Christendom

so essentially we're looking at community managers, which I think has been suggested here for years. I'm not sure about moving over to discord, but having a group of mods vote on decisions would be a smart move. You could even bring back global and have them monitor chats. Maybe throw them a bone or 2 in the form of a fancy ship for their efforts. Couple of suggestions - 1 - active mods. Our last mods were not. 2 - multiples as biases will always be a thing 3 - mods vote on action taken and submit higher up if discipline beyondt their scope is needed 4 - we need a set of rules that is not subject to change or interpetation based upon feelings for the individuals.

Last I looked over there I was banned, not even sure why. I think that's the idea though right? Ban someone they simply just can't create another persona.

I don't know much about that game other than it sure has a long list of promises and I have no desire to be in yet another discord. Overall I'd say that twitch streams featuring 1800s naval MMOs aren't really overflowing with viewers at the moment so I'd imagine any positive exposure to the genre benefits them and games labs. Something something high tide and all boats. Again, just a little food for thought.

well....I think that's called a bang bang play in football. Banning folks on the forums for rulers affiliations is perhaps not the best way to endear ourselves to their community. Seems dumb to have beef between 2 games over dumb shit. Just a thought. Maybe if everyone unbans each other and plays nice we can all go out for ice cream later...

@admin So I don't really got a dog in this fight in regards to heel and sail positions. I'm just a schmuck with a 19ft Pathfinder that I use to fish and drink beer on. I rely on @William Death to break down most of the sailing changes for me like a 5 year old. However, I don't think banning players because they are consultants, supporters or even developers of another sailing game with strong opinions is a wise or just decision. Considering the market for niche 18th Century Naval Combat games is a rather small one...making it even smaller and less inclusive would perhaps not be that ideal. There's no love lost between @Sir John myself as frequent opponents on the east coast, but he's definitely contributed a fair bit with his pictures over the years and with his sailing knowledge. In a game featuring the USS Niagra, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have someone who sails on her as a community member. Just my 2 cents.

Solution is fairly simple. Have flags given as rewards for hunt missions. Kill x amount of HDF 1st rates and you turn the mission in for a flag. Would also increase the amount of flags given out and hopefully increaset he amount of port battles.

You should have figured out this flag exploit before 30 of us got a couple week forum siesta IMO

is there historical precedent out there of ships going to board while intentionally on fire with the intention of blowing up and killing the crew off both ships? I’m curious. Paying my respects to global chat boys. F

Was that before or after sweden was screening Spain into their port battles? Surely if Spain's ally can join in, GBs was welcome also right?

Personally I think every nation essentially being turned into an impossible nation by relying on capturable player owed ports AND then doubling down on that crafting by even more extremely expensive port bonuses is and has ruined this game. Spain lost a port, died. Danes (1st time around) lost one, died. Sweden lost SJ and went to sleep for a while. VP.. and Prussia....same. Loading all your crafting needed for RVR in a suped up port and then being able to lose said port in a matter of days is just an overall poor game design decision for repeated gameplay. Maybe Swerg 2.0 is pulling a dick move, but they are doing exactly what the RVR system wants them to do. Crush opponents into quitting the game OR buy the forger DLC and move ($$ wink wink). Don't hate the player, hate the game. Russia and the 3 other nations are "impossible" and we know that going in. Back pre-release when We lost ports on The secret islands and bermuda it wasn't pretty. But that's the risk of joining said nations. Joining GB should not have the same risks as an easier and starting nation. Imagine how utterly complex it would be to a new player joining GB or the US and trying to figure out crafting. Can't craft in the capital and get bonuses...oh ok gotta craft in a player owned port.....gotta join a clan....gotta be on the friends list....and I can lose everything. Just a poorly designed setup and I suspect one of the major reasons new player retention is abysmal in NA.

Removing global makes sense if we had fewer nations that had hundreds of players in them and by necessity vibrant, active and self reliant communities were formed within them. Maybe inter nation trade channels (why don't we have this?). We wouldn't need a global chat. But we have 12 nations diluting an active population of 700-800 players (on a good day) and some nation chats are consistently dead. Certain times of the day I would imagine there are less than 10 players on in some nations. Global is the only resource sometimes. Personally I think it would be a mistake to remove it without actually making real attempts to moderate. At release there were plans to make new community mods and use clan leaders to help police chats. What happened to that idea? It's kinda hey global is toxic....but yea we haven't actually taken any steps to moderate it......we're just removing it.

By your own admission it's only been a month or 2 right? You entered into the gear based / super ship / DLC fest that it currently is. Or the promises made that ended up being broken. You didn't really see how great it used to be or the potenial it had. Honestly the ony thing keeping this game going is the community. At least in my opinion.

But we don't ban players. Only those that post critical youtube vids. Not the ones that are toxic in game.

yea but guys removing global will help!

I mean we both know what US chat is like sometimes. Same with GB chat. Should those be removed also? They're as toxic as global sometimes. Remove all communication? Why even have a multiplayer game that has social interaction at all. I suspect if a poll was done, the majority would want to keep global and battle chat. I thought we were developing the game based upon the wants of the community, not just a chosen few. If you read the reviews, the overall opinion on the game is negative. Quite a few mention that it has a small but great community. The solution would be to have in-game moderators that are active and interact with the community in areas outside of the forums where the current crop of moderators like to hang out and request changes to the game that only suit themselves and no one else wants. Find a couple veteran players in the larger player bases and have them keep an eye on chat and excersize light moderation. Big issues get flagged up the chain while the mods help steer some of the more toxic coversations away. Make it worth these players time by giving them a cool ship or something. Easy solution to a problem that only requires basic management and the will to solve it. If you read between the lines the removal of global isn't really about making the game less toxic. It's about removing tribunal posts and chat reports that take time and manpower to review. Let's stop kidding ourselves that this change will suddenly make the 1000 players we lost post release come back. NA has a lot of issues that need to be worked on. Global toxicity is at the bottom of that list.

We’ve never had community controlled moderation on a large or effective scale. We’ve never had consistent moderators that play daily for more than a couple weeks at a time. The immersion argument went out the window with...speed/repair mods, rage boarding, 100s of 1st rates on the water, circles of death, instanced battles, DLC ships and nations that were never in the Caribbean. Let’s get real here. China owns ports in a game themed around the West Indies. Immersion is a statement that get thrown around by try hards who barely play the game. Break it all down and Naval Action is a multi player game. This means interacting with other players. Can’t see their names on the OW, can’t speak to them in battle and we have 12 nations diluting a player base of 7-800 players. Maybe if we decided to get rid of 7 nations and boost the pop of only a key 5 or so with vibrant nation chats and trading I could get behind this move. But we don’t. this is a change designed to lighten the support load disguised as “good” for the community.

How simple

I’ve been online gaming longer than some NA players have been alive. There is, has and will always be toxic chat from immature adults in every game. Gaming is a form of escapism and it simply is the nature of the beast. NA is not mutually exclusive to a salty all chat. Apart from a few individuals as I mentioned above, it’s actually more well natured than most games I’ve played over the years. Does NA need moderation from time to time? Yes. Is it actually being moderated? No. Think of NA community like a garden. If you want a good one full of juicy tomatoes and “fine” woods, you need to tend it. Weeds will grow if you don’t pick them. We don’t pick the weeds. Does that mean you give it up completely? Maybe if your goal is to stop giving a shit and move on. I really hope that’s not the plan. Maybe if we actually have moderators that PLAY the game and help keep it clean...what a unique concept....global will be less toxic. Or we simply have a toggle/opt in option for global like most games have. Removing chats completely is an absurd overstep. Can you honestly say you’ve seen even the most basic levels of chat moderation done to keep global in check? I certainly haven’t. I’m sure there are trustworthy individuals willing to step up and handle it in exchange for a fancy ship or 2. Maybe I’m thinking too far outside the box

Or you have moderators / tools in place to remove them. It is really quite that simple. A certain player comes to mind with all this toxicity, but yet he still remains after consistently being temp. chat restricted. If we're serious about removing overall toxicity in game, why the f*ck is this guy still allowed to play it. Baffles my mind. This is one of my favorites but yea, removing chat completely is the ONLY way to solve this problem...

If it’s toxicity that has been preventing Naval Action from really taking off and retaining new players, I’m curious how actual toxic games still manage to retain millions of players. League of Legends, CoD or DOTA. 5 mins spent in the chat of those games is quite the experience. Perhaps they retain thousands/millions of players daily despite truly awful player commentary for other reasons? Dare I name them? Removing battle and global chat would be yet another foolish decision in what seems like a downward trend of poor choices that has seen the game hemorrhage more and more veteran players that have stuck by you, Naval Action and helped fund future games labs products. This is a slap in the face to them. The select few players you listen to has not lead to the best overall decisions and experiences for the community, but it would seem less headaches and work for well... you. Let’s entertain that global and battle chat are indeed the toxic cesspools you say they are and let’s also forget the fact that this is a MMORPG with an emphasis on multiplayer. I have very seldom seen a user online with the green text of a moderator since release. Very seldom in general really in my 7000ish hours logged in Naval Action. If the tools to moderate and clean up said toxic chat is at your disposal and they aren’t used properly or at all really.... is it really the community that is at fault?

the community rejected leeway because it was, as it seems most things are, ridiculously overtuned.

@admin The power creep check on the woods is needed....I think. Though perhaps a different tuning methon other than just simply upping the price would be a better approach. Requiring only seasoned woods or a certain trade good (like the old french wine days) would also be a boon to the traders. My main gripe however is that the price of admission into the larger port battles where 1st rates is/are/always used is now even that much higher which prohibitively affects smaller clans, solo players and smaller/less organized nations. The cost of a fleet and now the time spent getting the flags....this is no longer a casual endeavor. To that end, any thought about bringing back rate limits on port battles like we used to have? All 4th rate battles back in the day were more of an entry point for newer and less experienced clans, as was the shallows, and absorbing the hit of a loss was considerably less. With the increased costs, seasoned woods and now the flags......taking a loss on the chin is no longer really an option. I feel like SOME port battles more of casual focus, while the big boi fights for the major ports could remain as is. also 6th and 7th rate battles only..... oh please. To use myself and the VCO guys as an example (and it would seem a great many others) the new woods, costs and flags...after so many changes to the various systems, this time around we honestly just can't be bothered. If you want a more grindy/hardcore style game, sure. But you do need to sprinkle in bits of casual content to keep the fans in the seats. The best juice is always worth the squeeze. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

this is also a good vid

The ports lost were due to buggy AI I believe. Nassau was lost because the renos had super speed and got to the circles way before the defenders could. Without bugs the ports were easy to defend.