snowy2

Yes, they were, right in the middle of EU prime time. Especially back when KIN was active,

East coast US players interacted frequently with EU players of PVP1, not just through economics. In GB we had about 50% US players in some of our EU prime time port battles. If this wasn't the case, then the 'dayflip' response to nightflips wouldn't have been a thing.

SOB became KIN on PVP1, which then merged into ZERG. I recommend waiting until after the wipe, picking either the Global or EU server based on your preference, then asking around in national chat or ts to see how the new clans form up.

Right, so I think he means you send your alt in on the enemy side, so it's contested and you get the marks

Seems to be resolved now

It's a Steam error, the Steam Web API is offline. I'm having the same issue.

He's a new player trying to be helpful by giving his first impressions and suggestions, you don't have to be sarcastic with him.

I think you mean Alt + Enter ?

Aha, makes more sense, thanks

Resources from capped traders are far too low in my opinion; 10 hemp from a trader snow and 10 coal from an LGV. That doesn't cover the crew costs to cap them.

It would be much better if the Hull Repairs slider only went up to the max useful number of repairs you could use, not the entire number of repairs you have in your hold. Also, it's not possible to use a medkit in port?

On the subject of marketing, there is currently an ad on Google for Naval Action, I've never seen it before. It says: "Captains wanted for ultimate age of sail experience! Enlist today! Capture Ports · Be A Pirate · Trade Goods"

Just regarding your comment that 200 ping is unplayable: Since the game was released on steam I have lived both on the east coast of the US and in Europe, and have played on both PVP1 and PVP2, so I've experienced pings from 50 to 900. I personally found that stern raking at 300 ping was manageable, once you got used to it, because it's fairly predictable when you have to fire. Lower pings were obviously easier, and at about 900 the game was basically unplayable in smaller ships (at my skill level anyway).

It's naive to think that this isn't spread evenly across the two alliances. Most players spend time chatting to the people they agree with from their own alliance, and only the most outspoken members of the other alliance, such is the nature of a forum. There has been plenty of name calling in the other direction. Insulting, trolling and exploiting is done by individual players, there's no reason why they wouldn't be evenly distributed across the nations.

An excellent video, very enjoyable. Thanks for all your effort making videos in general, looking forward to the milestone of 50 episodes of A Letter to the King. I think a purchase of Naval Action should come with a small weight to put on the m key during port battles.

Well, it wouldn't have mattered if we didn't split our force at the beginning since you all start in the middle circle. You could have just sent your entire fleet to wherever we were blobbed and still outnumber us. We came to have fun and to learn, many of us in that PB hadn't had the chance to participate in many, so we don't consider ourselves 'badly slapped in the face'.

Have you considered how 3 durability 1st rates are going to affect port battles? 3 duras = no risk of losing your gold marines = boarding festival?

It's really a criticism of the system. I don't think it's feasible to have a system that requires every nation to coordinate perfectly for months to get the desired result. It would be hard enough to get GB players to coordinate for even one cycle. If we wanted new 'stable' alliances, it would require the devs to step in every time we want a change, in the current system.

This post is an attempt to shed some light on what would happen if we were to attempt to mix up the alliances up using the current voting mechanics, and to show that it is essentially impossible to switch nations between the current alliance blocks. Spoiler alert: After 4 weeks of everybody working together to switch the Danes and the US between the alliances, both of those nations could be without any allies at all. First, some notes required to understand the tables: Read down the columns. I.e., the first column shows what GB would see in the politics tab. (This is the opposite to the in-game politics grid... sorry) A = alliance, W = War, E = Enemy (one way war vote), N=Neutral (no war votes in either direction) Votes expire after 3 weeks A: 20D = Alliance, expiring in 20 days Green cell = voting is active in that round The tables are shown for the day after the most recent vote Let's please keep the discussion about the mechanics, not National News style stories about betrayal, etc... Scenario 1: Keep the current alliances. Notes: Nothing unusual happens. It's a three stage cycle. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D W: 20D A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D US A: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D W: 20D W: 6D SWEDEN E E A: 13D A: 20D E A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D A: 20D W: 13D A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D US A: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 20D SWEDEN E E A: 6D A: 13D E A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D W: 20D A 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 (Same as Cycle 1 – CYCLE IS COMPLETE) GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France Scenario 2: Denmark and the US try to switch alliances EDIT: Cycle 2 may very well have an error, since it's really not clear which alliance VP would drop if the US voted for war with GB in cycle 1. Notes: These cycles assume that the Danes and the US try to switch alliances. It's extremely complicated. In the first round Spain can only vote about the US and France, both of whom they now want to ally. In these situations, I assume Spain will vote to keep the French allied, before voting to bring in the US. It's EVEN MORE complicated, because the cycle 1 alliance votes are blocked by being at war with the ally of your enemy... During cycle 3, the US is not allied with any nation. During cycle 4, both the Danes and the US are not allied with any nation. It takes more than a month to get the new alliance blocks, and they are probably not stable even after that. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US. Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D N A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D E A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D N A: 6D W: 13D W: 20D A: 13D US E A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D N W: 6D SWEDEN E W: 20D A: 13D W: 20D N A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D N W: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D N E A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK E N N W: 6D W: 13D A: 6D US W: 20D E W: 13D W: 20D N W: 20D SWEDEN E W: 13D A: 6D W: 13D N A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D E A: 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark. ALONE: US 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D N W: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D N W: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D W: 20D E A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK N N E W: 20D W: 6D N US W: 13D E W: 6D W: 13D N W: 13D SWEDEN W: 20D W: 6D A: 20D W: 6D N A: 13D FRANCE E W: 20D A: 6D N E A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France. ALONE: US. ALONE: Denmark In summary: After 4 weeks of trying to switch the US with the Danes the switch is still not complete, and both the US and Denmark could have no allies.

"On average 40 captains join the game EVERY DAY for the last 1-2 months without any marketing. That is 1200 players per month. That’s enough to fill both PVP servers in 2 months. What did you personally do to make them feel at home, happy and willing to stay and fight alongside you? Remember that your negativity spreads and stops them from playing." I don't really understand why the question was answered in this way. You seem to have answered the question of 'What do you plan to do?' with 'No, what do YOU plan to do?' This doesn't sit well with those of us that keep an eye on the help chat, and sometimes donate ships and gold to new players. Edit: The admin clarified in the other thread that he meant only the negativity of the question writer, not the community as a whole. However, I feel that the question writer was only expressing his legitimate concerns about RVR and open world PVP (even though the question was a bit open ended). It shouldn't be implied that he is to blame for new players not sticking with the game, simply because he expressed those concerns, or that he doesn't do enough to help new players.

To answer only your first question, the reason you have to use your war vote before your alliance vote in the current system is that it makes it impossible for every nation to ally every other nation. I guess if you're trying to keep a nation neutral it makes sense if you can vote both ways. The current system is able to generate a neutral status, but for some reason this is essentially the same as war status. Another quirk of the current system is that some votes are pointless. E.g, we have a strange cycle where GB can vote about Sweden, but Sweden cannot vote about GB, making any GB votes for an alliance with Sweden pointless in that round.

Given that you are a dev team of a fixed size and we don't know the full list of features you plan to include in the game, how will you ensure that if the ship kickstarter is funded we will not end up with less content in other areas?

On a side note, is it definitely possible to, for example, switch GB's allies from the US to Sweden after they changed the cycles? We have a weird voting cycle where GB can vote on the relationship with Sweden, but Sweden can't vote on their relationship with GB.

You can still vote for war with your current allies, you just have to wait until the appropriate cycle. Otherwise, the system wouldn't work.

...proceeds to drop a hostility bomb on the only enemy port which produces live oak. We can only assume that you will hand the port back if you win it, since you want fair 25 v 25 fights in equal ships.