Westgate

lol, im an idiot. Didnt think to check the attacker numbers to see how many AI there would be. Just assumed 10 xD

Since hostility missions are limited to only 10 players and 10 AI on the defending side and with their being 18 British already, I would assume 2 Brits left the battle already taking up those last spots.

You can change nations once every IRL 30 days. You get a new forged paper every 30 days, no need to rebuy.

Nah, Liq ended it.

Shit happens, I think everyone on this forum understands that. Don't get me wrong, we were a little frustrated and let down, one of our guys woke up at 5am for it. In the end, it was just wasted time. That is why I made the suggestion. Why waste even more of peoples time when it is obvious what the conclusion is going to be? Why make them sit there 20 minutes to get the 1k points? With my suggestion that becomes only 5. Bringing up the Jobe PB tonight wasn't meant to target you guys, it was just an example of that it happened. It sure isn't the first time it has happened, and it won't be the last I am sure. It is just something that could be a nice QoL thing.

The most dangerous thing in a port battle against the United States, Silfarion

There needs to be a mechanic to allow uncontested PBs to end quicker. We had a PB at Jobe tonight that was uncontested. 3 US ships joined part way through and all promptly left within 4 minutes. So here is my suggestion: If either team holds all 3 cap points, and there are no active ships on the opposite team, start a 5 minute timer to instantly end the PB in a victory for the team that has all 3 points By active ships I mean: no enemy ships at all, all escaped, or all sank

I'm sorry if I came across as patronizing, it wasn't my intention. Trust me, I am not the best, nor do I even remotely believe it. My post was written reflecting back on some personal experiences I have growing up playing sports and in the end losing it all. I'm a person who always wants to better myself, and I just like to help push people as well. It's a fault of my own, and sometimes it gets the better of me. I think no matter what, NA will always be somewhat of a niche game. The game has a fundamental problem that no matter what, will never go away. It takes a long time to play. Travelling between two ports by each other can take 5-10 minutes with bad wind. A battle can go an hour and a half, then you probably will get re-tagged again by a revenge fleet or by the same group. This game will not appeal that get 30 minutes of playtime a night. There are plenty of other games that are better suited for that audience. The casual players that will stick around for NA are the ones who are fans of the genre. When it comes to hiding the names, some people go, 'oh, its Wraith, hes good, im going to run' or 'oh, its westgate, hes a noob.' The reason I think hiding names is better is that it removes that decision making process and every attack has a little bit of risk and excitement. I truly don't know if there is a perfect way to balance between the casual players and and salty dogs. I hope there is. This genre of games has long been forgotten and is deserving of a great game. I hope Naval Action is that game. Once again, sorry that I came across as an ass.

So just because other games don't hide the player names, NA shouldn't? If we held that belief to other games, there would be absolutely no innovation. That is the absolute wrong mentality that some people have. If people refuse to fight others because "they are good" they are doing themselves a disservice. The only way to learn is to challenge yourself. You have to learn how to sink to get better at sinking others. You say that the "wolves" don't want others to see they are "wolves," but you are saying that "sheep" are afraid someone may be a "wolf" and not simply a bigger "sheep." Not showing names/clans is better for the game. It forces players to push their comfort zone. It forces player to make a conscious decision to attack.

There is nothing to force players to stay in the same area though, not everyone plays out of a capital city. The map will remain the same size, there will still be ~380 ports for a peak of ~600 players per day. Reducing the amount of nations will do nothing to increase PvP, you are just lowering the total percentage of total enemies. That is not an opinion, that is just statistics. The patrol missions are a great start to encourage more PvP, there needs to be more ideas like that.

The patrol area missions allow you to attack PvE fleets for the damage as well as player fleets for the damage objective. If you spawn these missions by the ports you accept them in, it allows pve players to get pvp marks. It would be a glorified combat order.

Dilly Dilly!

Easier way to catch people alt-farming for PvP marks? If John Doe(US) kills Jane Doe(GB) then Jane Doe(GB) kills John Doe(US) it is easier to tell whats happening. Also, if someone sees it one night and doesn't think it's enough to file a tribunal after one incident and 2 nights later it happens again, it is a lot easier to prove.

Actually, Ink and admin have both said port swapping was perfectly fine when several tribunal threads were made against the Russians and Spanish when they were swapping to gain victory marks.