Please make your changes in moderation

[Neads O'Tune]

Unfortunately this game's dev team has a habit of chagning both sides of the equation, leading to extreme results. Please consider only changing one side at a time and making adjustments as you go.

Three prime examples:

Last year you increased the mission reward payout BUT at the same time you reduced the cost of things in the admiralty store. You should have done one OR the other.

Currently you have made 5th rate group missions more difficult and reduced the reward BUT you have ALSO removed the ability to use the one ship that stood a decent chance of being able to do it with the new model. Forcing players to use weaker ships. Again this has led to an extreme change instead of just changing one variable and seeing how it worked out.

You have made it even easier to lose ships BUT have also made it harder to replace those ships by restricting access to materials. (And please don't tell me that Oak is easily available as an oak/oak ship does not compare to a teak/white or live/white equivilent ship)

 

There are more example of this but these are the three that stand out for me

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Neads O'Tune
Looking to hire proof reader :P

[Jan van Santen]

Not only for 5th rate grp missions. Eg I just found 3 x 1st vs 8 x 1st + 3 x 2nd.......

[Galt]

38 minutes ago, Neads O'Tune said:

You have made it even easier to lose ships BUT have also made it harder to replace those ships by restricting access to materials. (And please don't tell me that Oak is easily available as an oak/oak ship does not compare to a teak/white or live/white equivilent ship)

 

I agree with the rest of your points but this one is a little odd, I think. Of course an O/O isn't going to stand up to the rare woods, that's what makes those woods valuable. This game does have a problem with everyone having an "only sail the best" mentality (Which I feel stems from the inherent hardcore nature that only people who play this game have. To be competitive in RvR, you do need the best; but I feel with the new damage model, that cheaper ships may actually be the way to go. You're going to be losing a lot more ships so maintaining that mentality is only really going to handicap you. But I guess that's your choice. 

[James Cornelius]

This has been the modus operandi of the Naval Action development team since almost literally Day 1. I get Early Access, etc etc but after several years we are well beyond the point at which changes should me minor tweaks and nudges instead of to use the phrase "reinventing the wheel" each major patch. I think had they not done this repeatedly, development would be much farther along and probably would be out of Early Access by now (which it honestly should have been a year ago).

[Neads O'Tune]

30 minutes ago, Galt said:

I agree with the rest of your points but this one is a little odd, I think. Of course an O/O isn't going to stand up to the rare woods, that's what makes those woods valuable. This game does have a problem with everyone having an "only sail the best" mentality (Which I feel stems from the inherent hardcore nature that only people who play this game have. To be competitive in RvR, you do need the best; but I feel with the new damage model, that cheaper ships may actually be the way to go. You're going to be losing a lot more ships so maintaining that mentality is only really going to handicap you. But I guess that's your choice. 

There ARE a lot of the "elite" players that will only use these woods (the same ones that wont go into battle unless they have a purple or gold repair mod stacked ship) and going up against them is just pointless for most people

My point with is one is, in a single patch they made ships sink easier (that's not an opinion, that is just fact) AND also made it harder to get materials replace those ships.

But let's not stray away from the orginal topic, that was just ONE example of the behaviour mentioned in the original post

Edited March 5, 2019 by Neads O'Tune

[Neads O'Tune]

8 minutes ago, Lord Robert Calder said:

This has been the modus operandi of the Naval Action development team since almost literally Day 1. I get Early Access, etc etc but after several years we are well beyond the point at which changes should me minor tweaks and nudges instead of to use the phrase "reinventing the wheel" each major patch. I think had they not done this repeatedly, development would be much farther along and probably would be out of Early Access by now (which it honestly should have been a year ago).

We shouldn't get hung up on "should've released on day X"

These guys do not have the same funding and manpower as AAA devs and we shouldn't hold them to the same deadlines

[Jan van Santen]

11 minutes ago, Neads O'Tune said:

We shouldn't get hung up on "should've released on day X"

These guys do not have the same funding and manpower as AAA devs and we shouldn't hold them to the same deadlines

 

The way patching is done in NA reminds me of the proverbial Echternacher Springprozession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_procession_of_Echternach

At one stage the pilgrims would take three steps forward and two steps backwards, thus taking five steps in order to advance one.

 

 

[Galt]

1 hour ago, Neads O'Tune said:

There ARE a lot of the "elite" players that will only use these woods (the same ones that wont go into battle unless they have a purple or gold repair mod stacked ship) and going up against them is just pointless for most people

My point with is one is, in a single patch they made ships sink easier (that's not an opinion, that is just fact) AND also made it harder to get materials replace those ships.

But let's not stray away from the orginal topic, that was just ONE example of the behaviour mentioned in the original post

Sure, but what I'm saying that I don't think that this particular instance is much of an issue. Good ships should be costly and good materials should be rare/expensive. Especially with these new battle timers, sailing a lower quality ship isn't going to matter much unless you are against a similar or bigger opponent, in which case you have already failed. If you get a fair fight, it's because you hello kittyed up somewhere. Always get the advantage, that being said, I would be happy to show you how an O/O could beat a T/WO or LO/WO. Name a time and place, you choose the ships. 

[RKY]

1 hour ago, Neads O'Tune said:

There ARE a lot of the "elite" players that will only use these woods (the same ones that wont go into battle unless they have a purple or gold repair mod stacked ship) and going up against them is just pointless for most people

My point with is one is, in a single patch they made ships sink easier (that's not an opinion, that is just fact) AND also made it harder to get materials replace those ships.

But let's not stray away from the orginal topic, that was just ONE example of the behaviour mentioned in the original post

 

I don't know who you refer to as elites, but those I consider elites sail any ship, even admiralty ship. And without knowledge slot or books. Your ideas about what people are sailing are probably biased and based on assumptions.

[Jan van Santen]

For PvE server collecting thus having the best ship in lo/wo 5/5 with all good upgrades/books is the substitute for the missing endgame ! Thats why we also not like it when ships we have put a lot of time into are made useless simply bec they are the best in their class.