Forthcoming patch information

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

18 hours ago, admin said:

it will be very easy, barely an inconvenience
Overall the plan for communication moderation is the following

• Clans officers will be able to moderate their alliance members (can ban them from chat)
• Top officers in leading clans in the nation will be able to moderate national chat for all clan members.
• Any warnings will remove rights to talk to other nations 
• Reports instead of GL will be sent to clan leaders giving them free PTSD and loss of faith in humanity
• Battle chat communications with enemies will be reworked into simple 10 messages like
  • Sorry
  • Welcome to the Caribbean
  • Thank you
  • GG
  • Great night, I enjoyed it very much.
  • My cannonballs weight 84 pounds
  • Nice shirt
  • You have a great blue camisole
  • Good morning
  • Well met
  • London is a capital of Great Britain

This will completely not be exploited and abused. If you think taking clans off friends list is toxic, what could possibly go wrong with people censoring others over anything and nothing.

 

Stupid and hopefully will remain just an idea

[Conte D. Catellani]

19 hours ago, admin said:

it will be very easy, barely an inconvenience
Overall the plan for communication moderation is the following

• Clans officers will be able to moderate their alliance members (can ban them from chat)
• Top officers in leading clans in the nation will be able to moderate national chat for all clan members.
• Any warnings will remove rights to talk to other nations 
• Reports instead of GL will be sent to clan leaders giving them free PTSD and loss of faith in humanity
• Battle chat communications with enemies will be reworked into simple 10 messages like
  • Sorry
  • Welcome to the Caribbean
  • Thank you
  • GG
  • Great night, I enjoyed it very much.
  • My cannonballs weight 84 pounds
  • Nice shirt
  • You have a great blue camisole
  • Good morning
  • Well met
  • London is a capital of Great Britain

is possible to add also

• want to join at your own risk  this discord channel * enter the discord channel*
• want to join at your own risk this TS channel * enter ts channel*

so if somebody enjoy to talk with the enemy  because is a old friend, somebody that could teach him something, trade the escape or just because people like to talk they have the possibility  relieving the tribunal to judge and sanction any unfair discussions

[Bart Smith]

Sometime around 2014 i was told to devs: take what was good from PotBS. Have to wait few years but... here we go.

[Vitasalato]

23 hours ago, admin said:

Major. Cheaper edition launch (could happen a week later due to valve approval)

• All current edition owners will receive a free DLC ship 
• New price will be set at much lower levels
• DLC will be then set for sale for new buyers.
• This is going to be basically a 40-50 dollar gift for current version buyers

 @Admin Hello, I'm still not quite sure on how the new cheap version is going to work. From what I've read looks like the current version will recive a price cut, we [current players] will receive a free DLC ship of 40-50 dollars value (so probably 4th-3rd rate ship?), and what "DLC will be set for new players" means? What will the not get with base version? Are all current DLC going to be reduced in price as well?

[--Privateer--]

23 hours ago, admin said:

Major. Transport to port battles item

• We are no longer satisfied with griefing during screening, and are axing the screening completely. 
• Clans will be able to transport their port battle fleet directly to port battle area using an item

 

I approve.

[Custard]

13 hours ago, Hullabaloo said:

Major. Cheaper edition launch (could happen a week later due to valve approval)

• All current edition owners will receive a free DLC ship 
• New price will be set at much lower levels
• DLC will be then set for sale for new buyers.
• This is going to be basically a 40-50 dollar gift for current version buyers

Google Translate:

We will make this game cheap to buy and pay to win. The DLC will be OP SOL which we calculate many new players will buy.  We don't want you to complain too much about it, so we will give you one of the game breaking ships to shut you up and bullshit you that you are gaining from it.

Yep

[Vonatar]

20 hours ago, admin said:

it will be very easy, barely an inconvenience
Overall the plan for communication moderation is the following

• Clans officers will be able to moderate their alliance members (can ban them from chat)
• Top officers in leading clans in the nation will be able to moderate national chat for all clan members.
• Any warnings will remove rights to talk to other nations 
• Reports instead of GL will be sent to clan leaders giving them free PTSD and loss of faith in humanity
• Battle chat communications with enemies will be reworked into simple 10 messages like
  • Sorry
  • Welcome to the Caribbean
  • Thank you
  • GG
  • Great night, I enjoyed it very much.
  • My cannonballs weight 84 pounds
  • Nice shirt
  • You have a great blue camisole
  • Good morning
  • Well met
  • London is a capital of Great Britain

This might be a problem, cause people dont get a drink and become wise when they are clan officers or top officers (national leaders?).

Recently some of the "top leaders" of a certain nation acted in the worse way imaginable: had they the possibility to moderate nationl chat, nazi censorship would seems sweet in comparison.

 

[Liq]

Maybe a way hostility could work:

A nation wants to raise hostility for a port: They sail out in a fleet, taking a "Port battle flag" kind of item with them, "plant" it infront of the port (like old flags), then a circle around the port appears where the ships have to be within to generate hostility. 20x 1st rates would raise the hostility within 30-45 minutes, smaller fleets would take longer. The defending nation can then intercept them and attack them, additional hostility / or counter hostility is being generated by kills.

Problem I see with this is pvp alt farming to generate hostility and an additional downtime for when the defending nation should choose not to defend. And of course the possibility to take out more alt accounts on the same player using sandboxie to raise hostility faster

Edited April 11, 2020 by Liq

[Tspoon]

And it should cost you something to do hostility

[Black Panther89]

I believe that Naval Action is a really nice game, but it is going towards a point of no return because in my opinion it is not acceptable that a nation has almost a monopoly on the Caribbean, I refer to Russia, I understand that they will be strong, that they will have more  players, but if everyone has to change country and go to Russia in order to play and not be wiped out after two seconds, when will almost all of them explain to me who will play again?  When there are only Russians, what does one play at?  No one will be found to attack or lead to capture.

 

Or create a section on purpose where nations create real alliances managed by the server, for example England and Spain allies

Edited April 11, 2020 by AlexandeChi

[Galvez88]

I am absolutely against giving more power to clan officers !! many clans operate out of friendly relations among officers.

if officers have too much power a state of absolutism could form where they make decisions for their own benefit

Edited April 11, 2020 by Galvez88

[CptEdwardKenway]

8 hours ago, Cathal Brugha said:

It helps provide a boost to the immune system. So it is more of a general health assist, not a specific anti covid thing.

Usually people don't have malnutrition on Vitamin C so getting a specific amount does not really boost it. A healthy balanced eating habit is a far better boost then just stuffing Vitaminc C into your body.

Glutamin would be a better choice.

 

Actually they are testing if Vitamin B3 can have an affect on the symptomes.

Edited April 11, 2020 by CptEdwardKenway

[Gregory Rainsborough]

23 hours ago, admin said:

We cant bring this back because you need to be able to counter, because if its so slow there will always be somebody who does not sleep while you are in bed. But we can make it last the whole 3-4 hours and require effort.

PVP based hostility is too exploitable. Ask friends to suicide themselves and voila. You have a battle. Hostility can only be PVE or must cost doubloons or VMs.

A few bad eggs ruin it unfortunately.

I know you've seen instances of screening being griefing but there are many fun battles to be had in screening. Is it possible that people can just pay extra to teleport to the port but there is still the option to do it the normal way as it is now?

[CptEdwardKenway]

22 hours ago, admin said:

the teleport to port battle was being discussed since early 2016. The constant greifing and abuse of the game rules (keeping players in battles for 45 mins during screening), has flipped the balance. Its done and being tested internally for deployment within 1-2 weeks. Good riddance

Say thanks to griefers and maybe next time you can foretell this and tell your allies or clan members to stop abusing mechanics kicking them from clans or alliance if you think they are doing a wrong thing. 

Just like you say - it was foretold.


I am foretelling another thing
If the level of abuse and toxicity in chat does not start falling starting now - all communication with enemies will be removed like in WOW.. people will say KEK and lkjsdfljwoeijow .. and that's all you will read from enemies. Hope this foretold warning will allow you as a community member to push more friendliness from allies.

 

Wow that escalated quickly. But what about to make the game a litte less frustrating? People were telling about exhausting mechanics since 2016. The toxity didn't come overnight. It was a progression thing that grew due to pure frustration.

The screening was neccassary back when we had to buy flags to attack ports. After that was removed the screening was outdated but still used for known reasons.

Games need limitations and rules. Players demanded it 4 years ago especially after "black friday" so things like this won't happen anymore and it took way too long to react.

A sandbox system made by the players are a good idea but without ristrictions, rules and limitations this will never end well. That's why players start to vent, grief, exploit etc to counter. You are fighting symptomes here but not the reason why it's even there.

There are alot more hardcore games out there playing vs players but they still make fun even when people fail because it's far less frustrating to lose.

Edited April 11, 2020 by CptEdwardKenway

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

2 hours ago, AlexandeChi said:

I believe that Naval Action is a really nice game, but it is going towards a point of no return because in my opinion it is not acceptable that a nation has almost a monopoly on the Caribbean, I refer to Russia, I understand that they will be strong, that they will have more  players, but if everyone has to change country and go to Russia in order to play and not be wiped out after two seconds, when will almost all of them explain to me who will play again?  When there are only Russians, what does one play at?  No one will be found to attack or lead to capture.

 

Or create a section on purpose where nations create real alliances managed by the server, for example England and Spain allies

Maybe there could be a mechanism which gets triggered on PvP war server whenever a nation becomes so overpowered as Russia now:

After having reached xx % in national membership of all players

*or*

having conquered xx % of all ports

*or*

owning xx % of all player operated ships in the Caribbean...

... this overpowered nation cannot attack anyone but can still be attacked. Means, they do not chose when to fight, all the others do.

--

Subsequently, this has to lead to a decline of that superpower, because other nations will wisely chose when they attack, and always be stronger if they do. Just a matter of time until ports will fall, people will switch sides, ships get sunk...

--

Then...

... after superpower has lost sufficient people belonging to their nation, ports, ships under their flag - there status is reset to 'normal' and they can attack anyone like before. Meantime, maybe another nation has overtaken them and now the "overpower' restriction will be hitting them instead.

Effect:

domination of one nation is avoided and others enjoy an advantage while challenging the number one position. Or you would see an equilibrum, which is rather desirable for that kind of game.

[Von Mueckenstein]

On 4/10/2020 at 11:50 AM, admin said:

Major. Transport to port battles item

• We are no longer satisfied with griefing during screening, and are axing the screening completely. 
• Clans will be able to transport their port battle fleet directly to port battle area using an item 
  • item will work both for attacker and defenders

 

So now there could be 20 pb the same time, if a nation is big enough, because of no screening is needed anymore ?  It seems we all should learn russian soon.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

Maybe there could be a mechanism which gets triggered on PvP war server whenever a nation becomes so overpowered as Russia now:

After having reached xx % in national membership of all players

*or*

having conquered xx % of all ports

*or*

owning xx % of all player operated ships in the Caribbean...

... this overpowered nation cannot attack anyone but can still be attacked. Means, they do not chose when to fight, all the others do.

--

Subsequently, this has to lead to a decline of that superpower, because other nations will wisely chose when they attack, and always be stronger if they do. Just a matter of time until ports will fall, people will switch sides, ships get sunk...

--

Then...

... after superpower has lost sufficient people belonging to their nation, ports, ships under their flag - there status is reset to 'normal' and they can attack anyone like before. Meantime, maybe another nation has overtaken them and now the "overpower' restriction will be hitting them instead.

Effect:

domination of one nation is avoided and others enjoy an advantage while challenging the number one position. Or you would see an equilibrum, which is rather desirable for that kind of game.

The solution to the power creep, which has always been prevalent in NA btw, isn't to increase grinding - but to reduce it. 

Why do ppl move to Russia? 

- Security of assets requiring a shitty no-fun grind to reobtain.

- Port bonus' and the need to keep the ability to craft safe.

- rare woods - more players = more LH and thus more rare woods.

- Gameplay, hostility for PBs req ppl, PBs req ppl, crafting req an excessive amount of grinding, modules are easier to come by in overpopulated factions.

 

There's a logical fallacy in trying to solve these issues by forcing players into alliances - I will NEVER sail with a HAVOC player again or any other coward who hide behind timers. Forced alliances won't change this.

Only solution:

Remove the need for security, remove the importance of ports, remove the grind, reduce the BR for port battles, remove frontlines to allow players to fight factions of equal size.

Problem(s) with RvR:

- The grinding

Disregarding the fact that to my knowledge I have never seen a screening that was purely "griefing", the problem for fx. HAVOC was the amount of PBs they had to defend, but why was that? Frontlines and shitty diplomacy:

- Shitty diplomacy, a complete disregard for the server population.

- Frontlines

Even IF DK/NG had a desire to fight any1 else than Sweden, at the return of BOCAR to RvR that is, there were only the following options:

CS/FS: Sweden

La Mona: Sweden/Prussia (former DK/NG players and to my knowledge there's still good relations between us)

La Tortue: Sweden

Guyaguyaya: VP (allied with Sweden) and France (Allied with Sweden)

Great Corn: GB (Allied to Sweden, untill the Baracao/SDC incidents) and shortly after, Sweden.

El Rancho: Russia (nr. 1 RvR nation on the server and DK/NG had only a 40p port)

Dariena: Sweden/Prussia

Shroud Cay: Russia

 

Have I missed a freeport? And can any1 see a trend?

Denmark-Norway, arguably the servers second smallest community (third prob after the introduction of China), could have the great picks of going to war with either the servers largest RvR nation, or the servers largest alliance block or ofc - Prussia who happened to have Ram Dinark, Dron411 etc on loan from - Russia. And we had a 40p crafting port.

Any1 see a secondary trend? - The OP Frankenships are excluding any sort of skill based game and any1 claiming anything else is simply mentally deficient or having a need for those advantages to stay "top dog" because any1 skilled player would ofc welcome a skill based game.

[HandForged]

On 4/10/2020 at 5:22 AM, Isaac J Smith said:

This is one way to balance the game for sure. Rather than balance bonuses, just let everyone have them all.

At that point...it would be easier to remove bonuses all together.

Then it is solely based on the skill of the captain.

 

[HandForged]

 

4 hours ago, AlexandeChi said:

I believe that Naval Action is a really nice game, but it is going towards a point of no return because in my opinion it is not acceptable that a nation has almost a monopoly on the Caribbean, I refer to Russia, I understand that they will be strong, that they will have more  players, but if everyone has to change country and go to Russia in order to play and not be wiped out after two seconds, when will almost all of them explain to me who will play again?  When there are only Russians, what does one play at?  No one will be found to attack or lead to capture.

 

Or create a section on purpose where nations create real alliances managed by the server, for example England and Spain allies

I also support an "official" aliance system.

A change in diplomatic policy could be determined by a majority vote of ALL clan leaders in the nation. (YES...that would exclude solo players, but lets be honest, this is NOT a solo game.)

A fair means to determine national policy would minimize arguments.

A punishment system for those who disregard national policy could be added.

For example:  Pirates and Spain vote to be at peace.

I tag a Spanish player and I get a warning saying that my actions will violate Pirate national policy.

I of course can choose to ignore the policy, but if I do that 3x I am fined XP. Or maybe kicked from nation.

 

A system like this might open the doors to a new way to "grief" but I for one would never want to lose XP or get kicked from my nation and have to start over. Bleh

[van Veen]

1 hour ago, HandForged said:

change in diplomatic policy could be determined by a majority vote of ALL clan leaders in the nation. (YES...that would exclude solo players, but lets be honest, this is NOT a solo game.)

Voting does not work. We've been there before. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, HandForged said:

 

I also support an "official" aliance system.

A change in diplomatic policy could be determined by a majority vote of ALL clan leaders in the nation. (YES...that would exclude solo players, but lets be honest, this is NOT a solo game.)

A fair means to determine national policy would minimize arguments.

A punishment system for those who disregard national policy could be added.

For example:  Pirates and Spain vote to be at peace.

I tag a Spanish player and I get a warning saying that my actions will violate Pirate national policy.

I of course can choose to ignore the policy, but if I do that 3x I am fined XP. Or maybe kicked from nation.

 

A system like this might open the doors to a new way to "grief" but I for one would never want to lose XP or get kicked from my nation and have to start over. Bleh

Me and my alts will have a field day forcing other players into alliances that they dislike.

[DDZ_Vasduten]

I love these changes. 

Screening fleets sucked, especially when there are 20 Russians shoehorning you out of a port battle -just because they have the numbers to toss disposable live oak/white oak floating batteries or fireships.

Excited for more DLCs. More targets... More options other than bankrupting your warehouses to build giant ships. 

These all look good except maybe the chat moderation by clan leaders.

 

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

3 hours ago, HandForged said:

I tag a Spanish player and I get a warning saying that my actions will violate Pirate national policy.

I of course can choose to ignore the policy, but if I do that 3x I am fined XP. Or maybe kicked from nation.

But this is new.

Consequences when you don't abide to peace/alliance obligations. That should work. Even your bloody alts don't want to get deranked or get thrown out. As it makes xxx hours playing time worthless. And you won't be able to crew your ships anymore.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

But this is new.

Consequences when you don't abide to peace/alliance obligations. That should work. Even your bloody alts don't want to get deranked or get thrown out. As it makes xxx hours playing time worthless. And you won't be able to crew your ships anymore.

But it won't change the fact that you can't force ppl to fight. And we've tried alliances before, I'm not saying I'm completely against them, but let's just say that me, myself and my alts - along with the friends I've got that has alts, will be able to sway an election in any given direction. And it still won't force the rest of the nations playerbase to actually fight.

First off - Why this emphasis on punishing ppl who play the game the way they prefer or with the ppl they prefer?

Secondly - rather than going for an elaborate and exploitable alliancesystem, why not have seasons with rewards? Basically have a rotation of national alliances, perhaps with the impossible nations being outside of them (since they are impossible), and then basically ensure that the server at all times are carved up in 3 blocks + the impossible nations?

And remove the frontline system so ppl can actually fight someone of the same size.

[Mouth of Sauron]

As long as the game continues to favor craftable super ships that require heavily invested ports to make.......the game will continue to be zerg vs zerg.  Other than credibility and a "challenge" there is little to no reason to be in a smaller struggling nation.  With the proposed changes to increase port points (why.....) and the additiona of new woods it would seem that the game is going to double down on the importance of a god like crafting port.  

Zergs are merely a symptom of a disease and the only way to rectify that situation is to reduce the reliance on super ships and player owned crafting ports.  Securing ones ports is the highest priority in the game and people will continue to join larger nations for guaranteed safety.