maturin

But instances are exactly the same as the OW heightmaps now. They would have to somehow mix the current persistent terrain with procedurally-generated add-on shallows that have different collision mechanics than they do on the OW. I don't have to be a professional game developer to know that that sounds really difficult. Edit: Wait, hang on, am I misunderstanding you, or did you swap your labels? You want shallows to have a limited effect on battles but be relevant on the OW? I don't think that is workable, since the scale of the OW is mostly too large for meaningful localized shallows gameplay. And the time compression and sailing model make it pointless to add obstacles and nuances to the simplified gameplay.

Now that battle instances take place on the OW map, it's hard to imagine how shallows could become meaningful. There just isn't enough room on the coast. For port battles there may yet be hope.

I built around frigates after level 40. No BP.

If you want to defend people and patrol the waters, you can't sit in port. Getting out of a harbor is usually the slowest part of any voyage. Troops in barracks can't defend the front line. Tanks sitting in warehouses don't get to fight. Planes sitting on the ground at their airbases don't provide CAS.

I expect we'll still see the Santis come out to blockade these ports.

I ran some questions by my in-house naval architect (read: nuclear family member). Hopefully this information is still useful. #1: Brigs have a maneuverability advantage when using manual sails: #2: All things being equally, a brig's sailplan is more efficient when sailing close-hauled (for the same reason the single-masted cutter does better than schooners like Lynx on this point of sail). So although Rattlesnake the ship-rig may require more men than Rattlesnake the brig-rig, brigs as large as Niagara probably have no labor cost savings anymore. Also, if windforce gets implemented, the more numerous, smaller sails of a ship rig will be superior in heavy weather. The larger sails of a brig might be better in light winds. Of course, all of this applies only when all other things are equal. For instance, a brig that is converted to a ship or vice versa, with the same hull.

Exactly. The damage threshold for tagging should be increased to require more than 2 sail hits. Then the battle timer can be re-balanced to suit ships that lack chasers. Then we'll have historical chasers that aren't ahistorically vital to chases.

Rock, paper, scissors? I would describe it as scissors vs. turd, which is not quite as good a game...

True, but how do the people in Florida know what the wind is like in Barbados? For all they know, it's the same everywhere else.

SoLs are already slower than everything. They can basically never run away.With wind strength implemented they get a situational speed boost, making them more deadly and useful on the OW. Most importantly, it makes them scary. No more faffing about downwind of the SoL fleet, safe in the knowledge that you can never be caught. That's boring and it makes recon too easy. If I were you, I would time my operations to coincide with rough weather. As for Niagara and Merc being more popular, that's fantastic. It will increase low-level PvP participation as those captains can stop grinding missions in order to survive the OW. And it will make it easier for shallow water PB groups to evade heavier blocking fleets. Lastly, wind strength gives the devs tools to give unpopular ships a role. If people hate Cerb, then she can be a unique frigate that does well in light airs. Navy brig can be faster than Niagara in heavy weather. This is all plausible.

Ask your nation's horde of alts to flip the port. I assume that every nation has at least 20 by now.

Being forced to choose between Renommee or Trinc for OW PvP is far, far worse. Admittedly, yes. The 'light wind=light ships faster' idea is sort of a dubious oversimplification. But I think it is a desirable one, to give smaller vessels a purpose in the game.

I've been meaning to ask this question for a while now, and I'm not sure there's a satisfactory answer to be had. Certainly the greatest advantage of a brig rig is in the number of men you need. A 90-foot brig is easier to handle than a 90-foot ship. This is the opposite of what I thought to be the case. I am under the impression that brigs are very handy and maneuverable. In most cases the gaff mainsail will proportionately larger than a ship's spanker, although the mainmast's center of effort is much farther forward.

Raids could zero out the stored capacities of player resource buildings. One morning you have 300 hemp ready to harvest (and pay for), then there's a raid and it's gone. That would seriously disrupt econ in that port without rifling through the possessions of players who may be offline for an extended period. The victims don't lose something, so much as lose potential for something.

AFAIK the devs once said that marines count as 2 men in boarding. So 200 men with 40% marines is as strong as 280 men.

Taking 8 players away from the war doesn't actually affect anything meaningful in most cases. It just means that I don't get to play the game for an hour. And then I have to escape from the next three gank squads. You're saying that people who escape from ganks are bad players?

Exactly what I was envisioning, incidentally.

I think surrendering should halve crew loss. It's high time we incentivized this.

AFAIK, 40% marines means that a crew of 200 counts as a crew of 280. Seems to me that a crew of 450 should be able to win against 280, so long as they don't always choose the least advantageous option in boarding. Would a similarly inept captain lose against a crew of 220? Maybe. I'm not sure, but it sounds plausible. Could have been a closer result.

Congratulations on your mindset. However, 90% of players are busy either being immediately sunk by gankers (sinking a frigate in a 1v8 is a superhuman feat) or running away from them. The latter, in particular, earn nothing, while being forced to spend hours running, running away instead of playing the game.

Well, hopefully it would be more like a barometer forecast than a perfect schedule of changes.

I think you're mistaken as to the effects of this change. The worst-case scenario for new players is now. Right now, low-level warships are usually too slow to escape from frigates, which makes OW PvP very risky. Your brig is just a tasty snack for the more experienced captains. But in light wind conditions you will find that the tables sometime turn, and put the odds in your favor. Your brig friends might wake up one morning with the new opportunity to go frigate hunting.

"promoting winnable battles" =/= "forcing even battles"

Quinneloe, can you post a screenshot of a boarding action where the defender was not trying to commit suicide and lose as quickly as possible? That list of orders is stupendously terrible. He would have lost to a basic cutter.

Unfortunately for your viewpoint, the devs have their own opinions on ganking. Namely, that lopsided battles aren't fun for anyone, and game design should promote battles that are winnable for either side. And I still can't fathom what this thread is supposed to accomplish, besides beating a dead horse while insulting the people who don't agree with you. How does it contribute to the development of the game?