admin

i doubt the math you provide - because if it was happening all port battles would be lost on all servers to NPC all the time. But letting 10 ships (almost half of the fleet) is dangerous and you should not have let them sail to points But I cannot check as i am still travelling on the paternal leave and people who work on the game are now sleeping in Europe.

it cant be 3 mins But Points for capture zone entry have been slightly increased Combat ships now give 15 points instead of 10 Trading Transports now give 325 points instead of 300 This topic is not pinned and is not a guide for NPC port battles. I think NPC Port battles with players are won by players more often than by NPC raiders, (unless players do not come). We will provide detailed stats tomorrow.

Its only git gud when it concerns OTHERS. Seems to be the case in 100% cases now.

Nassau Bug was reported on the 5th of Jan and fixed on the 9th of January. Raider routes and BR issues raised in the thread was also changed and posted as patchnotes - separate patchnotes because it was considered important. Issue was found, reproduced and fixed in just 4 days for Majority of ports that could have this problem and we have a lot of ports. We will not tolerate cases when captains like you are bashing developers for responding to player bug reports/posting patchnotes in time. This is not acceptable. Another point Fixed typo A Fixed typo B Closed the obvious bug C We do not have to pretend to be doing something by posting 20 page patchnotes like some developers do. We never gave an expectation that we would post on obvious bugs, typos, exploits or other reported holes in gameplay are fixed. Especially early in developments, exploits and easy obvious bugs were always fixed without patchnotes.

Points were always given and calculated - It was even in patch notes several times. NPCs were always granting points both for entry and for staying in the capture zones.

They are not. NPCs ranks, speeds etcetera were not touched for a very long time.

we more and more believe that these days. RvR price of loss is too high compared to just pvp. And people just hate losing stuff.

Redoutable (Le suffren) is waiting for approval from valve. Once approved it will be launched immediately Implacable (redoutable sister ship of temeraire class) will be in game by end of month - will definitely be a crafted ship with permit dropping from chests Wrecker class status is still unknown - probably will be in game this month or feb - but we not sure about its status yet (imported vs rare vs crafted) on the most popular question on Montagnes - montagnes is not yet in development. We need to fund (budget) it first.

last post updated.

That will change soon. All woods will receive repair bonuses and penalties depending on their RL qualities. Oak will be one of the easiest to repair.

We would like to discuss all issues players raise in respective topics. Alliances in alliances, fog in weather, lanterns in good things to have.. But if you put lanterns into discussions of carronades - you are doing this topic a disservice. As this topic is descending away from carronades to marine life and lanterns and fog in battles there is no point to keep it going due to off topic.

+ Little tip.. if you want to persuade - do not use hostile condescending and crying claims here. You say all features are broken. Definition of Broken = not working for everyone. The car is broken - it does not drive, for everyone. None of the features you listed are broken for everyone. By claiming wind gusts being broken (when 10000 of players use them every week) you sound like a whining granny, but we know you are not the one Now to the points Alliances? Alliances exist and they are implemented the best way by making players talk to each other. They require human communication, trust building, allow betrayal and revenge, and allow granularity (allied with nation, hostile to some clans, or allied in rvr, enemies in pvp). Your comment on alliances tells me that you do not look deep enough to see that button mechanical alliances are worse: they reduce pvp, politics, and most importantly human communication. Real politics should be done by human communication. Because we like current alliances I really suggest to put the topic of alliances to rest. They were not on the development list last 6 months and are not going to be on the development list in 2020. You can bring this issue up in 12 months but i doubt i will review them I spent 3 dev months on alliances in the past and will not do it any more. We are not going to work on alliances because they work fine and we have other goals. We listened to people like you too much in 2017, jumping from idea to idea from players trying to please the community. You cant please the community this way. Indecision and swinging back and forth from idea to idea is the worst. Now we are focused on what the game really needs (and what players and alliance leaders really want). Game needs more players Game needs to give players things to do Game should minimize excessive boring time wasting In fact all things you mention (with the exception of some potential changes to raids rewards) are not broken at all and work as intended. They either keep players or protect players or give players goals. Ports bonuses are OP? - This is a goal for many and keeps players giving them real benefit from investments . You can also capture the port and level it up and you can have them to win battles. OW speed boosts are working as intended. This feature saves everyones time and I want these wind patches both location based and timer based. Seasoned woods are op as they were historically. Ships were built with unseasoned woods but rotten in 1 year. This IS how i want them and I want them to drop from risky activities (and be very expensive in peaceful activities) Privateers cant be cheated or agreed with or camped with contracts and thus is the best place to drop Seasoned wood. Raids are fine (rewards could be better) Privateer fleets are fine. Their goal is to protect spawn areas from frigates and above and they do it well. And they are not strong people are sinking them right and left. Practice and you can do it. So. Your feedback is known. You do not like something - you want to persuade someone by your post. But to save your time i am going to tell you this. We wont jump from idea to idea or change the same feature over and over again. Features above are not going to be touched as they fulfill their goals. Maybe not ideally, but they work and work fine for me. We will continue focus on new player experience, retention and solving game problems that we consider important to bring more players and keep more players. Now please no off-topic. Cannons and carronades only. This conversation on cannons and carronades is important. New players do not care about alliances. But they care about cannons, and unlike ports with investments or raids they care about easy to get 32lb carronades and more options in light ships.

yes lets go back of course We have full information on all systems and engine benefits and limitations, you do not. As a result i would love to give you a full carronade 1st rate because choice of guns would be Captain's choice in the age of sail. But i cannot because all first rate models have lower deck barrels integrated into models to allow 50 first rates in battle. That is why we do not have recoil as well (we had in closed alpha). We cannot afford drawcalls caused by those barrels. Thats why you cannot have carronades on first rates. Going to first statement i do not get it - sorry. Carronades are best from 100 to 250, cannons are best from 200 to 500. Competent captains can keep range. New cannon rebalance will make it even more proper. This is a sandbox and captains decide which nations shine and which guns are used.

This guy is either a landlubber or one of those who were threatening to leave the forum in 2014 if we did not make all battles last at least 5 hours real time The english phrase "Taken Aback" comes from the naval setting when ships were taken aback by wind and reversed course. Ships were agile and nimble and misconceptions on lack of movement ability comes from the era of dreadnoughts. Sailing vessels could easily stop, break, and move back at will of captain Its very well documented on misconceptions on stopping on sailing backwards On overall maneuverability and sailing back and forth like powerboats. Everyone who is interested in sailing forwards and backwards should read the Seamanship in the age of sail first before commenting on the sailing model A sailing game which does not have sailing backwards or cannot heave to (stop the ship by using yards) is not a sailing game but a disgrace. Its like a shooter without ironsights crouching and strafing. @Mad Dog Morgan - based on your latest comments you are obviously a hater and do not have a clue what are you talking about.

Snow/HMS Ontario was a community voted ship which was proposed and voted in by the forum members. It was delivered in all its glory. Majority of voters wanted this ship. So i do not care about your armchair analytics } + your commentary is useless snow is not a lake dinghy - its is a 250 ton 22 gun ship for comparison surprise is 650 tons Reflect on this and move on. Nobody **** with community voted ships.

You cant hit anything with carronades above 1000 yards in naval action as they are not really accurate at long range. And then they are extremely ineffective at more than 500 hundred yards (cant penetrate anything). Just like your screen from a book says and it was like this from day one. Are you arguing with yourself now, just for the sake of arguing? Dont waste my time.

People who think carronades cannot shoot far are gravely mistaken. According to all sources the difference in penetration was miniscule (check frigates of napoleonic wars for example). Every admiralty table confirms this. In fact in our game carronade penetration is lower than reality. As carronades could penetrate 1m of wood from good distance. Сarronades had other problems which are not simulated in game for example many captains did not like carronades because of their short barrel hot particles often flew back onto ship and into sails. + Whats missing is crew skill in aiming and accuracy which we cannot add as it will be considered a hidden wipe.

I don't know what are you complaining about then. This topic is saying that small ships are Overpowered Feel free to favor them more now. Those carronades can be crafted very easily.

we got a couple of reports on similar issues for 2 players, of ships losing controls or freezing completely maybe it was causing this will check more later.

Please report long ship freezes in this topic If your ship have frozen in battle for no apparent reason for a long time - please report in this topic or in support section. Tell us your nickname, date and approximate hour of the freeze.

@Ink will help you find it

Well. Imagine rusty guns We make iron rust and add bronze guns that do not rust.. What do you think will happen Same will happen with gun stress.. It is just busy work. Nobody really wants it. Do not install riders - replace timbers every 25 shots install riders do not replace timbers ever Its a rider tax - there is no choice here. Everyone will sail with riders and everyone will be upset because choice was actually removed - not added. Now instead of redoutable musket i have to install the stupid riders - stupid devs - ruining my game. Carronades added choice.. Suddenly some ships became better, and the choice is still historical because ships like Pavel did not get 32lb on top deck. THEY DONT FIT THE PORTS!

Leeway is already in naval action for maybe 1.5 years. Other sailing improvements like better battle sail mechanics and hull movement from wind will be added as it improves gameplay and does not take anything from players. Gun stress, maintenance, rotting, degrading of ship qualities after of structural damage is not going to be welcomed by the majority - its just too late to add this. We honestly tried it and it did not work because majority of people already like the game and do not like it changed in negative directions and rotting and timber stress will be such mechanics. If they were introduced from the start it would be different.

No ship had more than 10 battles. Timber stress from cannons was a non-issue over such short periods of time and should not be an issue in NA. And what about rotting, or fatigue and homesickness and mutinies.? What about them? Most did not care about the wood damaged by firing because, most ships rot within 2 years if were not build from well seasoned salted oak or teak, or had to be repaired for almost price of the ship every 6 months. By the way did you know that (S) stands for salted (not seasoned).. Which was the stamp placed on all well seasoned logs in most european shipyards, because seasoning was using salt. People would sacrifice planking if they wanted to live and survive battle so nobody cared about damaged timbers. People even demasted themselves if they wanted to survive during storm to not capsize. The only reason to not install heavy guns on top decks was ship balance. Heavier guns increased roll and heavy roll was very hard on crew and could unbalance the ship to the point of no return. But 32lb carronades are not really that heavy. There are many realistic and many unrealistic conventions in naval action. All of them are done for the player enjoyment of life.

not going to happen. Player created NPC transporters are technologically impossible What everyone is missing is this. 1000 players online is not really 1000 players, its 1000 players right now (this second). In reality it is up to 10,000 players per day. If each of them creates and NPC trader on OW - this will create 10000 ships (which will sail when player logged off too) which is impossible on the technology side. Remember that the whole british *****ing royal navy had only 500 combat worthy ships at its glory time (it had more but most were in ordinary and in repairs). NA has more than 1500 NPCs and up to 2500 players.