la Touche-Treville

Oui, tâchons de ne pas le faire fuire avec nos conneries

Thnaks for the clear explanation. Maybe You can comment on the rest of my suggestion?

Right now we have the Groups and Battle Groups that allow players to take action as a group. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the difference between both are and if we really need both in their actual form. However here is what I suggest: - When inviting players to a battle group, the captain creating this group can decide what color the flag will be (currently it's a red flag). Say, green, orange, blue, red, white, black, yellow, etc... - A Player can then greate a group and invite all the created battle groups to join. All playes in the group will be able to see the color of different flags of all battle groups other players. If two groups have the same color, well it might create confusion but can also be done deliberatly. RESULT: We have a full armada with an armada leader (the one who created the GROUP ) and a series of squadrons/divisions with their individual leaders (Battle Groups) with each one being identified by a different color of flag. This would allow for a more visual recognition of squadron members and better coordination. Thanks

I think this whole thing might need some tuning over time. However I presently see the following Pros and Cons: - PROS Though NA isn't supposed to be a sail simulator strictly speaking, adding more realism to ship sailing patterns makes the experience more immersive. Now in a PB, you better bring some ships with Latin sails to go cap or hunt down the mortar brigs sitting way out. Could be cool to see separate fights occurring in different areas of the battle instance where ships of same sail types regroup. Square sails will no longer have the same radius of action as they have today. Weather gauge will become all the more important. -CONS In OW, this new change really cripples all square sails from getting anywhere unless the destination is downwind and not far out. With wind turning in a clockwise direction on a preset schedule, you know that you're going nowhere for many many minutes at some stage! In OW, even with the time acceleration, moving ships is going to be incredibly painful. Here's where realism hinders the enjoyable aspect of the game. What I'd like to see: Variable wind directions that don't obey a mechanical rule but would be like a couple hours of wind coming from a set direction and variable wind force that further effects ships by size. Probably too complicated but no harm asking

Agga is worst than a First rate now in OW with a head wind. Realistic though

Sorry but I like the current system. You can surrender as long as your ship isn't sinking, meaning is taking on water.

There should be some compensation for the clan that shows up, that I agree. What about extending the invulnerability timer for that port by 1 week instead of the 72 hours. But I imagine this could lead to exploits quite easily. Difficult one to crack for sure. Hopefully the BR limit should alleviate some of these pains.

Let me also make clear that adding a BR limit to PBs requires having a roster feature for organizing who participates in the battle. Owner of the roster? Selected by player grade(s) in clan attacking or defending. Mechanics? Plenty of options here, I can imagine a waiting list where players register the ship they want to play (Ship characteristics show up when hovering mouse over), PB leader then validates the players with their ships and can request those in waiitng room to change ship if he/she (haven't come across any girls playing this game which is a shame really) doesn't have the compo they are looking for. List is locked as soon as battle timer starts so this would also force clan members to be disciplined and show up in advance Not rocket science really but essential to avoid players screwing up the PB by entering in wrong ship.

Played around with the BR spreadsheet and came up with pretty similiar values. This should really introduce some nice new strategies!

I've been asking for this for the last 18 months so yes, you have my full support on this. Next step will be giving ships modulated XP depending on role they play in PBs: - SOLs: Damage dealers and damage soakers -> higher XP coefficient linked to damage dealt and damage received - Frigates (5-4): Ships that play a role in hampering crew and sails -> higher XP coefficient linked to rigging damage and crew damage dealt - All others: Would love to see a scouting role here were smaller ships are sent as reconnaissance ships to spot ennemy fleet. Not applicable yet however. Rigging damage and tagging XP for now

There should be a limit to the amount of crew restored and certainly it should be a lot slower when boarding then when in battle. What about Marines, Rum brings them back to life to? Sounds like Rum = Lazurus upgrade for all

All working now, thank you all

HI, After downloading the update, I was eager to check out the changes and unfortunately I can no longer login to PVP EU. Authentification Error. Strange as I can login to PVE. Any ideas?

Hi, I find it pretty ennoying and unatural that a ship can go through 5 or more repairs while in battle with very little penalty. Actually this really applies to the rigging repairs. I would like a ship to be able to launch repairs only when sails are lowered to 40% (battle sails) or less. Damn it, taking down broken masts, cutting out the old rigging, putting in place new sails all while the ship is going full sails seams unbalanced and unrealistic. This would also solve the issue of capped 15kts ships pursuing each other for ever.

OK, ready to be flogged on deck for this: WOWS (World of Warships) have implemented a nice PVE/PVP solution. You can progress in the game by doing only PVE missions but your rewards will be much lower than if you participate in PVP battles. Want to progress faster and earn more money? Well the answer is PVP. So in a nutshell, if the balance is right and PVP really get's rewarded correctly (get gold and combat marks based on damage done and not purely on the sinking of the ship) than I believe this will turn out to be a very good solution