Kiithnaras

Members
  • Content count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

About Kiithnaras

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

122 profile views
  1. @Preble, though it's a bit old, details on the new crafting model were announced and discussed Here. I'm not sure if and how anything has changed since then. I should really zip over to Testbed once the changes are in and take a look-see. I would hope that the new crafting system works something like This with the ability to adjust multiple aspects of a ship, each with their own drawbacks (e.g. make a ship tougher but more heavy/slow/sluggish or weaker but lighter/faster/more nimble), but the details are pretty sparse so far. Because of the way modules and ships themselves are changing in a database structure sort of manner, all ships, modules, redeemables, and ship notes are being sent to the void. Your fancy constitution along with all of its upgrades will just up and vanish like a fart in the wind.
  2. I have voted to maintain the current alliance system, but only in the absence of a third option. See This post for more details. Essentially, a more nuanced and less lock-step political system is needed to keep things organic and dynamic, but having no political system with pure anarchy was particularly frustrating (then again, it was fun in it's own way, just stressful). Summarizing the linked post above (and in sig), what is needed is not "Allied or Enemy" but a disposition system; something to indicate the current political climate without having to resort to blocking other nations from being attacked entirely. Alliances should still exist, but be purposeful and time-limited with a cooldown in between allied periods. Wars should also be more purposeful and be time-limited with cooldowns in between. The different states of political disposition should also have differing Rules of Engagement; Peaceful nations might join each others' battles, while Enemy nations could not. Having OW battles open indefinitely (treat every fight as having Signalling, and every ship has having Area Control, perhaps) would further this more dynamic political system.
  3. Here's the issue with comparing NA to other MMO's; Mechanics. In Eve - the only purely-PvP MMO that I can think of - a Spy has to be careful. If they're discovered, outed, or suspected, they can be kicked from the corporation, attacked and killed, podded back to empire, etc. There are consequences for being a bad spy. Good spies never let on that they're spying or doing anything shady. MMOs that aren't primarily PvP have limited need or use for spies and alts. The problem in NA is that it is primarily a PvP game (on the PvP servers), but we are forbidden from taking action against subversive elements. Green on Green is a bannable offense. We can't chat-block, we can't evict from nation, we can't even shoo away suspicious shadows with violence. Spies have all the agency in the world to act, while non-subversive players have none at all. We can't even toss out or shoot at someone who joins a Lineship battle in a Cerberus for the lulz.
  4. Bloody hell, who is this, George Soros?
  5. I am not opposed to 1-dura ships, but, with the announced changes, there needs to be a mass storage system for them. 5 dock spaces per outpost plus 5 fleet slots globally seems like a lot on the surface, but it's really not, especially if losses are heavy for an individual (though it might not be so bad with changes to the crafting system). This is especially true for clan crafters that churn out ships regularly for other members and have to hold on to them until said clanmates appear. In this case, I'd propose Mothballing. For a small fee, a ship (sans any upgrades, guns, or cargo) can be mothballed at Nation Capital or perhaps Clan Warehouse. This mothballing can be indefinite or for a finite time (say, mothball maintenance must be supplied every two weeks or the ship is scuttled). This would be a fine means of storing crafted ships, in my opinion.
  6. @Raekur, if the responses to my other thread on giving players some agency to affect the ability of known spies and subversive elements to act with impunity is any indication, individuals that use alts for these acts are vehemently opposed to any reasonable means of countering them besides cowering in dark holes and giving in to their every demand. They don't want a challenge, they want complete and utter domination by any means necessary.
  7. Well, no, they are modeled as being too thick. a 1st-rate's masts are listed around 119cm. In reality, the HMS Victory's masts are about 94cm in diameter. From a gameplay mechanics perspective, the masts should be reduced to this range (some ratio like 1 and some small fraction of an inch per foot of beam at the mast) and simply receive an HP buff to compensate, simulating off-angle shots. I think right now the masts are simple hitboxes without any physical form, meaning that a shot on a mast is treated as "dead on", as if you were shooting the hull of a ship directly perpendicular. The devs have indicated that they don't want to complicate ship models much more than they already are, though we should see ship Structure appearing in a patch sometime Soon™. While it would be nice to have rigging and shrouds more accurately modeled, doing so would really load down the game engine, and things get pretty chuggy with 50 ships in a battle already. AFAIK, only sails and masts are modeled, and taking out a mast section, even one of the upper mast sections, can really be painful in disabling a ship.
  8. @Sir Texas Sir, I don't feel that it will be abused as much as you think, though. You're looking at hours, and I specified activity: OW kills/assists (highest impact, 20% more for War-declared nations, double for PvP kills/assists), PB participation (less impact than OW kills/assists), sending ships to the admiralty as prizes (small impact, iffy on this one), and completing delivery missions to the capital (small impact). The total number of hours is irrelevant compared to the duty contribution in my mind. No, it's not perfect, but I definitely do not want a voting system where one or two clans control a supermajority and, exactly as you put it, never show up in OW and bully other players around. Simply put, if your Dane alt is presenting more naval superiority by sinking and capturing more enemy ships than most other Danes, he'll probably earn a council seat on that nation as well. Again, these things are tabulated and decided every two weeks, so things rotate out - earning a council seat is not a guarantee that you'll be on the council forever. Once a Council is chosen, all "recently-earned" admiralty points are reset to zero and the process begins again. Someone that sits in port trading every day is not likely to acquire a council seat, and people that only show up to make hostility and participate in port battles are less likely to be on the council than someone who actively patrols in between and goes to Admiralty events and so on. I might also add that for very small nations with fewer than 12 active players, there simply would be no council - if there aren't at least 12 players with more than zero "recently-earned" points, the council simply doesn't form for that cycle.
  9. @admin, Check out This thread and the linked spreadsheet. I go into fairly good detail on the Internal and External ballistics of cannons. The data within the spreadsheet is fairly adjustable, too, and keeps things nice and proportional to each other. Having carronades drop off to zero (or even negative?!) penetration at range is absolutely silly (I shouldn't be able to deflect a carronade round by holding up a piece of paper). Additionally, shot of a specific size should lose energy at the same rate, as a proportion of its velocity, as any other shot of the same size no matter what gun it's fired from and should always decay to a certain minimum penetration at their hypothetical "infinite" range (if the ball was dropped from space, a.k.a. terminal velocity.) As far as thickness goes, I feel like the overall thickness of hulls is acceptable, but masts are way too thick. IRL, the HMS Victory's mast is around 94cm in diameter. While it's true that there have been issues with demasting being too easy, I feel that reducing the mast thickness to approximately 4/3rds the hull thickness is a good start, and give masts an additional 30-50% HP buff to make demasting a challenge, but not practically impossible. (Gankers do not demast, they chain, generally)
  10. Forum Tribunal rules do not cover anything I have mentioned here. Additionally, though Moderators and Admin are responsible for carrying out final judgement for Tribunals, it's all public info and anyone can throw their two cents in (which creates more of a headache for the moderating team), particularly a vocal minority in support of the abuser despite clear evidence provided of wrongdoing and rulebreaking. This system is not for rulebreaking at all, it is for weeding out obvious spies and traitors. As I've said multiple times, I would love a means to give players agency in the game. By leaving the decisions in the hands of uninvolved (but not necessarily impartial) mods and admins, agency is removed from the players, especially when the Tribunal overwhelmingly rules in favor of no significant action (Not that they don't give due diligence, it's simply a matter of distance from the issue and having to reach a certain threshold of certitude before carrying out any punitive action). Without agency, one becomes helpless. No one likes feeling helpless. Helplessness leads to declining player numbers. In this system, everything is secret - Council seats are assigned based on actitivity, but not publicly known, even to each other (unless they choose to broadcast their councilship). Judgements are only sent to the screen that Council members can see, and the only indication they have of other council members' activity are the votes that are recorded. Only once a Judgement reaches a substantive sentencing is the Subject (or Plaintiff) notified of the result. Judgements that result in no action, whether by guilt or sentencing (it's entirely plausible that the Council will vote strongly in favor of guilt, but decide on no action to watch the person in order to be certain - it would be another player that they're removing from their own nation, after all), would not notify the Plaintiff or Subject. When I asked for feedback, I was more interested in how others would do things differently in giving players agency against spies and traitors. It is, however, interesting and curious to see how many flat-out detractors there are here that are clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo of Spying with Impunity.
  11. @Norfolk nChance, The reason I wanted to avoid a council/head/magistrate that was democratically-elected and instead selected by activity and national contribution is the Mob Mentality and Good Old Boys club factors, one of Rebel Witch's few valid arguments. By democratically selecting the justiciars, it turns into precisely that with the largest clans essentially running the show. I definitely don't want that, either. If this idea were to be implemented, it would indeed place the trust of judgement in the hands of the most active players on each nation; whether to believe some random person's random complaints that Unassuming Sailor is a spy without any further information to go on. In fact, tuning Judgements to cost a significant amount of admiralty points (which are non-transferrable) helps avoid knee-jerk reactions, since each Judgement will represent a sizable amount of gameplay investment. I would also be in favor of having Mods having the ability to overturn Judgements if it boils down to harassment, but the Execution option above is pretty final and irrevocable (maybe keep the character in limbo for 24 hours before final erasure for appeals?). It also isn't explicitly about Alts, but it will affect characters that are used as obvious spies. I did merely mention that players that use alts heavily have a lower likelihood of attaining a council seat when compared to another player with only one character purely due to the time investiture and effort required to maintain oneself in the top-12 national contributors. @Wraith, I wouldn't be opposed to this type of game at all. It sounds interesting and dynamic and pretty neat. It does have one issue, though, and it's the same issue that has caused many to complain about Alliances: Democracy. Democracy is great and all and has its place, but it can tend to form that "Haves and Have-Nots" sort of situation. This is why, in my OP, any serious and permanent punishment requires either a 3/4ths majority or outright unanimity. In your type of setting, I would say any clan/individual would be accepted with a contribution-based Magistrate or Council (Individuals that have gained the trust of the Admiralty through time and effort) presiding over the eviction of subversive or disruptive elements. But that's my take. : ) @Sir Texas Sir, I agree. Those are called Good Spies; spies that do their job and aren't caught. Spies that don't enter battles merely to fill slots and be ineffective or leave and give as little indication or evidence as to their subversive activities as possible. One can't do anything about ghosts. It's the ones that dance in front of you while flaunting their treasonous activities that need to be dealt with.
  12. @van der Decken, That is my core point exactly. I think, personally, that there should be more severe repercussions for repeat offenders and obvious spy alts. Again, it's all about agency, the ability of a player to affect the world around them. If Sir NotASpy is caught giving information to enemy nations or, arguably worse, posting strategic information in Global, there should be some means for LoyalCitizen42 to put a stop to Sir NotASpy's actions. @Rebel Witch, You used loaded arguments like the following: You are correct in that there is a potential for abuse - but subversive elements already abuse every aspect of the game possible to gain an unfair advantage over others with no means of addressing such abuse for non-subversive players. I feel that the maintained activity requirement for councilship is sufficient to mitigate the Ruling Elitist club abuse situation, while having 12 voting Council seats is a favorable alternative to a Mob-Mentality Ruling Majority. Again: How would you do things differently to mitigate the efficacy of known spies and traitors?
  13. @Rebel Witch, Ignoring the hilarious amount of drama you've placed into your response, how would you go about giving players the ability to mitigate the actions of spies? At present, the sole reliable means of dealing with Spies essentially boils down to avoiding communication in Nation chat - a strategy that severely hampers newer players that join the Nation in question. There is zero recourse to deal with traitors (folks who, especially but not solely through the use of Alts, abuse hostility to set up port battles at times where there is no reasonable chance of victory, fill battles and not contribute or straight-up leave, and so forth) at present. I feel that this concept, perhaps not exactly as presented but in theory, would give players some recourse in fighting back against known or suspected spies and traitors. It avoids the Good Old Boy and Tyrant factors by assigning the responsibility to active players that contribute to the betterment of the Nation and not using some majority vote mechanism to pick Council seats. It also means that Alt-heavy players would be at a disadvantage since they would be dividing their time amongst their various alts, and would have to sacrifice the use of said alts in order to spend the requisite time to gain/maintain a Council seat. As I've said, I enjoy having spies and traitors floating around. I want them in the game, they enrich it and keep things lively and engaging. What I don't want is no agency, no recourse against them. In fact, Green on Green is strictly forbidden and a bannable offense. The Forum Tribunals are more for abusive players that break the rules. This concept would give a nation recourse against subversive elements beside hiding down dark holes. The core reason that I would love to see this power out of the hands (though Devs and Mods could always over-rule a Council decision) is Time. The developers' time should really be spent on game development, not sifting through the Tribunal forum to listen to Player A bickering about Player B, and Players C through Triple Z throwing their two cents in that aren't even involved. A Council keeps its own counsel; they can discuss with the Plaintiff or Subject if they prefer, and can hold a public tribunal in Nation if desired.
  14. I've been pondering how to best deal with spies and subversive elements over the past few weeks, and I've come to the conclusion that the Tribunal forum section is grossly ineffective and little more than a writhing cesspool of the vocal minority that results in no appropriate punitive action being taken. At the same time, I do genuinely enjoy the presence of spies and traitors, in a meta-game sense, in that it keeps things interesting and organic and helps prevent stuffy stagnation. The other side of this coin, however, is the frustrating lack of agency regarding said subversive individuals. I want to preface this with the stance that I do not want these people removed from the game or banned in any lasting or tangible sense, but having no recourse to put a stop to an individual spy's activities is immensely frustrating. What I have envisioned involves the introduction of Outlaws, national Admiralties, and a jury-like Admiralty Council. As always, I welcome feedback and constructive criticism. Creating the Admiralty Council During the course of play, certain activities that include sinking Enemies (see politics suggestion in signature), War opponents, or Pirates will generate Admiralty points. Completing Delivery missions to your nation's capital or sending prizes to the Admiralty will also generate points, but at a significantly reduced rate. The twelve players with the most admiralty points generated in the past two weeks would be selected to be on the Admiralty Council and given access to a new Admiralty tab in port. This represents an active trust and vested interest in the Nation that is recognized by the Admiralty. Active players must stay active to maintain their seat on the Council; Every two weeks, new council members are selected based upon the past two weeks' activities. Should a sitting Council member fall below another player, any pending Judgements will have removed members' votes removed as well and their timeframe extended to the full week. Laying Down Judgement These admiralty points would count toward normal admiralty store purchases, but one of these purchases would be a Traitor Judgement, taken out against a specific player. The cost for this Judgement should be significant to prevent spamming, approximately a week's worth of playtime or more for an active player. Once the Judgement is taken out and the valid, specified player name provided (the Subject), the Council is notified of the Judgement and votes twice on it; the first round of voting is to determine the validity of the claim on the individual, and the second round determines sentencing. Not only is the Council notified of the Subject of the Judgement, but each Judgement also lists the player responsible for initiating the Judgement (the Plaintiff). The options available for sentencing would wholly depend on the results of voting. The subject of the Judgement is -not- automatically notified when the Judgement is taken out against them. Multiple Judgements can not be taken against the same player at the same time. During voting, each member of the Council votes Yea or Nay against the individual with the Judgement. The vote is open for one week, but will close and resolve immediately upon the last vote being confirmed. Abstaining council members' votes are automatically counted as Nays. When a vote resolves, a new vote for sentencing is opened with options dependent upon the result of the Judgement: If there are at least 7 Yeas, the Council receives the option to vote on Censure for two weeks. Censure will severely hamper a player's ability to do business. Every purchase on the market and contracts will cost the player twice the listed gold amount. In addition, they will not be able to generate Hostility (or conduct/join Raids, see signature), collect Admiralty Points, or join Port Battles, and they will be forcibly evicted from Nation chat for the duration of their Censure. Their OW info box will specify that they are Censured. This option is intended for minor subversive elements that engage in economic espionage, joining battles only to leave or not contribute, and so on. An individual that receives a second Censure Judgement while Censured is simply refreshed to the full two weeks. If there are at least 9 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the Council receives the option to Exile the subject. This decision is permanent. Outlaws are still technically members of their nation with a few interesting caveats. They are forcibly evicted from the National chat and treated like permanent smugglers; they cannot craft or open outposts in National ports, and players of that nation (as well as AIs) can actively engage Outlaws without penalty. Once a character has been labelled an Outlaw, that account is restricted from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days. Outlaws cannot be the Subjects of further Judgements, nor can they take Judgements against other players. Similar to a Censured individual, they cannot join battles for their nation or take out Hostility missions (and will not generate hostility themselves). (might be open to options for redemption.) Outlaws are notified of their existing Outlaw status and see all of their parent nation's ships as hostile. If there are 12 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least twice in the past 30 days or is currently an Outlaw, the Council receives the option to Execute the subject. This decision is, understandably, permanent. Once an Execution Judgement is resolved for a specified Subject, they are immediately labelled an Outlaw. If this player ever subsequently docks or logs in to a port owned by their parent nation, the character suffers summary deletion, and the account responsible is prohibited from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days following deletion. This is a serious judgement and should only be rendered on individuals that are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be subversive elements and traitors to the nation. Subjects that are slated for Execution are not notified of this condition. Instead, they are notified of their Outlaw status and, for all intents and purposes, treated like an Outlaw until they dock or log in at a port owned by their nation. If there are 3 or fewer Yeas (the Council is overwhelmingly opposed to the guilt of the Subject), they receive the option to Censure the Plaintiff, instead, for two weeks. This option is present to discourage false claims against loyal Subjects, encouraging Plaintiffs to be certain of the subversiveness of a Subject before purchasing a Judgement against them. If there are 0 Yeas (the Council is Unanimously opposed to the guilt of the Subject) and the Plaintiff has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the council receives the option to Exile the Plaintiff instead. This option exists to prevent repeated false claims on loyal Subjects and abuse of Judgements by subversive elements. Let me know what you think, gents, any feedback and changes to this suggestion are always appreciated.
  15. @The Spud, We gave the devs a solid case; photographic evidence and first-hand witness accounts of Charles Hunter was provided doing exactly that (abusing hostility, deliberately joining and not contributing to fights, etc.), and "popular sentiment" was not in favor of a ban, therefore no direct punitive action was taken. @Simon Cadete, I would kindly ask you to keep baseless ad hominem attacks out of Suggestions and address the issue at hand. Your position appears to be that you are in favor of maintaining your disproportionately-high amount of alt accounts in order to field your 35+ first-rate groups faster than they can be captured from you or sank. Also, no one is forcing you to stay on PvP2.