Collection of suggested mechanic fixes - POLL

[Mouth of Sauron]

I think clans should be locked to a certain timer "range" or timezone if you will.  This will discourage dodging and manipulating timers that seem to be an ever constant plague on the game.  Timers outside of those ranges cost double or more to swap to.  Also once you swap a timer it has a cooldown on doing it again.

It'll use Russia to prevent the biased whiners providing input. 
VSC - North American timer range   00-06
REDS - Western Europe  16:00 - 22:00     

Edited March 10, 2020 by Mouth of Sauron

[van Veen]

Some point where I see the majority opinion problematic: 

I voted "No", because

a) I do believe that giving clans more power over others is not good for the game in general. 

b) Clans defining fleet setup is the one solution that this clan sets, not the variety that others prefer. So, it means in fact less variety. 

c) This will be used to avoid port battles when you find a setup that others cannot match. 

 

I voted "No", because who is "you" if there is more than one player on each side? How should this be implemented and how to settle this if one player votes "close" and another "open"? What is wrong with the solution we have now? I understand that sometimes there are alt exploits opening a battle for the other side and then idling in battle. But is this really a problem? How many cases have there been? I personally have not encountered one such situation so far. Loot "stealing" is also a non-case imho, because loot is the result of plunder, robbery or theft, so it is not "yours" in the first place anyway. I think this is a blocking solution to exclude others from playing the game just to solve a non-existing problem. 

 

I voted "Yes 100k", because this would be a means to counter over-expansion of powerful clans. Right now, there is no such counter measure other than the fixed number of outposts that force you to focus on certain areas of the map and neglecting others. First 2 ports should be for free though. 

[Liq]

5 minutes ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

I think clans should be locked to a certain timer "range" or timezone if you will.  This will discourage dodging and manipulating timers that seem to be an ever constant plague on the game.  Timers outside of those ranges cost double or more to swap to.  Also once you swap a timer it has a cooldown on doing it again.

It'll use Russia to prevent the biased whiners providing input. 
VSC - North American timer range   00-06
REDS - Western Europe  16:00 - 22:00     

Could easily be evaded by having an alter clan (e.g. H4VOC) on a different timer. Drop the ports (or let them get captured by a non-official ally) and recapture them with your timer2 clan

[Mouth of Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Liq said:

Could easily be evaded by having an alter clan (e.g. H4VOC) on a different timer. Drop the ports (or let them get captured by a non-official ally) and recapture them with your timer2 clan

that's fine    it's still another step clans would need to take to dodge timers, we shouldn't make it easy.  

EDIT -   to futher expand a bit.  

Let's say HAVOC now wants WO to defend some of their ports, which is currently what is happening.  This is fine.  HAVOC however should not be able to just....swap timers.  WO should have some skin in the game by owning the port and providing money for it....or if the alt clan thing is needed, then at least a further layer of difficulty will be added to allow the current owners the ability to change their timers.  Currenty the status quo allows HAVOC and every other clan, the ability to swap their timers at will on a daily basis with zero cost or repercussions.  This should not be the case.  

Edited March 10, 2020 by Mouth of Sauron

[Liq]

38 minutes ago, van Veen said:

c) This will be used to avoid port battles when you find a setup that others cannot match. 

 

What do you mean "cannot match"?

[Never]

47 minutes ago, van Veen said:

 

I voted "No", because who is "you" if there is more than one player on each side? How should this be implemented and how to settle this if one player votes "close" and another "open"? What is wrong with the solution we have now? I understand that sometimes there are alt exploits opening a battle for the other side and then idling in battle. But is this really a problem? How many cases have there been? I personally have not encountered one such situation so far. Loot "stealing" is also a non-case imho, because loot is the result of plunder, robbery or theft, so it is not "yours" in the first place anyway. I think this is a blocking solution to exclude others from playing the game just to solve a non-existing problem. 

 

Simple solution, most online games have an active voting system. Player A selects to close the battle, all other players get a small pop up somewhere non-intrusive 'XXX player selected to close the battle' vote yes or no. If most vote 'yes' then the battle closes, it has a timer and not voting count as 'no'. If it was a non-existing problem then you would not be seeing the majority voting yes in the poll. 

[van Veen]

7 minutes ago, Liq said:

What do you mean "cannot match"?

I was refering to this here: 

Quote

Yes and let the clan owning the port have some kind of freedom in setting up the fleet setup

This means the attacker must match the requirements set out by the owning clan (the defender). This will be abused to avoid port battles. 

And it makes no logic sense why the defender (!) should be able to define the fleet composition of the attacker. I mean, the attacker is the one with the initiative. It should be the other way round or dropped completely. 

So yeah, all the idiots (sorry, guys) voting for this option need to think a little before voting. But as usual, promise players to have more control over others and they will want it. 

[van Veen]

5 minutes ago, Never said:

Simple solution, most online games have an active voting system. Player A selects to close the battle, all other players get a small pop up somewhere non-intrusive 'XXX player selected to close the battle' vote yes or no. If most vote 'yes' then the battle closes, it has a timer and not voting count as 'no'. If it was a non-existing problem then you would not be seeing the majority voting yes in the poll. 

Yeah, and I have not yet seen a MMO in which voting actually works well. Most voters are actually trolls. Same with the voting-based diplomacy, this also didn't work.

This will be just another source of grief. 

We see a majority for "yes" here because it's promising players more control over others. That's what most people like, because they are egoistic and do not think about the consequences this has on gameplay. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by van Veen

[Liq]

1 minute ago, van Veen said:

I was refering to this here: 

This means the attacker must match the requirements set out by the owning clan (the defender). This will be abused to avoid port battles. 

And it makes no logic sense why the defender (!) should be able to define the fleet composition of the attacker. I mean, the attacker is the one with the initiative. It should be the other way round or dropped completely. 

So yeah, all the idiots (sorry, guys) voting for this option need to think a little before voting. But as usual, promise players to have more control over others and they will want it. 

Well if you look at it that way.. It also doesn't really make a lot of sense for PB's to be limited to 5'700 BR - Let alone have limited instances of 25 v 25 - When you could in theory show up to a Port Battle with 30 - 40 1st rates? Going after "Logic" you would have to capture the port no problem.

Yet here we are with limited BR Port Battles - Because they're meant to be equal for both sides to promote fun

No need to call others idiots for their opinion on this imo

[van Veen]

6 minutes ago, Liq said:

Well if you look at it that way.. It also doesn't really make a lot of sense for PB's to be limited to 5'700 BR - Let alone have limited instances of 25 v 25 - When you could in theory show up to a Port Battle with 30 - 40 1st rates? Going after "Logic" you would have to capture the port no problem.

Yet here we are with limited BR Port Battles - Because they're meant to be equal for both sides to promote fun

No need to call others idiots for their opinion on this imo

I have no clue what this has to do with my answer, but ok. Limit of 25vs25 is due to instance capacity afaik. This has nothing to do with PB, but is a technical issue. 

I am not against having different BR at different ports for variety, but I am totally against giving players more control. 

I apologized already for calling everyone "idiots" who voted for the majority option. I did not address anyone in particular. It's just a good example of everyone being short-sighted and selfish ("yeah, more control, yeah!"). Prime example of mass idiocy imho. But here I am. Convince me that in fact it's me who is the idiot and the majority is right on this one. What would be the benefit for the game as a whole (not only for the port owner) to define the fleet setup for the PB? Why would the game be better with this option? 

[GraveThunder]

This is a great Thread Topic!  Questions and comments are also good to show perspective.

 

[Liq]

4 minutes ago, van Veen said:

What would be the benefit for the game as a whole (not only for the port owner) to define the fleet setup for the PB? Why would the game be better with this option? 

More Variety in port Battles unless you only want to do 20 vs 20 bucentaures in the next couple of weeks

Could be 5x 1st rate + 5x 2nd rate + 10x 3rd rate per side. Or different, depending on what its set to by the clan owning the port. Should lead to more interesting battles.

I get that it may not be realisitic as in "telling the attackers in what ships they must attack the port" . but as said above, 5700 BR pbs were added for the same reason.

[Angus MacDuff]

6 minutes ago, Liq said:

More Variety in port Battles unless you only want to do 20 vs 20 bucentaures in the next couple of weeks

Could be 5x 1st rate + 5x 2nd rate + 10x 3rd rate per side. Or different, depending on what its set to by the clan owning the port. Should lead to more interesting battles.

I get that it may not be realisitic as in "telling the attackers in what ships they must attack the port" . but as said above, 5700 BR pbs were added for the same reason.

I agree that it should be a pre-determined mix of classes for each port but I don't  believe that it should be a player choice.  The class mix should be, like the BR, set in advance by the Devs.  Players make poor decisions...(cause we're idiots, I believe..)

Edited March 10, 2020 by Angus MacDuff

[van Veen]

44 minutes ago, Liq said:

More Variety in port Battles unless you only want to do 20 vs 20 bucentaures in the next couple of weeks

Hell, I never said I like 20vs20 mono fleets. Don't try to troll me, it won't work. 

But on topic. There is a reason for the Buc monofleets and you know it very well, because you prefer it in your PBs as well. The Buc has the same BR than a Redout or a Implac, but has more HP and more firepower. Simple reason, simple solution: fine tuning ship BR. 

44 minutes ago, Liq said:

Could be 5x 1st rate + 5x 2nd rate + 10x 3rd rate per side. Or different, depending on what its set to by the clan owning the port. Should lead to more interesting battles.

But why does this need to be defined by the port owner for more variety? What is the benefit him setting this and forcing others to comply with this? Everybody just loves this idea, because they want more control. But for what? Excactly, to force their will on others. I see no reason to trust players on this one. 

44 minutes ago, Liq said:

get that it may not be realisitic as in "telling the attackers in what ships they must attack the port" .

Yep, it does not make sense. Imho this and the fact that players can't be trusted is reason enough to discard the idea altogether. 

44 minutes ago, Liq said:

but as said above, 5700 BR pbs were added for the same reason.

More variety in BR is fine. You could also discuss maximum ship rate for each port like we used to have (4th and 1st) being expanded to 6th through 1st or something.

Edited March 10, 2020 by van Veen

[Doug Maoz]

For some of these mechanics, there needs to be some way for port owners to "hand over" ports to friendly clans without going neutral etc.

In fact, there must be some sort of in-nation port transfer mechanic in general; currently dead clans can own ports forever, and the nation will not be able to set timers as needed.

[Never]

3 hours ago, van Veen said:

Yeah, and I have not yet seen a MMO in which voting actually works well. Most voters are actually trolls. Same with the voting-based diplomacy, this also didn't work.

This will be just another source of grief. 

We see a majority for "yes" here because it's promising players more control over others. That's what most people like, because they are egoistic and do not think about the consequences this has on gameplay. 

No, people want more control over their own battles, not others. Voting in diplomacy is a completely different issue tbh; apples and oranges. 

[Montagnes]

Useful rewards in mission chests and better ones for silver chests.

You end deleting or selling to the shop the rewards from mission chests.

[Montagnes]

Make the "Hunt" and "Search & destroy" missions kill-assist counter work as it does in the pvp missions.

This way it will also take into account the assists in damaged ships you haven't killed, promoting a way more cooperative gameplay and strengthen pve hunting in groups (which will decrease the hated ganking of solo pve players).

Edited March 10, 2020 by Montagnes

[Montagnes]

Return of underpowered ships (Victory, third rate, Pavel, Essex, Frigate, mercury, rattlesnake) as viable choices for pvp and rvr.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I think port owners should be able to adjust the BR up or down from a set starting point but fleet make up is going to have meta killer set ups .  Though some ports could have eating caps like 4th rates and below or 3rd rates and below would be the only thing a clans can set fleet wise to keep it fair.  That way say a clan had a lot of mid level players they can set the BR up and have the port 3rd rates and below. 
 

2 extra ports:  every one gets capital for free.  The three nations without capitals get shroud cay.   This can’t ever be dropped as it’s a free port.  Once you make max rank you get your 10th port for free as a reward.  This along with the other 8 can be any ports they pick.

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

1) I can get behind making hostility missions cost doubloons or something of equal value. A major issue with Naval Action is the ability to achieve great wealth with very little need to spend it on anything. Creating new markets could help with this.

2) Yes. It may seem cheap in a video game I can understand. The crew that is boarding though might weaken its boarding strength however to fight the fire of the ship they are attacking is something I could get behind. Might also not allow a ship to board if it is on fire as well. But I still believe that you should be able to turn off survival during a board. 

3) I think you should be able to see the battle timer but that is all. Otherwise you are asking around to find out anyways.

4) I do not think the port controller should have complete control over the PB but I do think they should be able to choose the PB type as if choosing a game mode, and maybe set the rate of ships under a limited pre- selection depending on the port itself.

5) Yes. 

6) No. 8 port slots is enough. Cannot manage that, then you have over extended your lines.

7) If it has a timer then it should cost something. If not, the cost should only reflect on how developed a port is of non-indigenous resources and defenses.

8 ) yes

9) No. Otherwise, there will be a lot more multi-flip targeting of nations.

10) Seeing how fast it is to raise hostility I think it should alert the ports owner as soon as a hostility mission is active.

[Ronald Speirs]

You forgot that a poll about small 100Br locking the bigger ships from reinforcements or even being targetted by AI fleets, or even National Ships getting tagged in home waters and not being able to get help while smaller BR enemy nations can get stacks of help, frankly IR no nation defense would allow invaders to gank without helping its own defenses!!!!!

[Mormegil]

First of all, thanks for the good thread @Liq!

Things i would like to see ingame (in order of personal imporatance for me):

1.) Caft XP for crafting cannons, upgrades, books, etc. so that not only ship-crafters can level their craft level. Only giving craft XP for ships always felt like it was an oversight during game-development that was never corrected later.

2.) General game balance: The game has so many really nice ships, however current balance basically requires you to sail 3rd rate and above. The Redoutable DLC made this ship the no-risk ship, as it is really powerful for being free (ingame). It would be really nice to have a balance were 4th and also 5th rates are useful and have advantages (especially speed and maneuverability) that cannot be matched by a higher rate ship. I mean the Redoutable is a great ship but if it makes nearly 15 knots, what's the point of a hunting Trinco or Enymion? Not to speak about Pirate Frigate or even smaller ships.crafts and simply not added later. (FYI: I play since beta, i just dont post much on the forums.)

3.)There should be the ability to buy more slots: Docking, Building, Warehouse. They dont have to be free, but available ingame without the need to buy a DLC. I get that the DLC is a nice way to gain revenue but builing slots and especially docking slots feel really limited even with the DLC. I dont mind a cost (real, maybe some dubs) for the later slots (since the 5 initial building slots are free), as it gives newer players something to strive for. But it should be possible for the solo player to at least have most of the buildings needed to be self sufficient. Not builing the academy still takes 3 slots for production builidngs (ships, cannons, upgrades). Leaving only 7 slots for resources (assuming the DLC is bought) which means you can only get the basic resources (Fir, Oak, Hemp, Stone, Iron, Coal and Lignum).
No chance at getting a sugar plantation for Rum, no specialized woods, nothing. Without the DLC you are toast anyway, which should not be the case immediately after buying the game...
Of course, cooperation should be encouraged, but not cooperating in a clan should not be such a severe restriction. As a possible solution: Introduce a new building "Trading Post" which produces all the 7 basic resources in one building, but at a much worse goods/real and goods/labor rating. It would make sense, as you have to pay a premium at a trading post when buying there and you get lower quantities compared to buying at a specialized production plant.

4.)If there shall be more Outpost slots i like the idea of @Sir Texas Sir above. Capital and 10th slot on max rank. However the capital might make a problem when switching nations as you need to close all national outposts if I remember right...

5.) More in-nation administration tools would also be nice. E.g. the ability to transfer clans in-nation mentioned above. Or a diplomacy system (I know, the vote-based diplomacy did not really work in beta). I know there might be problems to avoid abuse by using alt-accounts etc... But maybe there are ideas that could be implemented.

 

EDIT: It would also be nice to gain ship xp for sailing in the open world. At least for traders, as they are not made for combat and combat being the only option to level them is kind of a bad design. Tie sailing xp to actual distance travelled and you also avoid exploits from idling in the middle of nowhere for hours.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Mormegil

[Mormegil]

Sorry for the double post but I just remembered something i wanted to post for a while.

I would really like to have player-defined tags for their own ships to enable a fast differentiation between the same ship in different configurations without having to check the stats/loadout every time.
The tags can be limited in size (e.g. 10 characters) and will only be visible to yourself to avoid other players being molested by offensive tags.
E.g. you could have 3 Bellonas. One is built for Port Battles and tagged "Portbattle", one is built fast to hunt players and tagged "Hunting". The third one was captured from the NPC, has bad stats and is labeled "backup". The Tags should be free text, so the last one could also be "crap" "sell" "break up" etc, depending on what the player wants to do with the ship.

 

[Licinio Chiavari]

On 3/10/2020 at 12:32 PM, Montagnes said:

Add please. 

A). XP when crafting repairs, upgrades and cannons.

B). Good trading goods spawning also and randomly in non region capital ports.

C). Santa cecilia and Diana as crafteable ships.

D). Rewards for achieving a succesful port defense/attack.

 

Fundamental option to redeem ship permit (even on longer CD) in place of full ship.

Nerf redeemed DLC ship.