Hethwill, the Red Duke

Yes, same in PvP1. Truth is we might see more "non fleet users" regressing more often to havens bringing captured ships. BUT I aprove of the compromisse between Delivery versus no more TP to outpost. Seems quite balanced to be honest and definitely helpful for Conquest as much as for other more carefree playstyles.

Word of caution: we might see a increased use of player fleets especially regressing from cruises.

Shame no PB in charleston. I was truly happy with the major changes made to the ports and coastlines.

The Wargame in NA has no attrition nor logistics at the moment, at least in a visible way. The only investment to drive war, from anyone, any nation, is time planning. Before you cry "hardcore" think about all the multiplayer wargames out there, especially the long lasting ones. They either have both, perma loss and complex logistics or one of them. Mind you only a part of PvP playerbase really cares about Conquest but for all that matters all mechanics are linked, from economy, crafting and eventually the combat. So no one is a victim, we are all volunteers. We must look to honest ways to make NA wargame viable for all ( nto only for your clan, your game nation or your tiny group of duellers ). And IMO that means true loss and reliance of the supporting careers - trading company and naval architects - to make up for it. Maybe with a wipe we have a clear view on how the mechanics are working together without any legacy assets and massive amounts of gold.

I completely agree than it is a mangled mechanic. Still doesn't, and back to the start of the idea discussion, stop anyone player to search for PvP. Why are we discussing it ? It was not the starting point. I simply said that hostility meter is a lead to find action, that's all. cc

I didn't say anything about war supplies. I pointed out that "hostility" values are hints as valuable as many other hints to go out and find some naval action. But I know for sure Flags and empty port battles are not naval action. They are ego action. But hey to each its own good sir.

o7 She's a good lady. Still pre-patch.

- many players want to do Port Battles / Trafalgars only. Their OW activities revolve only around headway to PBs. - many players want to do even combats only. Their OW activities revolve around hoping to bump similar force. - many players want to emulate "historical" characters - naval architects, war leaders, infamous pirates. Their OW activities revolve around trying to find "scenarios". In truth only half the time half the players will get what they hope for. Separating our individual playstyles from the core game is often hard as we all look to the same sandbox from diferente points of view. In the end we must make discussions more directed and focused, using our diferences in playstyles, and less dismissive. There's no "true way" to play NA. And that, for me, is the biggest strength of any open world sandbox game.

Yesterday, roughly 3 hours playing. - 1 trade interception - 1 failed PvP interception, ended with PvE - 1 Small Battle - 1 counter hostility joint mission ( meaning joined hostility mission of enemy aliance ) Not bad.

I won't disagree with the ganks and ganks that are anti-ganks... rinse and repeat. It has been like that since forever. Even closed OW was like that or worse at times. But I've seen fleets of 12 3rd and 4th rates sweeping low fleet missions and raising hostility in less than an hour. Hell, was happening yesterday. With 1 PvP battle we managed to push hostility back 6%... woohoo !!! Low level fleet bumrushers were raising it by 20%+ everytime.

Flags provided empty PBs. I'm still able to raid trade and find ganks yes. Even battles are a rarity outside Small / Large battles yes. There's a lot of combat around the Port Battles hours. Another tip: Pay attention to hostility values. The two extremes show you there's action, meaning no hostility in neighboring enemy waters means they are defending. Raising hostility on your alliance means they are on the offensive. Get out and fight.

I still play it now and then, just because of the full scenario builder.

It is not a gentle game for a newcomer regarding the spread out information and the complexity of combat. It is very cruel for a non social gamer but not outright impossible to pick up if the said player is observant and intelligent. In its basic state is a easy to pick up but hell hard to master combat game. In its Conquest state it is hard to pick up, given it is all player driven. Doesn't run on rails if the player doesn't want. There's no objective except the ones that player chooses to set, like missions and conquest battles, or maybe get rich by trade. I feel for every newcomer that is rushed through the ranks by its buddies. I feel for every newcomer that is rushed by uninmaginative powergamer buddies. They do indeed get driven away, not by lack of quality of the game but by lack of tact by many players. Like a IL-2 FB, it is not a game with a end. It is ready to be played anytime without any compromises. There's no objective except the ones that we set for ourselves.

Windward Island fox2run. Isn't that far away. The game shows you the enemy regions. Go there and have fun ?

Oh boy, there was a time when Snow was 1 hit 1 kill if hit properly At the moment... 1 in a million ?

There were more players when 90% of the port battles were empty.

Of course, honesty Works both ways. I think NWolves was pointing that out. The honesty in most reviews is appaling.

It is your own decision, to play-test or simply wait for release Developers give you that option.

You are reviewing a game, not the social potential of a game which is determined by and solely by the person, not the software. Granted we, majority, are not professional critics, or we would get payed by the hour and no small amount of hours is enough for a specialized journalist to even get a grasp on how uncompromising NA sandbox is. Same with many other sandbox games where the players themselves are expected to "develop" their own gameplay, as a community. We get too drowned in the mud of RvR and egotistical competition in PvP to even notice the untouched potential. But then it is a game that includes grognards, mmo kids, moba gangsters, RP geeks, and overall a history vs competition mob. Aethelstan, I think the Devs reserve the right to implement whatever they want from the community suggestions. Somethings work, others don't. Stop being self entitled and keep suggesting.

Players, in the majority, are not willing to pursue fair, risky, and challenging encounters in a RvR based game. That is why Battles are often abandoned. They are fair, risky and mostly challenging.

Reviews ? I see very little proper reviews on steam, especially on the negative side of the fence. There's a few very objective and proto-professional ones but the majority is whining against change. Some changes are good, others are bad. If we look to regional resources, it was a community request. If you look to removal of flags and implementation of hostility, it was a community request. Same with RoE and same with raking, crafting ( especially the push for rare SOLs ) etc. So how dare we, regular forumites, testers, and good folk that suggest a lot of things, to say that our own ideas are not good ?! Damn GL, stop listening to us !!! /sarcasm off I know for sure that 1st implementations are never a final scenario, as any NA player tester worth their salt should know by now. By all the fish of the sea, we didn't have a Map once. And there was a time when no more than 60 people would play in the OW and that was once per week. And guess what ? Game is awesome today as it was during the first and second iterations of OW. Look at all the headway we made. Be honest. The majority of negative reviews are simply untrue and review mechanics that no longer exist. They insist on living in the past.

This. For us lovers of sandbox liberty, we make our own gameplay and force ourselves to play as credible as possible without the need of mechanics to enforce it.

RoE will change a bit to cater for hunters and hunted C'mon, read announcements now and then. Plus the OW time scale is really massive.

There are enough reports of privateers, buccaneers and age of sail navy captains regarding horizon spotting and none goes even close to 25km on a clear day. What you must think is that we, players, have to compromisse between 2 things: 1. If we are at port screen our ships are not ready to sail. 2. If we are in the OW just anchored near the port we are at large and ready to sail. Finally you wouldn't receive real time communication that a ship was under attack unless you were there, in that right moment, in that same area. It is a game and RoE needs refining but definitely not changing it to a no-risk no-challenge mechanic. From the announced patch notes you see some changes coming that serve both worlds. Let's hold fast

I agree with you on certain conditions being that the rest of the Conquest remains the same. I am looking more to a asymmetrical wargame where this conditions ca nbe fully explored At the moment we have a nice Trafalgar system, which is fun. But why not try something else ? IIRC from the announcement patch note the PBs will have land and control points right ?