admin

компас корректен но румбы надо дорисовать пока не решено так как экономика сама переделке в этот раз не подвергается то ресет произойдет только с портами их владельцами. Здания останутся - активы корабли контракты останутся но когда это будет пока тоже неизвестно след патч касается только земли в боях и пары других мелочей

The reduction will be very slight

Half of british ships of the line at the end of Napoleonic wars were french/spanish built. Ships are very resource intensive. If the goal is to have at least 30-40 unique vessels in game - national requirement will force us to make 280 unique vessels

The Cross on the map shows that the battle took place way outside of the protection zone. We mentioned it before. Raiding enemy waters is a valid tactic - your enemy did it and was punished. Players must not camp in the protection zone and use alts to pull players into battles. Outside of that zone it is all hostile waters at least at this iteration of the design.

Its a sandbox problem. If pirates did not exist another nation would capture all ports from weaker nations. We are thinking about it now for the alliance/war/peace patch:)

me too but you can come back after you do your SL1 run

It took Europeans 350 years to destroy Barbary Pirates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates Corsairs captured thousands of ships and repeatedly raided coastal towns. As a result, residents abandoned their former villages of long stretches of coast in Spain and Italy. The raids were such a problem that coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Barbary pirates raided towns across Europe up to Iceland and Ireland. In 1662, England made the first treaty with a Barbary pirates ruler. This set the pattern for similar treaties by other European nations trading in the Mediterranean. Typically, a Barbary peace treaty required a nation to pay tribute to the pirate ruler, who would then call off attacks on the nation's ships. Tribute usually took the form of a large payment of money plus annual payments. The annual payments might be cash, military supplies, or expensive presents for the ruler. A particular treaty might also include ransom money for the release of a nation's citizens held captive by the Barbary country. United States even paid tributes to pirates The U.S. Pays Tribute After finding American commerce in the Mediterranean had almost stopped due to the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission, consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. The following year, Congress authorized a maximum of $80,000 to spend on tribute treaties with all the Barbary Pirate States. In 1787, the United States signed a tribute treaty with Morocco. This proved to be a reasonable treaty, costing the United States a one-time only tribute of about $20,000. Except for a few brief disagreements, Morocco never again harassed American shipping. Algiers, the most powerful of the Barbary Pirates States, was a different story. In the summer of 1785, pirates from Algiers captured two American merchant ships and held the 21 men aboard them for ransom. The United States offered $4,200 for the captives. The ruler of Algiers, called the dey, demanded nearly $60,000. The Americans refused, and negotiations dragged on for more than 10 years. The two commissioners most involved in tribute treaty negotiations were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams favored paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce moving again in the Mediterranean. Jefferson disagreed. He saw no end to the demands for tribute. He wanted matters settled "through the medium of war" and proposed a league of trading nations to force the end of Barbary piracy. In 1790, pirates from Algiers captured 11 American ships and more than 100 prisoners to add to those already held for ransom. This shocking news produced a serious debate in the newly formed U.S. Congress over the need to build a navy. But it took five years before Congress authorized the construction of six warships. Finally, in 1796, the United States signed a peace treaty with Algiers. The United States agreed to pay $642,500 plus annual tribute of naval supplies and presents to the dey. In exchange, the dey promised to release of the American captives and protect American shipping. The United States had to borrow money to make the primary tribute payment. After 1796 US paid another 160,000 us dollars in tributes and presents to pirates, and even had to borrow money to make the payments. In 1801 Pirate ruler canceled the agreements and requested more money. This time US refused and went to war with Barbary states. Eventually.... The scope of corsair activity began to diminish as the more powerful European navies started to compel the Barbary States to make peace and cease attacking their shipping. However, the ships and coasts of Christian states without such effective protection continued to suffer until the early 19th century. Following the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna in 1814–15, European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary corsairs entirely and the threat was largely subdued. Occasional incidents occurred, including two Barbary wars between the United States of America and the Barbary States, until finally terminated by the French conquest of Algiers in 1830. TLDR... Barbary pirates were a dominant force in the Mediterranean for a very long time. Its not a-historical that Caribbean pirates could become such force given sandbox rules (where everything is in the hands of players). I personally believe that European powers can agree upon the need to suppress the Pirates entirely and subdue the threat by means of force not by means of eloquent writing on forums. Alternatively nations can sign separate tribute agreements and pay pirates to leave them alone. I think this suppression is an interesting challenge for nations. Someone just have to take on this goal and get it done. This surely can be done before the alliances/war and peace patch. In the future alliances/war and peace might change the landscape significantly.

консенсус искать и не надо будет XX-80% активных игроков = нация

we issue 7 day bans for 10-20 for players per week - some of those eventually move to permanent bans even more 1 day bans are issued There is "no broken windows policy" on toxicity. You can be angry but you must never be extremely rude to others. Players are given all tools to help control toxicity in game. Report and ignore. Disabling communications with enemy nations makes chat a lot cleaner.

Barking dogs usually don't bite. Ignore them or report the messages where they tell you they will kill you by a report function.

Your signature has a clan tag forbidden by my decision Edit it immediately Also the way you talk might cause problems for you and your guild on this forums. This is a dev forum - perhaps you should move out to NA 4chan or something - no moderation happens there.

Альянсы и дипломатия решает много проблем Но главные 2 проблемы которые они решают такая: В игре слишком много стран, но так как ящик пандоры уже открыт то альянсы и союзы позволят игрокам привести карту к 3-4 большим союзам Если нации обьединились в союз то они должны иметь возможность заходить в порты торговать и помогать друг другу на пб и иметь зеленый неатакуемый статус в море

xp and crafting levels are not going to be touched those are safe forever.

Wipes will only be done if new systems are profoundly better than old ones. If new systems are better people will come back to try them again, even if people oppose resets If new systems are a lot worse - then there is no point of doing them - no point to reset anything New alliances/war and peace mechanics will force reset of ports - that will definitely happen.

Will discuss the post because it is important This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems. The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 2 simple examples Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

we definitely know one guy who posted the statement similar to this: "i lost interest in Naval action when i found out that they are catering for the casual crowd by not making historical 4-5 hour battles"

random fire is useful when you need to hit someone at least with one shot and sometimes during bow and stern shots when you are not sure which direction enemy will turn

Hey Captains. We have to admit we wasted some good dev time in Jan after release on the unnecessary features (listened to players a bit more than needed due to our previous position to always react to player wants fast) - namely queues autokick new server several backup and server stability related features other things We learnt a lot and this might help in the future (or other games) but we should not have done it. Merging and transfer will happen after War & peace/rvr/port battles changes are approved by players and coded. It might take 1-2 months. If you want more action it is advised to just transfer to pvp 1. If you want more secluded environment you can stay. We are going to discuss it this week with the team and maybe propose other options for captains moving to pvp 1

True. But the dominant nation can muster a lot more ships at that time. So instead of having 8 flags in various places they bring 8 large fleets to 1 port. Small nation might not even get to a port battle and will be intercepted several times. So what i mean by my comment is this: conquest will be slower but the outcome will be the same - weak nation will either lose all the ports or become a vassal, unless it is Switzerland.

Sometimes players think that they want a certain feature hoping it will fix the problem 1. In reality problem 1 is solved by something else or cannot be solved at all. Take RvR motivators for example. Lets talk about them. Motivation for war is Spice - a universal resource required for something. If you control Spice - you win. Lets assume for a moment that Spice exists in Age of Sail. Then alliances/and war/peace declaration mechanics are not solving the dominant nation problem. Dominant nation/alliance will eventually control all spice destroying other nations. In a grand open ended war-game it sounds like a great feature. It replicates real world to an extent (because in reality most wars did not make sense). Slowing down conquest or creating more refined port battle mechanics etc. are actually not solving the problem but exaggerate it - because they also favor the dominant alliance. We have to be honest with ourselves and tell things as they are. At this stage players and devs should not be on the opposite sides of the trenches - but work on this together. If a player wants to kill sandbox because its better for the game - they should say it as it is. When providing feedback on features it would help a lot if players provide feedback in this form - i want x because i want to achieve y explaining what they want to achieve - not just by stating what they want to change. Sometimes you need to change a different thing to help the player achieve what they want. Also players should consider others and long term consequences when talking about features (thinking them through). One great example: AI fleets. This feature was universally loved by 80% of players (silent majority). 20% of players hated this feature - because it interfered with their PvP. Disabling this feature made the game worse for 80% of players who did not care about port battles, or large pvp engagements and took those players off the map (reducing pvp opportunities for players who wanted those bots out)

в игре пока 2 третих рейта вы показываете стандартный третий рейт по музейной модели английского флота беллона (не 74) имеет раскраску которую она имела в оригинале старый третий рейт со скрина устарел по ряду причин так как был сделан до оптимизаций реном возможно имеет шансы его догнать в море - но в инсте не догонит процент бонусов всегда идет от базовых значений то есть если у вас три бонусы на перезарядку они суммируются и улучшают базовое значение (а не накладываются друг на друга) модули остаются на старом корабле - пересев на новый корабль вы используете его модули а не свои исключение морпехи - они переходят с вами на новый корабль во время боя (после выхода из инста на новом корабле они уже не учитываются и считаются оставшимися на старом)

пока ничего не можем сказать но скорее всего ничего страшного не случится с ними - особенно если старый порт был нейтральным но не обещаем

предлагаем капитанам перестать троллить друг друга в важных топиках

еще раз повторим механики войны и мира касаются всех просто подозреваем что они на самом деле они сильно ничего не изменят в этой каше из топора мы мы обязательно выложим мысли по войне и миру на обсуждение прежде чем чтото начинать делать