Todbringer

I did read your post and I referred to your post in the first part of my post. I started using plural in the rest of the post, so it was not a "rampage against it". Maybe you saw yourself in the rest of my post, but for that i am hardly to blame, especially since i was, in the essence, agreeing with you in most of your general opinions, but disagreeing with you being impatient about them. I just posted under your post. And I agree with you that the BPs should be available to all types of players, but we are currently testing mechanics of the pve and pvp events. They can't implement everything at once. And yes, I also mentioned balance testing since it is obvious heavy rattle dominates shallow waters. But in the same way, mercury mostly dominated it before heavy rattle. Once they release heavy rattle BP, it will be normal (unless someone expects that all ships of the rank should be balanced within that rank).. The devs are only humans and they try to listen to the community and they try to give us what we ask for. They read our posts and try to think of how it would work, and then do it and deploy it to see if it works. They probably worked hard on each and every addition to this game and they deploy patches hoping people will like it and are most likely proud of what they did. That's why I dislike to see whining that started within the first hour of the patch since I bet it creates the feeling that whatever they do is not good. And I think it's not fair. And it's not insult spreading. Some of the people here just act like spoiled brats never satisfied with anything. Tbh, the devs could just kill the OW and do World of warships type of game with microtransactions and get more players, money and easier life. But for some reason they still didn't.

Yeah, how about giving both the changes and the devs some time to set in and see how everything works out? You yourself said that there is no more time, so why would they spend time on working out pve event for all available ships right now? This is testing. For starters they've put in Cerberus to see how the event will work out and there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that, if the event is well received and works out, they will add other ships as well. If players can't play because they don't have a cerberus, then they can buy one. or craft one. It's not like it's not obtainable in a shop, prohibitively expensive or so hard to craft. For some of the posts here, the patch didn't even finish downloading before you started bitching about it. How about giving them some credit for the effort and their hard work and wait for a few days for fixes to be implemented and then say what we think? Some of the people here sound like touchy primadonnas that are never happy. I think that the latest changes fixed a lot of problems that came after the map reset and endless sailing and i believe it will get even better when they implement other rewards, store and (hopefully) some pvp currency. Also, it's a good thing they put in lobby arena style games, because now more people may feel inclined to play the game since they can log in when they have 30-60 mins playing time and jump into quick a fight. And it might (or will) encourage them to sail more and try for more ow pvp later on. Lobby style events don't drag players away from OW because those that play it and enjoy it the most wouldn't usually have enought time to play this game in OW. So it can only bring more players into this game. As for blueprints, i'm sure that the devs have a reason why they limit it. Maybe because if they were to release it, everybody and their grandmother would be sailing only in heavy rattle, or maybe they need to use them as special rewards or something. or maybe they want to test balance. If heavy rattles always win over mercs and similar, then they need balance fix. So, not sure why is there such a fixation over blueprints in early access game where everything will be wiped and lost in a few months.

Yup, give us some pvp currency. So that even lowly n00bs such as me can get something by slowly grinding through pvp (and hopefully improving at the same time). it would be a great incentive to go out and fight. especially since i know I won't be in the top 10, so I see no reason to go and risk my ship, upgrades and officer lives in pvp. Put some gold upgrades, some paints, etc in Admiralty shop to be bought with that currency. Or just let us buy chests with the currency and put random rewards in it.

This sounds good. I would deffinitely craft more dura higher rank ships that I would eb using for a longer time, but would craft lower dura ships for those starting ranks or for shallow water battles since I wouldn't be sailing them so often.

Got some cheese ready that will go great with that whine. ;p

All the changes sound very very good. Can't wait to test them this weekend. What i see in this patch is a big improvement for crafting and pvp. With the fine woods gone I can finally free at least 4 or 5 of my outposts and move them to free towns in contested zones for some pvp (hopefully some fleet on fleet action - don't like 1 vs 1 much, takes too long and it's too boring). Can't wait for them to rework blueprints with Academy building or research or reverse-engineering or something similar. Also, faster OW means I'll finally dare to go all overt he map to open outposts in several key places all over the map for that pvp. Also we'll be able to cover more area in shorther time. And occasional transport of goods will not be such a chore anymore. As for attack timers and OW speed, tbh I don't care much for it since I'm not in habit to gank players' traders. But since I think I'll love new signalling perk since it could allow us for some multiship pvp as others pile in, I think trader ganking near ports shouldn't be allowed to die off completely. But I say give it a few days to see how will all the new stuff work before you start whining and complaining. EDIT: as for those wanting more realism, I think the game is beginning to be nicely balanced between those that want more realism (those probably already lobby for Steam to make game controllers shaped like ropes and fuses for this game) and those that want to play a game more casually and don't have that much time to spend on it. Since casual players most likely outnumber real hard core players, more casual approach and less time sink could attract larger playerbase, provided it is balanced with some realism so it does not get completely dumbed down like Warcraft got (from all those talents and spells in vanilla WoW they are almost down to one large button that says "Press here to do everything").

meh, they should just speed us more in OW and allow us to queue for large and small battles anywhere.

I wouldn't either, but with early access games I believe we should look at the state of the game in general, not in particulars. If this was a released, finished game, then it would be different. Any new player that wants to buy this game has a big big disclaimer warning him that it is early access, so he should know what he is getting into. And I don't think that if someone sees so many negative reviews he is going to follow different patches and then recheck reviews and then change his mind. Once he gets turned off this game, it's done. One player less.

Tbh, I don't see the point for giving a negative review just because you don't like changes in the current patch. It's still early access, so there will be a lot of weird and often broken changes while the devs try to balance and work things out. So I don't think it's fair to give a negative review on the basis of changes in content regarding patches. I see that the developers work on this game and try to do the best. We get content patches regularly (and it's real content - changing game mechanics, not just some silly skins or something), developers actually try out ideas that the community suggest and due to that some things work out, some things are shown not to work out. It's stupid to give the game a bad review based on experimental game mechanics. Especially since such short sighted reviews might kill the game. One would think that someone that played this game for thousands of hours already came to such a conclusion since he obviously was here for many different game mechanic changes, so he knows how the developers change the game every now and then.

A player in a gunboat tried to attack my trader and it said that he couldn't initiate combat because BR difference was too high. What is the BR difference that prevents combats? When can I attack larger group (to pull them to battle) and when will ti fail? EDIT: typos. Dyslexia ftw.

I think you look at it in the wrong way. This is a one time buy game (meaning it's not a free MMO and it's not based on monthly subscriptions). Every game has a certain number of playhours where it is profitable to buy it. I believe that if I buy a game and I get 200 quality playhours from it, then I got my money's worth from the game. I have placed an arbitrary ROI on games where I think that I should get some 100 hours of good playtime for every 20 Euros spent. If I get less, it's a waste of my money. If I get more it's a bonus and a great game. Now, in this game you only have to distinguish how many hours of QUALITY playtime you had and if it was worth it, due to the fact you spend most of your time just sailing around.

That would be good. i know that some community created missions in Star trek Online were excellent. People really created great stories. Just need to watch they don't make missions designed for farming exp.

hey guys, i would really appreciate a tutorial on port battles. I can't find any that would be up to date and to be honest I'm not quite sure how port battle mechanics work, together with screening, etc. Because of that I avoid going to port battles because I'm worried that I will screw something up either with screening or in the port battle itself. And I'm sure there are a lot of other noobs out there that need help with it too.

Sorry then, I didn't realise you actually want to play it like that. I thought you were telling me how you got around the problem of huge time requirements in this game.

Actually, I think this could solve the problem: 1. allow players to destroy cargo during battle 2. allow players to pay or transfer part of the cargo to the attacker during battle. That way defender can offer part of the cargo or gold payment to the attacker. Attacker will get goods and / or gold. Attacker will have an incentive to accept that since it will save him time he would spend chasing the ship, he won't waste ammunition (which is coming in the future) and he knows the other player could just destroy all the cargo. if the defender destroys the cargo, the attacker will still get to destroy or capture his ship. The defender would, by paying the ransom, save the time he would spend trying to run away, he will still have part of his cargo, he would still have his ship, crew and officer and he wouldn't waste the time he spent sailing. He would be discouraged from destroying his cargo by the fact that he will then lose the ship and all the cargo or all the cargo even if he manages to escape. So, both parties would be inclined to try and make a deal. And if it doesn't work, both sides, in a way, lose. But the attacker still gets to cap or sink a ship.