STRONG SUGGESTION FOR POPULATION SURVIVAL

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Karvala said:

I agree that being pulled into battle and running from the AI will be possible, but with the laser-guided accuracy of AI distance shooting and its initial loaded cannons, there will always be damage.  The extent of the damage and the number of times someone is pulled into battle between ports will determine whether or not they survive.  But as you say, it's going to be annoying and it wastes a lot of time sailing out range and waiting for the battle timer.  If it happened occasionally, people could probably live with it.  If it happened multiple times per trip, it will become intolerable.

i totally agree with you, but for all we know the ai will go full speed ahead of the initial tag and sail straight through the circle I would rather not have the aggressive ai in the whole OW, around capitol zones = yez, but never outside of that.

[Karvala]

4 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Is not stated anywhere that ALL A.I. will be hostile.

 

True, but it's also not stated that it won't be, so until we know one way or another I will keep highlighting the problems with hostile AI in the OW and hope for a good outcome. 🙂

[Marquês do Bonfim]

PVP will only start working again when Gamelabs decide to adopt POTBS type of PvP. Where you'll hostile an area, it becomes red and everybody that enters it is up for fighting, that way players that actually care about pvp will simply go to the destination and fight. Players that actually don't care for pvping, will simply avoid those red circles and live on with their lives. If you want pvp in the open world, simply put on your pvp flag and go be happy sinking ships that has their pvp flag on aswell. Right now the people complaining about pvp, most of them are the players getting ganked that are not actually pvpers, they are traders and pvers, that's where most of the complaints comes from. Some comes from the lack of BR, that's a simple fix, but devs turn eyes the other way till the game colapse again. If they implemented this type of pvp, where you would need to have the pvp flag on or simply go to these red hostile circles in the map (being hostile areas), merging PVE and PVP servers together would've been actually doable in the future.

And I know a lot of people will disagree with this (oh, but I don't want to go to a place to kill people... oh, i don't wanna have to put on a flag to do pvp, its a pvp server, its suppose to be everyone for themselves). And I say again, that's probably why PvP server is suffering right now, because people don't actually CARE for other players, they want they loot, they want to be successfully and have their names, their clans on the leaderboard and hello kitty the rest, and that's why PvP will always be chaos like it is right now.

It needs change, and it is calling for change, but the players must allow changes first.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Portuguese Privateer

[Karvala]

^ I think that's a great suggestion.  Would be quite happy with PvP on that basis, and in fact you could even combine the PvP and PvE servers on that basis, so it might increase the visible player base, rejuvenate the economy and save the devs some running costs.

[Papillon]

You guys realize that both the pvp on-off flags and the pvp-only areas have been discussed several times already in the last few years?

[Raf Van Boom]

You can't call POTBS with its red circles and pvp flags a success, I used to play that and I do remember the game losing about 90% of the population in just a couple of months

[Marquês do Bonfim]

I don't recall saying it was successfull, the game indeed had a lot of flaws, still have, but PvPing wasn't one of them. Most of it was the economy. All I'm trying to say is, adopting that same idea of a hostile area within the map, when players flip a port to capture it, might've worked better than simply having the whole map crawl into a battlefield, which is making players leave. 

It's not removing PvP, it's controlling it and confining it to a specific area. Plus, you also have the ability to activate your pvp flag to go out on the open sea and battle people that also has their flags activated. That's not making pvp harder, it's simply picking out which player wants to pvp and which player doesn't. It makes availability of both PVE and PVP in the same server to coexist, giving hope for the devs and the playerbase to merge both PVE and PVP servers together, plus it doesn't give you the feeling of going out to be slaughtered by people that don't care about content other than the battle itself.

It will also increase RvR, by the simple thought that they will be able to work trades, crafts better, which provides ships for their own clans and resources, making even a small clan able to build an empire. Thus, making flipping a port a more viable call for war between nations. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Portuguese Privateer

[Serk]

1 hour ago, Portuguese Privateer said:

All I'm trying to say is, adopting that same idea of a hostile area within the map, when players flip a port to capture it, might've worked better than simply having the whole map crawl into a battlefield, which is making players leave. 

That was the intention behind the original idea of hostility generation: to create some hot spot over a period of time where captains know where to go to find PVP action.

Unfortunatly, the implementation was judged too grindy and it is now much faster, with 2-3 battle only needed to flip a port, So you basicly need to be online when it start or you just miss it and your port is flipped.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Serk

[CrustyJohnson]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:52 AM, Harry G Jiggins said:

So, I have been playing NA for about a month approx.

And here are my thoughts from a NOOB perspective on the game.

1) I have no problem getting sunk, or getting beaten in a battle.  I like the Clan dynamic.  I think it is fair that when BR ratings are equal the battle gets locked preventing a hugely unfair gang fest to take place where you have one player in one ship fighting 20 enemy clan ships.  I think NPC's fighting one or two players is fun, and farming NPC's can be fun too.

2)  I have been sunk many times, and lose the majority of my battles with grace, and I don't feel bad.  Fighting one or two ships of equal level, or maybe a level or two higher is fine.  Even if I lose I can still manage to get some XP and even a bit of money to build a new ship.  So, I am not a whiny crybaby.

3) I recently have been Ganked by 2 players in one battle.  I was in a Snow and got attacked by two much larger ships.  I didn't have a chance,  and the Snow I had cost me a lot of hours of grinding being new to the game.  I was really angry.  I struggled to penetrate the two enemy ships as their armour was far stronger than anything at my rank level, they had twice the guns on either ship and larger calibre.  I tried to run away but couldn't as they had the "control area" perk.  They rushed me, blocked me from leaving, rammed me, and shot out my sails... Surrounded I fired several broadsides into the enemy ships with only a small fraction of the shots doing any damage at all even at point blank range.  Their crew numbers on both ships were nearly triple mine, and I got easily boarded, they took all my mods, any cargo, and my ship with little skill or effort on their part.  I literally was so angry that I almost uninstalled the game never to play again.

4) I agree with the idea that many NOOBS in this game are likely to quit if they get completely wiped out regularly by vastly superior veteran players.

5)  If it isn't possible to prevent some of those veteran players from clubbing seals, then the game should discourage it by reduction of XP and any gains to Veterans who do it.  Essentially make it a waste of time for anyone to Seal Club.  No PVP leadership credits if you are killing people more than a tier down.  If there are a few players who need the ego boost sinking 6th and 7th rates in their tripped out 1st-3rd rates fine, but make the battles relatively inexpensive for the NOOB, and unprofitable for the Seal Clubber.

6) Personally I wouldn't feel a great deal of satisfaction sinking newer players than myself, as the battles would be boring, it is much more fun to play against people where both sides have a reasonable chance of winning, or at least of doing some serious damage.

I think we need to pay attention to what this guy says and the other newer players. He seems like a new player who is actually interested in learning and developing and doesn't mind the difficult learning curve. However, most new players probably aren't as forgiving as him, so addressing his limited troubles with coming up in the game is probably the least the devs should do to ensure new players aren't pushed out of the game. This what I have gathered from his notes and how the game could be modified to fix his concerns:

1. Jiggins accepts that he will will lose to a more veteran player even if they are in the same ship. He just wants a chance and does not like being team-tanked by many players or by vastly superior ships. He also enjoys PvE, something that should be expanded on. Make tags dependent on rating. 3rd should only be able to tag 4th and above. Want bring a big ship and still tag small ships? Maybe a mechanic that takes into account your fleet ships. Sail a 3rd rate, have a 5th rate in tow. If you catch a 6th, you can tag but only the 5th rate populates in the battle instance and you switch control to it.

2. Jiggins likes that he is rewarded or compensated even if he loses. Increase rewards for even trying in PvP. This should be a no-brainer. As a player, I always am thankful for a challenge and get disappointed when I spend an hour looking for an opponent only to have them surrender immediately. Give players more of a reason to try.

3. Jiggins got murder-ganked by two obviously superiorly kitted players. Again, make tagging rate-dependent, at least in waters owned by a nation. The fact that certain AI ships only populate in certain areas increases chances of fight disparity. Someone taking on 5th rates with a 5th rate is prime target for a 3rd rate gank. Tags should be limited by ship rating based on geography. For example, 5th rates are found on Atlantic Coast, West Cuba, and East Cuba. In those locations. only ships 5th rate and below should be allowed to tag.

4. Being completely wiped is a real danger early on in this game. Ship insurance is a nice idea, but does not go far enough. Ships purchased from admiralty should have their entire purchase price refunded. Admiralty ships should come preloaded with basic cannons.

5. New player understands that vets only seal-club because they have impetus to do so. Most players are not mean-spirited and only act certain ways because the game requires them to. To get 1st rates, you need combat marks. To get combat marks, you need enemy players. The most consistent location of enemy players is capitals, which are often new players. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to lower reason for attacking low-level players, but I would simply only issue combat marks for kills in frontline counties. Keep the vets in the same waters and let them farm each other and give them less reason to go out of their way to find seals.

6. I feel like Jiggins main problem with the game is disparity in fights. He doesn't mind losing, but at least wants the fight to be fair or be able to do some damage. I and many other players have given ideas of how to fix this. There are hundreds of options, the devs just need to pick one. My preferred is: attacks on players in national waters should be broadcast in an on-screen message, the crossed-swords should appear on a map, and the battle should remain open indefinitely with zero BR restrictions for the national side to encourage national response.

[Hethwill]

15 hours ago, Karvala said:

True, but it's also not stated that it won't be, so until we know one way or another I will keep highlighting the problems with hostile AI in the OW and hope for a good outcome. 🙂

Fair enough. Suffering by anticipation is your own choice, just make sure you are clear to all others that "you don't know" and "this is just me making assumptions" so it is not read as factual information.

o7

 

[Papillon]

4 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Fair enough. Suffering by anticipation is your own choice, just make sure you are clear to all others that "you don't know" and "this is just me making assumptions" so it is not read as factual information.

o7

 

Pretty sure it was clear to everyone.  If others don't read the entire thread that's their own fault for taking things out of context.  You can't argue that historically so many design elements of the game have been dropped by devs without warning, so he's getting ahead of the game based on the history of development.  That's smart commenting, not being unclear.

On topic, I happen to agree with him on that; aggression by all AI would probably be a mistake [if it were implemented that way].

[Atreides]

PUPPY KILLER SUPER WASA

 

This is the problem with top top gear and top port mods and Tryhards smashing low lvl people then being REWARDED for doing so.

There are two type of guys that play this game, those with big wedding tackle, and those with big plastic cups in their crotch.  The current game META caters to the 2nd group sadly.  So when you get a guy like reverse who happens to have all the bling super ship AND is swinging a really big one, no wonder he can sink 14 v1 on his twitch.  The META also enables low to mid skill guys with all the gear and port bonuses to PWN NOOBZ smashsmashsmash.  Which just feeds into a toxic failure in human nature. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Atreides

[CrustyJohnson]

PvP rewards and doubloons should be removed. They promote the two most bullshit aspects of this game: Riskless trading random fake goods and clubbing afk sailers and noobs. One currency in game would have such an incredible impact. Trade goods would immediately be a thing again. Seal clubbing would stop and actual raids on trading convoys would start. Leave the cargo missions in, but remove doubloons. Double the reals the cargo missions give. Give 10x reals for BR of ship killed in PvP. Make it more valuable to go after bigger ships, not smaller ones. 

[Sea Archer]

I don't see a problem in big ships fighting small ones, that is life...

I see a problem in the fact, that new players cannot leave the capital zone without being immediately attacked, or their battles vs ai jumped by far superior ships.

A new player has to learn to fight and shall be able to do it in a ship superior to ai, without being jumped.

Therefore I see the 20 min timer as a bad idea. The waters around the uncapturable ports should be reinforcement zone again. Since there are not port boni, no vet player will use them for production. Give new players a place to learn their business and don't send them always to the pve server.

They have to stay near the capitals, since there are the 6th and 7th rate vessels to fight.

[Tsesarevitch]

I fundamentally disagree with the lack of protections for new players. I utterly abhor the artificially increased grind presented to new players.
I wish to start my dissertation with some qualifying statistics; this will hopefully absolve me of any allegations of "salty n00b".

I bought Naval Action on January 27th of 2016, and have since then racked up roughly 3,425 hours of gameplay. Consistently.
I have played on both servers, in every nation, using a plethora of names.
I saw this game go from multiple full servers with a wait queue for log-in to merged servers due to low population.

My greatest complaint is in regards to the prior removal of mechanics that were seen by predatory players as being "unfair" to them; those being rookie and capital reinforcement zones. So too do I completely loathe the removal of on-demand instant action missions that were on-par with players rather than absurdly disproportionate or near impossible.

( The assertion that a new player is able to sink 1x Fourth Rate and 3x Fifth Rate using only their own Fifth Rate is absurd. I saw these numbers myself, and through the screenshot of a friend. )

How can we reasonably expect players to stick around and learn when all staff have to contribute to the discussion is the following:
"If new players are being killed near your capital, it's your fault. Go out there and guard your coasts! Go attack! Don't fear losing your pixel ship!"
What trite. The behavior of these predatory players should be heavily discouraged, rather than blaming the small nations for being unable to defend themselves.

I am not of the opinion that people shouting "Play on PVE then!" have the best interest of the game at heart. Many people want balanced PVP and not to make progress on the PVE server and lose it all when they move to PVP. What does a casual or softcore player have to impel them towards activity? The threat of losing everything they gained at a low rank because they either lack skill or equipment? The developers made a terrible mistake by listening only to the hardcore nolifers that play the game from maintenance end to maintenance start, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per year.

On average, if somebody gains 6,000 Reals per combat and 250 xp from sinking, say, a Cerberus, it will take them 48 battles to go from 380 crew to 500.
They will have no choice but to run large amounts of delivery missions over countless hours to replace any damaged or lost equipment/ships/crew. The vast majority of our now ex-player community simply doesn't have the time to invest in this. The trading economy is broken. Battle is un-affordable. New players are fleeing from the game, and overwhelmingly negative reviews often seem to reflect that fact.

Urgent action must be taken if Naval Action is going to become more than a cult classic. We must woo back the former players with more than a "use it and lose it" attitude.

[LegoLarry]

 Perhaps a good initial step would be to stop 6th rate and below trade ships counting to hunt and PZ missions.

 People could still sink them ofc but at moment they are just an easy way to farm the 6th rate PvP hunt missions.

 Hopefully would mean newer guys could at least trade in relative peace to gain reals/dubs when setting up.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by LegoLarry

[Hethwill]

2 minutes ago, LegoLarry said:

 Perhaps a good initial step would be to stop 6th rate and below trade ships counting to hunt and PZ missions.

 People could still sink them ofc but at moment they are just an easy way to farm the 6th rate PvP hunt missions.

 Hopefully would mean newer guys could at least trade in relative peace to gain reals/dubs when setting up.

 

 

Yes, trade ships excluding LGV and Indiaman   Regarding the warships of rank 6...how will the rank 6 captains earn their pvp hunt mission rewards ?

[Atreides]

2 minutes ago, LegoLarry said:

 Perhaps a good initial step would be to stop 6th rate and below trade ships counting to hunt and PZ missions.

 People could still sink them ofc but at moment they are just an easy way to farm the 6th rate PvP hunt missions.

 Hopefully would mean newer guys could at least trade in relative peace to gain reals/dubs when setting up.

 

 

There should be NO Mission Credit given for a trader, you take the ship in fleet (ie has loot from a bottle wreck) pick out what you want (ie passengers) or just sink the lot as not worth your time. repair your ship or crew and carry on.

[Atreides]

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Yes, trade ships excluding LGV and Indiaman   Regarding the warships of rank 6...how will the rank 6 captains earn their pvp hunt mission rewards ?

I would say if you are in a rank 6 or 7 ship, it would count toward mission, one total kill of trader mean 25% of combat ship. Requin excluded of course.

Agree about the LGV and Indiaman, that counts.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Atreides

[LegoLarry]

6 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Yes, trade ships excluding LGV and Indiaman   Regarding the warships of rank 6...how will the rank 6 captains earn their pvp hunt mission rewards ?

 

Fighting battle ready ships perhaps?  .........  oh the lunacy of the thought.

 

[Hethwill]

1 minute ago, LegoLarry said:

 

Fighting battle ready ships perhaps?  .........  oh the lunacy of the thought.

 

They do already.

Snow is rank 6. Prince is rank 6. Mercury is rank 6. And so on.

Plenty of players use then and fight warships equal to them.

Because not everyone looks to ship size as the end of all. Many do not even want to sail the big stuff at all.

So think about everyone  

[Captain2Strong]

Just now, RepairyMcRepairous said:

how hard is it to defend new guys at your own capitals and areas where your players are concentrated

 

it's really hard you have to get motivated to go out of the port instead of shitposting on global and in the forum game

[LegoLarry]

7 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

They do already.

Snow is rank 6. Prince is rank 6. Mercury is rank 6. And so on.

Plenty of players use then and fight warships equal to them.

Because not everyone looks to ship size as the end of all. Many do not even want to sail the big stuff at all.

So think about everyone  

 

 I'm more thinking of the hunting of low rank trade ships and the validity of inclusion within the hunt/PZ missions, kind of like basic cutter you can sink them but do not count for mission count .

 I love small ships also :), but sinking 10 trader brigs for the mission reward seems a cheap way to farm chests.  Making them not count to the missions would at least create something akin to basic cutter mentality where mostly they are left alone which ofc would mean new guys could get out of kpr/mortimer etc easier than currently to start their way.

 Like in dutch nation we have a guy that will run in sight of an armed mercury or whatever, and only farmes t-brigs lol.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by LegoLarry

[Hethwill]

I want the traders to have good stuff. I want to capture the trader, not sink. That's my POV. That's why i always suggested trade raid to be about taking the cargo, not sinking the ships.

Regarding warships, no mercy.

[Captain2Strong]

11 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

I want the traders to have good stuff. I want to capture the trader, not sink. That's my POV. That's why i always suggested trade raid to be about taking the cargo, not sinking the ships.

Regarding warships, no mercy.

why make the game a trash haul when it doesnt have to be a trash haul?

bad idea

Edited August 29, 2019 by Captain2Strong