Start at any one of your outposts

[Magnum]

I think as an incentive and to reduce boring long ocean trips - we should be given the choice to start the game at any one of our "outposts" - not just the Capitol.

 

Sometimes I like to "test" quite a bit east of my Capitol and other times quite a bit south of it.

 

It would be a good game mechanic and I don't think it would give anyone an unfair advantage - except those that have sprung the bucks for more outposts.

[Balsafer]

You mean when you log in to the game you can choose what outpost you wan't to sail from?

[Siegfried]

It is good idea. As the OW is persistent, It can represent that your character travels in a little fast ship to other location while you are sleeping or at work.

 

I ws thinking about this for join with friends. We don't have the same time schedule and when I go online they maybe are in other area. If I can begin in the nearest owned outpost it can be more easy.

 

And for stuck ships, you go offline and next session you begin in other outpost and the stuck ship go to next unbugged port.

 

With some rules, I can't to see possible exploit here.

[Magnum]

You mean when you log in to the game you can choose what outpost you wan't to sail from?

 

That is my suggestion - but you would have to create the outpost the old fashioned way......

 

Perhaps, you keep a NavyBrig at port A (Capitol) - and a Surprise at port B (outpost 1) - and a Trincomalee at port C (outpost 2)

 

With my idea implemented - you could start at A - but only drive a NavyBrig (until you manually sailed to outpost B or C or bought or captured something) or restart (with all that THAT implies) or start at outpost port C in a Trincomalee.

 

----- it would add another whole layer of Strategery to the game

[akd]

There are very good reasons to have distances be meaningful in game and not allow teleporting. The only balanced way (preserving the distance implications for economy and PvP) to offer travel without sailing would be to allow captains to "book passage" to another port, but require the real game time to travel this distance passes before the transfer occurs. As long as this time is tracked while the player is logged off, then you would be able to make a long journey without physically sailing. This would need to be only for captains, their officers and the captain's personal effects and wealth. No moving ships, upgrades or economic resources.

This could even be made very tangible in the world, providing additional strategic and gameplay possibilities. E.g. you would book passage on an AI or player's packet ship that would then need to complete the actual journey. Interception of the ship (capture, destruction) would result in additional time penalties applied to the transfer. Obviously players would pay a premium to book passage on a player ship, and this would open up a whole specialist role in the game for fast packet ship captains. There would also be strategic benefits to hunting and catching these sorts of ships, which are otherwise poor in economic benefits.

[jodgi]

There may be implications to the whole zerg and ganking problem that I haven't cared to suss out. But it sounds like a good idea to be able to teleport your character between outposts as long as the ships, modules and cargo stays put.

[scepo]

I think this could work with a timer like current teleport. But your ship should not go with you. This would mean that you have to be in port with owned outpost so it should not be game breaking.

[BungeeLemming]

The devs emphasized that Naval Action is going to be a game where you dont have to sail thousands of miles bevore combat actions.

The world shall feel like its huge and teleports are definately going to ruin that impression.

 

This idea affronts the whole "big world" impression. Later endgame content will be some sort of conquest where societies are going to capture towns and empoy a huge fleet.

The bigger the effort and society the greater is their influence. But that influence still is locally and not over the whole map. You can only defend a limited region due to logistic regions.

You shall not hold ports in lets say the antilles and havanna with the same fleet. (You will have to split it )

 

So yeah. The idea goes against some prinziples that the devs have in mind for the game.

And personally I dont like it.

I dont want Naval Action to become POTBS II. Where we had ships in every important port.

[jodgi]

...I dont want Naval Action to become POTBS II. Where we had ships in every important port.

I never POTBS'd. Explain how that is a bad thing, please?

I read it as more fighting everywhere and was ready to thumb it up...

[Magnum]

The devs emphasized that Naval Action is going to be a game where you dont have to sail thousands of miles bevore combat actions.

The world shall feel like its huge and teleports are definately going to ruin that impression.

 

This idea affronts the whole "big world" impression. Later endgame content will be some sort of conquest where societies are going to capture towns and empoy a huge fleet.

The bigger the effort and society the greater is their influence. But that influence still is locally and not over the whole map. You can only defend a limited region due to logistic regions.

You shall not hold ports in lets say the antilles and havanna with the same fleet. (You will have to split it )

 

So yeah. The idea goes against some prinziples that the devs have in mind for the game.

And personally I dont like it.

I dont want Naval Action to become POTBS II. Where we had ships in every important port.

 

Please clarify - your first two sentences seem to me to be contradictory in intent. Forcing hours and hours of sailing around in a HUGE world reduces "actions"?

 

-------

 

Starting the game (as in when you log in) at any of YOUR outposts would help cut down on the distance requirements to "get into action" and is not exactly "teleporting" - thus supporting your first sentence.

 

I agree with no teleporting (and always have, read my post history) - I guess I don't see how logging on at any of your own outposts could be confused with "teleporting" - I assume you would have to have logged off at one of your outposts as well.

 

If you log off in the middle of the ocean - you restart there.

[TommyShelby]

Please clarify - your first two sentences seem to me to be contradictory in intent. Forcing hours and hours of sailing around in a HUGE world reduces "actions"?

 

-------

 

Starting the game (as in when you log in) at any of YOUR outposts would help cut down on the distance requirements to "get into action" and is not exactly "teleporting" - thus supporting your first sentence.

 

I agree with no teleporting (and always have, read my post history) - I guess I don't see how logging on at any of your own outposts could be confused with "teleporting" - I assume you would have to have logged off at one of your outposts as well.

 

If you log off in the middle of the ocean - you restart there.

So in a hypothetical situation. If i had Santi's at all my outpost's (spread across the map). 

I am at outpost A, i get a report of an enemy fleet at outpost C. 

I log off and spawn in outpost C. Take my Santi. Meet the enemy.

- During this battle i get a new report of another enemy fleet at outpost D. 

- I finish the current battle ASAP and log off.

I now login in outpost D, take my santi, meet the enemy.

Rinse and repeat? 

I'm not sure if i explained myself correctly but my point is that this system seems easily exploitable..

[Magnum]

So in a hypothetical situation. If i had Santi's at all my outpost's (spread across the map). 

I am at outpost A, i get a report of an enemy fleet at outpost C. 

I log off and spawn in outpost C. Take my Santi. Meet the enemy.

- During this battle i get a new report of another enemy fleet at outpost D. 

- I finish the current battle ASAP and log off.

I now login in outpost D, take my santi, meet the enemy.

Rinse and repeat? 

I'm not sure if i explained myself correctly but my point is that this system seems easily exploitable..

 

Straw horse argument - do you really think you will have fleet battles at more than one outpost all at about the same time?

 

And since when does forcing you to "sail" your bathtub from one outpost to another "INCREASE" action? In your scenario - if you had to "sail" to the second outpost you would miss the second battle (is the implication).

 

And finally if you can afford multiple Santi's at multiple outposts - why shouldn't you be able to sail them each and all - WHEN you want to, just not all at the same time?

 

-----

 

It seems some just want long sea voyages in tubs - how is MORE action, less staring at the ceiling er, horizon an EXPLOIT? 

[DesertRat]

I think that it would work to have it so that if you are in a port where you have an outpost  you can select to transfer to a new outpost when you long off. Character only moves, ship does not move.  This could be on a timer so that it was a minimum of 30 minutes or something before your move would be completed.  If you log back in before then, you would still be in the original port.    This would work well when they start the Economy and you want to run trader ships etc.  and with the timer, it would be hard to exploit your movement for battle purposes.

[BungeeLemming]

Please clarify - your first two sentences seem to me to be contradictory in intent. Forcing hours and hours of sailing around in a HUGE world reduces "actions"?

The final endgame (as far as I know) could look like this:

A society wich grows can at some point own or govern ports. The society wants to conquer other ports wich are from a foreign/ hostile country/ society. Reasons may be: ressources or simply growth.

You attack ports and conquer them.

One by one by one. Not all at once and certainly not the heavily defended ports first. (given your not already a OP machine wich can roflstomp others)

 

The fighting will employ at the questionable port. Your society has to gather around it wich means: sailing. Sometimes a long distance. Wich is basically the first defence for the defender.

The "empire" can only expand at a certain speed and you cannot completely destroy one nation with one superforce.

 

About potbs:

The distances were tiny compared to Naval Action. Sailing against the wind was faster than tacking.

And you could easily sail from one end to the other within one hour. Not a long way to go and ambicious gamers wont bother sailing long distances.

That lead to a pretty fast response to an attacking force. You were able to defend the assault when you could field the players. (Wich was doable in the early years)

[TommyShelby]

Straw horse argument - do you really think you will have fleet battles at more than one outpost all at about the same time?

 

And since when does forcing you to "sail" your bathtub from one outpost to another "INCREASE" action? In your scenario - if you had to "sail" to the second outpost you would miss the second battle (is the implication).

 

And finally if you can afford multiple Santi's at multiple outposts - why shouldn't you be able to sail them each and all - WHEN you want to, just not all at the same time?

 

-----

 

It seems some just want long sea voyages in tubs - how is MORE action, less staring at the ceiling er, horizon an EXPLOIT? 

I do think it will happen. It already have happened several times. And that's with 50 players online. 

 

Another example..

- It would allow every single TDA player to magically pop up in a chosen location to "roflstomp" any incoming/attacking forces. 

 

This would mean that "splitting" the fleet suddenly doesn't have any strategical value since you would, in theory, be able to log off at any given neutral/allied port so long as you keep 10k gold in your purse to buy an outpost.

I'm not against "more action" but that is why we will have the skirmish room is it not?.. 

 

In the open world, Should i NOT miss the battle given that i am actually on the other side of carribbean? Or do you actually think it's fair that i would be able to simply put up an outpost and "Teleport" (Log out, log in) to an outpost which might happen to be minutes away from where the battle is taking place? 

 

 

Oh, and btw. why would i sail my "bathtub" from one location to another when i have one at my destination already? I would probably take a fast frigate or a fast fore-and-aft vessel for such trips. 

[Magnum]

I do think it will happen. It already have happened several times. And that's with 50 players online. 

 

Another example..

- It would allow every single TDA player to magically pop up in a chosen location to "roflstomp" any incoming/attacking forces. 

 

This would mean that "splitting" the fleet suddenly doesn't have any strategical value since you would, in theory, be able to log off at any given neutral/allied port so long as you keep 10k gold in your purse to buy an outpost.

I'm not against "more action" but that is why we will have the skirmish room is it not?.. 

 

In the open world, Should i NOT miss the battle given that i am actually on the other side of carribbean? Or do you actually think it's fair that i would be able to simply put up an outpost and "Teleport" (Log out, log in) to an outpost which might happen to be minutes away from where the battle is taking place? 

 

 

Oh, and btw. why would i sail my "bathtub" from one location to another when i have one at my destination already? I would probably take a fast frigate or a fast fore-and-aft vessel for such trips. 

 

 

I would not be opposed to a two hour timer - whenever you log in after having been offline for two hours - THEN you could choose your outpost.

 

Heaven forbid any TDA "rolfstomping" - as if they won't figure some other advantage

 

And Tommy - I think your new nickname is - le maître d'exploits - I bow to your superior knowledge when it comes to exploits.

[TommyShelby]

I would not be opposed to a two hour timer - whenever you log in after having been offline for two hours - THEN you could choose your outpost.

 

Heaven forbid any TDA "rolfstomping" - as if they won't figure some other advantage

The timer could be dependant on distance in some way. 

- I'm just afraid of the TP mechanism's taking away the "bigger strategical aspect" of the game (Eg. The long distances and travel times). ^^ 

[Magnum]

The timer could be dependant on distance in some way. 

- I'm just afraid of the TP mechanism's taking away the "bigger strategical aspect" of the game (Eg. The long distances and travel times). ^^ 

 

While I am hoping against hope that this stays a game anyone can play and enjoy - without the NEED for "bigger strategical aspect" - just sailin and shootin, with the occasional oops I sank.

[TommyShelby]

While I am hoping against hope that this stays a game anyone can play and enjoy - without the NEED for "bigger strategical aspect" - just sailin and shootin, with the occasional oops I sank.

And you will be able to have that. As a lone player you ofcourse wouldn't have the need to suddenly take a three hour trip to defend your fleet's homeport etc.. ^^

[Magnum]

And you will be able to have that. As a lone player you ofcourse wouldn't have the need to suddenly take a three hour trip to defend your fleet's homeport etc.. ^^

 

I've already help defend my COUNTRY'S home port (Capitol) in a lynx no less - but I felt I had a choice if I had not wanted to.

 

As you may have surmised, I don't want extra time demands placed on me - I play test to relax from demands.

[Siegfried]

Representing that you hire a NPC captain for travel while offline. With a timer based in a medium speed and distance, representing the real/game travel time, it not will be a exploit. It is like you pick a basic Linx and sail, but when you are offline. And the next time you go online, if timer ended, you spawn in the new port. You must choose the destination when logg off, not when login.

 

For more exploit protection, you have a timer of 1 hour (for example) while the shop dont work. This way you need to have a ship docked in that port or sail the basic ship. This way you can not create a 1 rate purchasing in shop in 1 minute.

 

Do you like this idea?

[BungeeLemming]

Maybe you want to pay for a passage to one of your ships wich is parked in another port.

 

The passage costs money. Depending on the distance you travel.

And secondly this feature will need time. POTBS was instant. If such a travel option is considered there must be drawbacks.

Else I park X ships around the caribbean and port myself around the OW to whereever I want.

The time consumed should be close to the time you would need with a ship like the lynx. Maybe the prise rises with the kind of vessel you want to use?

[Sigurd]

As long as you can't start/TP at/to a Neutral port.

Which means for us "Swedes", we would need to conquer an enemy port first, then open an outpost, place a ship there and hope no-one re-conquer the port and thereby auto-capture all "stored" ships in it. 

 

This would be a game about capturing strategical ports and making sure to keep them. 

[Siegfried]

Where you have a outpost. Can we have outpost in neutral ports?

[Sigurd]

Where you have a outpost. Can we have outpost in neutral ports?

We can... but we can't employ counter tactics against a neutral port as that will make us pirates.

So the scenario described by mr. Shelby will be too easy an exploit. 

 

If say, you can employ a blockade against a port - that somehow made the port inaccessible for teleporting captains; and you could do that to neutral ports without turning pirate - then by all means...