à cette année dernière, mais j'ai toujours envisagé 3 ports différents: peu profond, moyen, profond.

Peu profond aurait toutes les 3 zones de cap dans les eaux peu profondes.
   Cela ne permettrait que le 6ème taux

Moyen aurait au hasard 1 ou 2 zones de cap dans les eaux peu profondes.
  Cela ne permettrait aucun navire au-dessus du 4ème taux

Deep n'en aurait pas.
  Cela permettrait aux navires jusqu'au 1er taux.

Bonjour,

Tout à fait d'accord avec cette analyse des profondeurs. Voilà un moyen simple à réaliser et qui, assurément, attirera de nombreux joueurs en PvP.

Cordialement, La Fayette

[Guest]

16 hours ago, van der Decken said:

Yes please! I have forgotten what admin said to this last year but I always envisioned 3 different Ports: Shallow, Medium, Deep.

Shallow would have all 3 cap zones in shallow waters.
   This would allow only 6th rate

Medium would have randomly 1 or 2 cap zones in shallow water.
  This would allow no ships above 4th rate

Deep would have none.
  This would allow ships up to 1st rate.

not really what I ment.

What i ment is for example if they add shallows graphics and physics more then there is today fleets would rather sail shallower ships then for instance a l'ocean which would get stuck and wouldnt be able to get that close to the objective.

See the "Battle of Copenhagen" where you see the ships with deeper drafts sit abit further out. Yes the picture is for ants, but the heavier lineships of the british fleet is further away to avoid the shallows close to the Copenhagen port

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Guest

[Grundgemunkey]

14 hours ago, admin said:

Sextant is in because trader tool is getting out. Position is less important to us compared to finding trade deals by sailing. 

I really dont understand  why you think people have the time to spend in game  to   "find trade deals by sailing " .

its the most ludicrous thing ive heard ,,, if you dont want people to use the traders tool to navigate with .. take the distance to port feature off the traders tool ... again your just making playing this game into an occupation  abd something that isnt fun