Fargo

Maybe i dont exactly understand what you mean. What exactly is your argument to allow revenge ganks? In general the goal is not to please everyone or a majority, the goal is simply to develop a good (realistic) game. No matter how many people would like to revenge gank and to capture their ships back, it wont change anything. Its bad for the game, fact. Sorry for offtopic, but Its just very inefficient to discuss such basic questions that should be beyond dispute. Battle entry has to be restricted, and for the same reason revenge fleets have to be denied. And btw., it would make even less sense to allow revenge fleets while battles are still closing, instead of just keeping battle entries open.

Its always realism vs. gameplay. You could argue the other way round that after a battle you should gain a significant speed boost, cause a 75 minute battle would have lasted only one minute in OW time, so you need to catch up 74 minutes in this case. This would be a realistic compromise, but in terms of gameplay it makes no sense. Denying compressed players to wait for players leaving real time is realistic and does not affect gameplay in a negative way.

Thats not what i said. I explained myself, if you dont agree with my points pls refer directly to them.

Exactly. Its enough time needed to sail there, find a fight, and fight a single battle for up to 2 hours. If youre complaining about ganking, help fixing the real issues that are promoting gank tactics. Fixing ganking with counterganking is a very stupid idea. Making use of strenght advantages is no ganking btw, but a valid tactic. If your whole nation is sitting in the capital, why should there be any magic risk to hunt in this waters. What we need is possibilities to intercept enemies in friendly waters. Its near impossible with current mechanics, even if you surrounded the enemy.

Safe zones dont make any sense. What about reducing the mission jump timer and not spawning enemies joining right on top of you? What about tweaking stuff that is currently promoting ganking so heavily? Youre again not fixing the cause of the problem. Regarding invisibility, i think as long as its exploitable for surprise attacks, i would prefer teleport to closest friendly/neutral port. If thats no option speedboost should be removed atleast. But something has to deny revenge fleets. Its not realistic and 90% gameplay is stupid and boring for both sides. Thinking that this is a PvP opportunity is shortminded. Less people are going to risk ships in enemy waters when its likely to loose a ship to revenge ganks, and when a PvP session in general requires more time. Less people would play in general when PvP becomes more stupid. Adding safe zones and allowing revenge ganks again would equal two steps backwards aiming for a plausible game.

Exactly. Making things easier and easier wont improve bad mechanics, people would stop playing even faster. This topic is a great example how the majority of people has no clue what they are talking about. There not even are any long time goals, but people want faster progress. Players own gold and assets worth millions, but complain about expensive ships. Whats that logic?!

Dont you think that if its worth to sink your own ships for upgrades/skills, something seems to be seriously broken?! Why did you include cheap "throwaway" ships?! There is not a single reason for that. If you want to improve the situation for new players, just increase their income! Valuable ships are required to deny trolling, such abuses, for fun and balanced PvP in general.

Das Problem ist dass Leute sich dann in Missionen verstecken können. Aber man könnte den join timer einfach auf eine Minute setzen und wenn keine Feinde sichtbar sind wird auch keiner joinen. Feindliche Schiffe die nach Minuten joinen sollten vllt. auch nicht direkt auf einem spawnen. Hätte nach dem ersten Tag gefixed sein können, jetzt gucken wir schon auf Monate. Das ist inakzeptabel.

Im not talking about hardcore realism. Its a hardcore and realistic game, not a hardcore realistic game. Were aiming for the best compromise, maximum possible realism, not maximum realism. Realism in general is important cause it makes a game immersive, what is probably the main reason people play games like this. Maximum possible realism means if we refuse realism, there needs to be a good gameplay or resource related reason. In terms of time/speed and battle size there obviously need to be lots of compromises. But thats mostly it. Take cannon performance vs. ship strenght for example. We know how realistic penetration curves look like, we roughly know ship/wood thicknesses, ship HP is totally artificial, and cannon accuracy/handling is necessarily a compromise. Why dont set realistic penetration curves and thicknesses, and do the major balancing with HP and accuracy? "Hardcore" is a different take, and i cant tell how devs understand it. But i can tell about extremes. How many firstrates around would make grinding a first rate hardcore? We can have different opinions, but with first rate only battles its definitely not hardcore and as unrealistic as it can be. When 90% of the population is max rank, not hardcore and very unrealistic too. Maybe devs intend it to be like this, but its highly unlikely to me. In terms of game design nothing is currently providing any long time motivation.

What people want or like now is not important. The game was defined as "hardcore and realistic". Either you support this direction, or you should keep out. Players buying NA are expecting a game like it is described in steam. Our task is not to constantly question this, but to help devs to deliver that specific game. Can you name any example where too much realism is restricting gameplay? Its the opposite case, realism is often refused without any good reasoning. And i can exactly tell you why the game is messed up, based on what it was supposed to be and the potential it has. Liking it now means you either have low expectations, or you dont support the original idea of NA. Thats just not possibe. But they are unable to make sensible decisions themselfe and to filter sensible expectations.

Its hard to explain nonesense. If decisions would be well reasoned, people had no reason to be negative. But when you cant justify what youre doin, how are we supposed to do it?! Why dont you start to make purposeful decisions, based on what the game was supposed to be. And dont fool us. Youre saying your experimenting and tweaking alot. The last patch was 3 weeks ago. Besides capturable ships beeing nonesense, nothing new. No important tweaks. Patches before you fiddled around with marks, without changing the mark system itself, that cant work as it is. No experiments, no relevant tweaks. We should really have a functional Economy and well-conceived RoE by now, as a foundation for anything else. But we still have the basic systems we had 3+ years ago. Also we still have the same balancing issues we had back then. It even became worse. This wouldnt be the case, if constant experiments and tweaks would have happened over years. Nothing happened.

See, thats what im talking about. Youre just offering opinions, claiming to know the truth. Other people stopped playing after they owned 15+ valuable ships and millions. How does this fit this picture. Its not our job to tweak cost balancing. To do this you need to observe what people own after certain times, for lots of people. Then lots of other stuff is effecting how expensive ships appear to be, and lots of stuff needs changes aswell. The only productive way to define cost for something is to do it in time. How long should people need to play on average for a 5th rate. If we would focus on realism and "hardcore", like the steam description says, most of your suggestions wouldnt fit in NA. If you think about specific slots for specific ships, it makes absolutely no sense. Talking about cost/progress again, someone needs to define "hardcore". Long time motivation is what the NA legends fraction is not thinking about, i guess youre on of them too. Currently i dont see any kind of motivation in NA. Take the rank progress, do you think its fine? Not important, the result is important. Reality is that nearly everyone is max rank. Is this a problem? If it should provide some long time motivation, yes. And whats the reason for ranks, if not to motivate? Less people on max rank also would affect the 1st rate only issue, in a natural way. One dura is never a Problem, it has nothing to do with ship cost. You can make ships as expensive or cheap as you want, no matter the durability. Thats like increasing the stern size of all ships to increase rake damage, instead of just increasing rake damage. Totally out of question, so is one dura.

Well, its the result that counts, and youre probably not doin a good job so far. Instead of analysing an issue, youre doin arbitrary changes. What i dont understand is why you dont revert back a change when it turned out to be nonesense. Capturable 5th rates e.g. are nonsense, cause we dont know if ship cost is too high at all, and reduced ship cost would be a better alternative not affecting economy. So whats your reasoning for that? And why dont you change it back when you cant justify it? Or mulitple repairs. Absolutely unrealistic, and bad for gameplay. Why stick to it? There are also good suggestions how repairs could be made less powerful in general. I can ask much more questions like this, and i tried. Why do you ignore this kind of productive criticism? On the other hand people whining without any proof of their complains get listened to. Pure opinions are meaningless. Its not about who likes this or that, its about whats best for NA. This can be figured out by pure argumentation, when you defined a goal. But there is no clear concept for the game. Thats also why its so difficult to make progress in discussions, everyone argues in favour of a different type of game. This goes from people prefering real time OW, to people just waiting for NA legends. 100% agree.

Marks need to be bound to your character, or they dont make any sense at all.

Why are serious issues not addressed that take away all fun, especially from PvP? Increase upgrade droprates. Go back to 1 repair per battle for now. Remove speedcap. Tweak obviously imbalanced stuff. Etc. Just simple fixes, that already should have happened weeks ago. Instead youre thinking about safezones now?! Another example how youre trying to fix something, avoiding to deal with the real causes of the problem. Safezones wont make NA more fun again, and wont stop new players leaving the game. How do you explain that new players in the past didnt quit, without safezones?! Your only "argument" is "we think it will be good"?! You should rethink your way of decisionmaking, and focus on improving the actual causes of several problems.

Ihr seid auf dem Holzweg. Über timer brauchen wir garnicht zu diskutieren, die sind sehr gut begründet und müssten wahrscheinlich sogar kürzer sein. Wenn du Fir mit anderen Hölzern vergleichst, erkennst du dass die Gesamtwertigkeit viel zu gering ist, das heißt die Nachteile sind schon viel zu heftig. In einem Fir Schiff hast du also garkeine andere Wahl als zu ganken, d.h. jeglichen ausgeglichenen Kampfsituationen aus dem Weg zu gehen. Schwächere Schiffe, oder einzelne Schiffe als Gruppe festzunageln ist kein ganken, sondern eine ganz normale und logische Taktik. Das Problem ist bloß dass Leute nichts anderes mehr machen. Das hat verschiedene Gründe, unter anderem das schlechte Balancing für Hölzer und Schiffe. Dazu kommen dann völlig unlogische Reparatur, RoE- und Fluchtmechaniken, OP chasers, etc. Wenn es Jägern erlaubt ist jeglichen unvorteilhaften Kampfsituationen aus dem Weg zu gehen, ist doch klar dass keine ordentlichen Kämpfe mehr Zustande kommen. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden auch sichere PvE Zonen nichts verbessern. Leute hören auf zu spielen, weil NA keinen Spaß macht und wenig Motivation bietet. Wer NA kauft erwarte außerdem einen gewissen Realismus und keine künstlichen Safezones. Aber war ja klar dass wieder versucht wird Leute einfach so lange zu halten bis kein Refund mehr möglich ist, anstatt zu versuchen das Spiel wirklich zu verbessern und an ordentlichen Mechaniken und Balancings zu arbeiten. Wenn einfach genug Spieler vorhanden und in deinen Gewässern unterwegs sind, hast du automatisch eine Coastguard. Wenn dazu viele Feinde in deinen Gewässern unterwegs sind, hast du automatisch viele Freunde in der Gegend patrollieren. Theoretisch. Da man schnelle Schiffe nicht abfangen kann versuchts halt auch keiner mehr.

I dont understand it either. Think about it from a neutral position not beeing used to tag timers that have always been there. When i have OW and battle instances and the question is when the instance should open, why should i do timers at all? A real battle would start at a certain distance when atleast one ship is willing to fight. So why not just do it like this. You should really be able to explain why timers are there. Or do you want to tell this mechanic is in the game for years now without any reasoning? So why is it better than a distance based system, or possible further alternatives? Youre refusing realism/the most plausible solution, so there should be a good gameplay or coding related reason. Then similar ideas got proposed already. I also proposed to base the whole RoE on distance some time a go already. Got ignored ofcourse. Dont be so short minded. Reduce the spawn distance, and defensive tags are no problem anymore, no matter how the tag mechanic looks like.

This totally makes sense... not. When a ship chases me for several minutes in the OW already, there is no surprise factor. Especially when there is no fog.

Why not simply spawn the two ships that are initiating combat always at the same distance? Then we dont need to change the tagging. I thinks its very reasonable to start battles always slightly within cannon range, thats also when real battles would have begun. The exact distance needs to be discussed ofcourse. I dont see the point why ships should spawn close to each other, and even without cannons loaded.

Have you looked at this balancing? I have. In short, fast builds are way too weak, heavy builds are way too slow. Bermuda planks were bad already, but teak/bermuda was atleast a decent compromise between speed and combat capability. Now even this is no option anymore. What can the connie do? Trying to cut your top masts before you get close is probably her best option. Good luck with that if youre not experienced. And the surp is loaded with sail repairs.

Nobody is blaming you for that. The problem is that game mechanics allow you to avoid all combat you want to avoid. You might be happy with it, but for a game that more or less only is about naval combat that is really bad. Nobodys asks for fair fights, but this is heavily promoting unfair fights.

As i said, thats a valid tactic. But its a difference between just seeking an advantage, and systematically avoiding every combat without advantage. If youre systematically searching for bad players e.g., only picking those fights, i would call it a gank. No matter what your mindset is, just that people are allowed to do this without any risk is bad for gameplay. It sucks to be attacked by bad players that fall on every trick, and they dont get punished. You cant win anything, in the best case you just loose nothing.

You cant distinguish it no matter if the ship is sank or capped. The question is what happens when 4 ships join and it becomes an even 5v5.

Ofcourse they are. Rake down a tanky ship, sink or capture it. The tankier/slower your ship, the faster youre dead. No, and how shall they catch them? Defensive tag, speedboost, gone. No, but i said its also not capable of fighting anymore. You cant catch a surprise in a cerb or pickle. Ofcourse you can use a fast cerb for ganking, but why when there are way better ships. It doesnt matter how you define it for you, but it matters when certain tactics affect gameplay for everyone in a very negative way. When everyone is avoiding even combat, only picking easy targets, and you cant do something about it, thats a problem no matter how you name it.

Read further. Fast and agile, with chasers, not capable of competing in combat, built for escaping.