Anolytic

Many people did not get guns. I got 66 redeemables, including longs on my main. My alt, which I created on the Testbed for the first time, got only 54 redeemables and no guns whatsoever. EDIT: After redeeming some stuff I got guns on my alt. Double what I got on my main so far even.

Nice! Let me know if you find out!

The fate of the seal in Naval Action:

Hmm. I've seen similar functions implemented on other forums I've been on, and it was not a great success as it drove activity away from the main forum for a while initially right after the implementation, and then one after another the clubs died from stagnation and lack of ventilation. But let's see how it works here.

As an RvR-player I have to agree completely. The mechanics implemented to make RvR more important, more involving, more imperative, at the request of RvR-players - myself included - negatively affected gameplay for the average player without having the desired effect, nor proportionally improving gameplay for RvR-players who asked for it. With your clan wars idea you have the opportunity to make port ownership changes by conquest mostly irrelevant to new players, PvE-ers, Traders and OW-PvPers. That is what I was most excited about, and I was disappointed when it seemed you moved away from this in favour of safe-zones but still having regions in the center of the map change hands. RvR-players cannot recruit or involve new players in our playstyle if what we do negatively affects the base population of the game. The game tried to do it by force, by making RvR so important that everyone would have to join in and help their nation. All this really did was increase the stakes and the pitfalls, and drive away players. Make RvR an end-game path you can be a part of by choosing by your own volition to join a war company with all the positives and the negatives only really affecting you if you have taken that choice. I'm not saying make it rank restricted. You can make that choice (and un-make it) starting from lowest rank all the way up to highest rank, but you make the choice yourself, knowing the consequences that come along with the excitement and beauty of port battles.

Please provide any evidence of this. Screenshots, video or F11-report numbers. These events sound like lag/bugs and superior boarding mods/skills. If any of this was to be caused by exploits it would seemingly require server side manipulation which is impossible. This accusation belongs in the tribunal and needs evidence, not just assertions. Why would someone who already had 3:1 advantage use what would seem like obvious exploits in a battle they were already going to win?

6 missions a day is a lot of time spent if they also have to gather and sail the resources to where they craft. With average of about 30 minutes per mission and 30 minutes sailing to and from, as well as some time just ordering and dismissing missions to get them in a convenient spot, that's 6 hour per player. And they also want to keep some of those hard earned combat marks for buying upgrades, upgrade blueprints and perk resets. If they all five lost their 1st rates in a PB, which is a likely thing to happen if people were willing to take risks in RvR anymore, they would probably take a month before they were ready to do another PB. That is the problem. Those five players, after loosing their five 1st rates, should be able to just sail home, all of them extract all of their resources and sail them to their warehouse, dip a bit into their reserves of labour contracts and materials, click 5 times and have 5 new 1st rates ready to defend or attack the day after. Warfare of attrition is only good for the winners, and with the levels of attrition we have now in-game even the winners suffer. The only winning move is not to play - unfortunately. In my clan, through the meticulous work of our officers mainly, we have reserves of everything from labour contracts through materials, to permits, that if our nation looses an entire RvR-fleet one day, our clan can click out 25 new ships within 24 hours to replace both ours and other clans' losses. Probably not many clans can do the same though, and even our reserves would only hold for so many total losses before they are depleted.

This post gives me great hopes for the future of NA. I hope that you take this opportunity to also rework/remove conquest marks/victory marks. The idea that was widespread on this forum, and which I myself hesitantly but regretfully supported, that lineships should be rare and hard to come by, has done a great disservice to the game. People buy this game primarily not for RvR or PvP, but to sail ships. By making it excessively hard to get to some of the most desired ships, players just gave up. The knowledge slot grind is a good limiter for both RvR and OW, but the marks simply inhibit players as well as RvR. If RvR was active - and one of the reasons it is not - even the winning nation getting the map win, would loose more ships every week than they could replace with the victory marks they get. And at the same time it is just demotivating that everyone in the nation gets the same reward for a map win, and there is no special reward or bonus to the people who actually worked for it. Players should be able to build whatever ship they want if they can gather the resources and gold. Clans that cooperate well should be able to easily and quickly replace their lost ships from their reserves. Marks should be only for paints, blueprints, upgrades and skill books. There should be a bonus for successful RvR to the participants. It wasn't too bad what we used to have when we got random resources dropped after a PB. It helped with recouping losses financially or materially. Conquest marks pensions was also far superior to the Victory marks system, but still should have rather been just combat marks.

That's an unbecoming way of trying to diminish an opponent rather than actually argue. I seldom agree completely with @Bearwall's arguments or wording, but there is nothing to warrant saying that his response was an explosion. His reply was measured, well structured, on topic, and on point, without any outbursts. The fact that his response is in 3 successive posts is in large part to blame on the IP Board forum software which makes it a hurdle to combine into one post responses to several comments spread out over several pages. When you ask a stupid or convoluted questions, you shouldn't expect a direct answer. It is well known to both of us that, no, there is no mechanic to reserve PB slots, save for having hostility points and entering in the first 2 minutes. What new information would you gauge from this "yes or no-question" of yours? The question itself is nonsensical. Reserving slots in PBs is not an issue here. "Reserving" players to fill those slots is the issue, as @Cornelis Tromp pointed out in his replies.

Legends sounds great, but it is the OW game that I absolutely love, and always will be. It is the OW game where I find something new to explore, discover and admire every day I play, and which allows me to roleplay and immerse myself in the game and the community with such time-wasting activities as making videos, newspapers, declarations and art. Some examples (I would put them in spoiler tags, but hello kitty IP Boards): http://www.danmarknorge.org The "hardcore sandbox" game works well for me because I enjoy all these things that accompany it, and I endure grinding and the preparations necessary between opportunities to really fight. However, I do need someone to play with - other than my alts. Please do not put too much emphasis on the "hardcore" part. I will be the last one to leave this game, but if all my friends are gone, I will have nothing left to stay for except PvE. I really loved your new conquest ideas, and I think they have great potential to make the RvR-game more spontaneous and fun, like it used to be a year ago when, barring griefing and flag exploits, there was something happening every night and win or loose you could come back the next day and try again, not having to wait a week to get a ship and all your upgrades back. I think that you abandoned too soon some of the absolutely best parts of your ideas in your clan wars concept and I hope you revive them. The ideas gave me great hopes and great optimism for the OW game. I want to support this game every way I can. Unfortunately, visiting, reading or commenting Steam forums is simply not part of my habit, whereas I check this forum here every five minutes all the time I am awake.

I really think that they really should reverse it so that a port battle can only be activated between UTC19 and UTC24 (PBs to happen between UTC17 and UTC22). That way counter-grinding is actually possible. The change to allow activating PBs at any time was not an improvement at all. For one thing it leads to more PBs being scheduled at the same time accidentally, often against the same nation.

Forums haven't actually been merged though. There are still separate National News and Guild forums.

I was not expecting this to move quite so fast. Great work! I look forward to testing.

Please, no! The night-flip issue was never ever about resouces.

Either side should not make the mistake of conflating destroying nations with destroying the game. RvR in this game is, at least for now, full loss, no safety. Nations cannot be blamed for playing the RvR-game. This topic is about server politics, not RvR-mechanics. That's another subforum. However, Sweden cannot complain about being attacked if they want to rule the map. When they attack every nation they have to expect the nations to eventually fight back. Make no mistake, the attack of several nations simultaneously was not for the benefit of Danes, it was for the benefit of other nations to regain lost territories. Sweden can only look to themselves to find responsibility. By being the largest RvR force and playing the RvR-game well, but the Politics-game poorly they brought it on themselves. As stated in the OP, our interest in taking Swedish ports is zero. We did not need or seek this war. Sweden has at least 4 times our RvR-population. The plight of other nations meant we were practically begged to not sit on the sidelines and we didn't. And Christendom, gtfo with your bullshit.

While some people would say that this game is already pay2win because of econ alts, that is an inevitable consequence of the Steam EULA and players jumping through the hoops of having more than one Steam Account. Your proposal, with an in-game currency costing real life money that would give significant advantages to gameplay, would make this game pay2win by design. No. Simply no. Designing this game around a pay2win experience would drive away a lot of players.

If you got a forum warning I can assure you there was nothing subjective about it, nor the the action of an individual moderator. I personally reported several of your posts and suggested you should be put on permanent premoderation. Amongst other things you posted abusive, off topic and spamming messages in a development topic, which is a heavily moderated subforum where warnings are rightfully handed out with a low threshold. If it had been up to me you would have gotten more than just one warning.

The problem with this is that since the bigger nation has 6 war companies expanding their nation's territories, adding trade opportunities, grinding areas and fancy coloured dots on the map, the larger nation will be a much more desirable nation to start out in and to play in, on top of being a first choice already for historical and cultural reasons. Whereas smaller nations will be much less desirable, and their single war company will have a much more limited population to recruit from. It will maybe have the bare minimum players to keep going to begin with, but then it looses a few players and suddenly can no longer fill a fleet, no longer attack ports, no longer find RvR-fun and will quickly die out altogether. And then when the nation has no war company supporting or expanding it, the non-company players will start to flee also, as they can no longer craft, trade or grind freely. A nation with barely enough population to build one war company to put up a fight some days, but not when 3 or more people are unavailable for IRL-stuff, can never compete with a nation so stuffed with players that they can't all fit in 3 war companies. Yeah. Most of my alts are max level.

I heard there was an attack on Road Town! Any video recording/Screenshot of the battle result? Who won? Is this what this war has come to? Sweden is rudely disrupting and disturbing our summer holiday and just waste our time? Meanwhile however, I have been working in secret on an invasion of Finland. Tomorrow I plan to board a ferry and go conquest Sveaborg. Will Sweden show up to defend?

I'm hoping for more events like this after the summer holidays are over.

I'm still considering solutions to the problems you point out with my system. I believe only nationals and the controlling war company should have unrestricted access to ports. Maybe create a system or zone around each port to prevent war company members from ganking players entering their own nation ports. War company members should not necessarily get the same protection the other way around. In return war company members should automatically get outposts in every port their company controls. The problem I have with your proposed system is that it will affect nationals heavily, and the problem of imbalance is only going to get much much worse than it is now. What happens in RvR will affect what ports non-company nationals have access to at any given time. And players joining Brits will have 3-6 war companies that from the start decide not to interfere with each other. Int once all ports are under british control and all other war companies crushed, british companies will start fighting each other for control over the most valuable ports to tax. This is exactly what we are trying to change. If we left it like that we would be much better off just leaving the sRvR and nation system exactly as it is now. No need to introduce war company mechanics. War companies would then only be a mechanic to prevent non-rvr nationals from at all helping to affect and protect what ports they have access to. They would get all the bad consequences of their national war companies' prowess or lack there off, and none of the benefits of RvR gameplay.

I see where we are making different assumptions. I wasn't clear about the fact that I still think devs should retain some of their idea from the original proposal that they have since abandoned. I think that ports should fly the flag of their starting nation. That ports should not switch nationality whatever happens in RvR. Instead, to make more ports accessible to all nations, make a lot of ports neutral, almost like they've done on the PvE-server. Regions that were not historically fully owned by one nation according to devs own map should belong to the neutral "faction" and as such function almost as freetowns. War corporations should not be mercenary military forces for nations too busy to fight their own wars, but rather businesses with military divisions to protect their profits. Nations have a monopoly on trade between Europe and the Caribbean, but allow War Companies to fight over the profit from trade between ports in the Caribbean. If Corporations get their flag on ports, it is not replacing national flags, but in addition to them, or the company ownership can rather be indicated in the port UI somehow. Instead of nations "grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic", nations "grant charters to private enterprises to profit in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic". This keeps nations out of port ownership as far as ownership changes goes. It is only so far we should go to please the history buffs (who I count myself among). Concessions to history has already caused a lot of trouble for the development of this game and the RvR. 8 nations probably chief among the problems. Let's not make this new system that is being proposed too dependent on past mistakes. Keep nations out of RvR. The historical trading companies were often granted monopolies on certain trade routes or resources, and their chief concern was profit for stockholders. They did own forts and garrisons and have the support of national navies. So they also had a military component in most cases. However we should allow ourselves to reimagine them as i suits the purposes of the game rather than boggle down everything with historical accuracy.

At this point we have nations mostly for sentimental reasons anyway. We could just have a red team, a blue team and a black team and lots of things would be a lot simpler, not least balancing. But the devs like flags and history and such things, and I and many players are totally with them on that. The role-play opportunities and history immersion allowed by having real nations in-game are something which importance for many players shouldn't be underestimated. But for RvR we need balancing, and nations simply cannot be balanced. So make War company affiliation totally detached from nations, only with the exception that the War company has the patronage of the King of the nation where the charter was first registered. If Nations don't interact directly with RvR, and RvR development don't affect Nations, and Nationality instead interact only with what happens in OW and with economy, then nations can be balanced even if Britain has 50 times the players of Danmark or Sweden, because Danish or Swedish national territories would only be a thirtieth or so of the national territories of Britain. And would thus only need a fraction of the population to make the economy work evenly.

people should not be able to join war companies as individuals. Clans should join a war company as an entity by clan-leader action. And the war company accepts or denies entry. And yes, there should be a limitation on jumping in and out of war companies continuously. It should be a committment, not something entered into lightly.