JollyRoger1516

February 27, 2017

1 hour ago, Fargo said:

@JollyRoger1516 Would it be allowed to set an "important:" note in the steam description saying that you dont want multiple accounts and you would punish violations with perm banns? Behind this a link to a formular for people playing on the same IP. If you bought a second copy accidentally you would still have the 2 weeks refund. This would at least limit the number of alts.

For NA in general there is no real problem with some alts around like we have it now. But imagine, after some steam sales e.g., 50% using alts. Then we would notice this. Assume 2k players playing and sinking ships, but actually 3k players producing stuff. They would need to adjust some balancing, e.g. the labour generation/palyer. This wouldnt be in favour of single account users. Ofcourse purely hypothetical and dependant on eco mechanics, but it is a risk you take keeping mulit accouts legal after release. Reviews saying nice game, but you need to buy two copies would discourage lots of people from buying.

Another option would be an abo model. The problem now is the longer you play the more value/money you get out of an alt. Monthly cost would make alts probably not worth the money for most players.

You could/would have to set such a note but I could in no way be a rule for alts already bought. As the devs gave permission to do so in the past acounts bought udner that understanding cannot just be canceled. It would only govern that from the moment of the note being introduced alts are no longer to be bought (and then used). Former alts would in no way be affected by that.

An abo model or going free to play would be somewhat troublesome. Games have done it before like Call to Arms so it must be somewhat possible. But Call to Arms went F2Play meaning access to the content wasn't limited while an abo model would run you into problems with people who bought the full product and suddenly no longer have access to it! And if you look at Call to Arms that change giganticly backfired as pretty much 90% of the old customers do not feel adequately compensated and Steam already announced that it is therefore under investigation which could still put a major problem on the devs/publisher of that game.

That of course excludes games that are an early access buy in which from the get go it is stated that the game will eventually become free to play (like Fractured Space). As long as informationw as available prior to your purchase it cannot be contested if you decide to buy anyway. That would be your problem then but as NA never announced to desire an abo/F2Play model this would now be problematic.

I do see your problem with release events though. If sold at 50% many might be itnerested in alts and the problem could become worse.

February 27, 2017

Just now, Sir Texas Sir said:

Actually I know for fact they can win you battles in other ways. The number one way my clan has used them is to be in more than one battle at once or to fill a battle. What the Nationals on PvP2 can't get in there head is when I say your only fighting 15--20 guys or 10-15 they can't figure out how we can field 25 or even have guys in more than one place fighting them. I personally have played two Pirates alts in the same port battle to help field the full 25 against a full team of 25+ Nationals or had to log my alt in and sent them over to another port to stop a flip on the old flag system cause my main char was currently in a port battle (one mortar brig and one fire-ship). When we say it's only 10-15 guys we really aren't joking that you had guys with many of them playing two chars at once beating the crap out of three nations. Though since we got our numbers up we actually can field a full 20-25 in port battles with a few guys not making it in and not using any of our alts other than for screening purpose so we can get them into the fight since the Nationals where fielding 35+ at port battles against our 20. The last time they attacked kids we got 25 in the port battle and a few extra out side. They had over 40 players at that port battle on the British/Dutch/US side. So yes they can be used to win battles. The thing is if your 25 players are getting there arse beat by 10-15 guys playing multi accounts against you than it's a skill problem on there side. These are the same guys that complain about alts and cheats and stuff cause it's not that they are being done, but they using the game mechanics and learning it better than them to get the things done with less manpower. Some times the alts are all that are keeping small nations alive too.

I think your numbers must be a bit over the top there. I for one couldn't even run the game twice on my computer unless I play at 10FPS. Believe me Id rather jsut fight one and considering I run a decent setup and lots of people run mediocre ones that already heavily limits the amount of people capable of doing this.

I dunno about the spy thing. For us Brits it at some point became so bad that we literally couldn't talk in Nation anymore as we knew of like 20 spies online at once. It ended up increasing hostility among each other and massive distrust. People got kicked out of clans for talkign about port battles in nation and everyone neeeded to be triple vetted before getting any tags on the Nation TS. THat jsut went past the whole scenario of a spy got one bit of info. They jsut got all of it if anybody said anything. And quite frankly I don't play computer games to distrust the guys next to me. I am here to have fun not to run the Gestapo of counter espionage. (forgive the comparison)

February 26, 2017

5 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Pretty good for you, but pretty bad compared with the guy doing 22 first rates. "Only" 1000 LH just doubles your production power. And again, actual eco has no meaning. There is no competition when everybody owns enough of everything.

Fine, then the only question is about future prohibition.

Well for one I actually doubt anybody does actually produce 22 first rates like that and also you'd still have to ferry and pay the necessary resources. I can also tell you that I am pretty happy about my output and I don't really see the point of gettin anymore ships out at once. I mean with 10x lvl 50 crafters at my output you can supply the entire damn nation and GB has that so whats the point of gettin any better?!

I kinda liked your idea at least as a temporary solution so the devs have time to think about any other means of invalidating alts.

February 26, 2017

32 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Thats not my point. Try to compete as a crafter without alt, with sombody owning an alt. There is no way, no matter how much more time you spend.

Im not so sure about it, but thats not my subject. If there is no legal opportunity to deal with current alts, we dont need to discuss this. But please make sure youre absolutely right on that. Prohibiting additional alts then seems to be the only option.

Im critical because u usually dont get refund in early access, no matter what devs decide to do with your money. Also when i loose a second copy, i dont loose any access to the game. People bought a second copy for a second character, what is the problem moving this char to their main account? Ofcourse you need to be sure its only one person and there might be technical or effort problems. But in theory it should be fine.

1. I am. I have no alt account and in the last 4 weeks I have crafted about 11x 1st rates. That comes down to about one 1st rate every 2.5 days! I think that is pretty good for somebody who has to bring in his own resources and has no alt account. Bear in mind while that does take some time you'd still have to ferry resources around the place no matter on which account you are. So in the end alt accounts only allow you to use an additional 1000 hours a day to make materials. That is literally all that is gained from it crafting wise.

2. I am dead certain about that. I have some experience when it comes to steam dealings/distribution and as I said you'd walk the plank there.

3. You get exactly the same refund on steam for an early access game as for all other games as well. Max of 2 weeks after purchase and a max playtime of 2 hours and youre eligible for a refund. The only difference is that you agree for the timer to start when the game is not yet in a finished state. That is literally the only difference.

February 26, 2017

49 minutes ago, Mike the Mongel said:

You so full of BS...pointing fingers at RATs again...I know personaly from chatting with some RATs who came over after playing BRIT/US that it is just as bad on NATs side....so enough with the Holier than though crap.

But back on topic...I believe ALTs and the abuse that goes on will get only worse unless the Devs jump in and get a handle on it, I speak my mind to my Clan on how I despise any use of ALTs to gain any advantage....cant stand them Alts

If this talk is to go anywhere everybody needs to drop the holy act. No nation on any server can claim to be free of alts. I even know of alts on the PvE server so nobody is innocent here!!!

February 26, 2017

41 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Alts are pay to win for crafting focussed palyers, because you cant compensate the additional LH and contract count by playtime. Thats my view, because there is no clear definition for "pay to win".

Alts, obviously only used to support the main char, just make no sense. Even the devs would make more profit if they would sell fixed amounts of LH for real money directly. Alts generate infinite LH over time = worse for everybody.

They could call players to exchange their alt account with redeemables, an additional char on main account, whatsoever. If players hide their alts, thread with ban for the alt and or some reasonable punishment for the main account. Alts doing nothing else than placing contracts are quite conspicuous.

I dont think there is a problem to say that the use of alt accounts just to support the main account wasnt expected, its bad for the game and something needs to be done. Isnt money you spend in EA basically voluntary support and doenst provide any ownership rights?! Also if you complain about this, you would admit that you didnt spend money to support the game, but to "cheat" in an EA game.

In the worst case just prohibiting additional alts after release would atleast make them rotate out of the game slowly.

1. Alts barely simulate an additional palyer bringing in his labour hours to craft materials and farm resources. Its like having a mini clan of your own. Alts themselves win you no battle whatsoever unless you use them as spies!

2. You can NOT do that!!! You have a gigantic misunderstanding of both early access and the received product/contract! When you buy into an early access product you buy a full ownership to the game with 'early access' to it hence the name. The only thing not clearly defined is the end product (means the direction development takes might change) and the commitment of the developers (means you might end up with an unfinished product). And you are willing to be subjected to an unfinished product during development meaning there is no guarentee the game runs fine (but then again which game even not early access does these days...) Nonetheless you buy full ownership to that product. You can NOT retract that. The only way to get rid of alts would be to actually pay them back their money (no ingame substitude whatsoever would be sufficient - you'd break the law)!

Otherwise you can ban accounts but only for a limited time (must be reasonable or steam will step in (so no one year bans)) or in extremely severe cases for life (must be some serious offense like promoting racism (also needs to be repeatedly been warned usually)) again otherwise steam would step in and kick you of their paltform and possible pursue legal action as they are the distributing plattform and the dev/publisher teams ahve to abide by certain rules if they are to be on there!

3. You cannot sufficiently pursue alts as they can jsut be several players at the same home. With your understanding of early access you would end up not only robbing a person in such a house of their money but also porperty rights! That is literally (not figuratively) gonna end the devs in a court room.

4. To prohibit additional alts would in fact be possible (would need to be on the steam page with a date from when onwards etc though!) and I think that is actually not the worst idea although it would obviously not fix our current alts (or take a long time so we would feel any effect).

February 26, 2017

5 hours ago, Kiithnaras said:

As the title suggests, evidence is mounting that alts, alternate accounts owned and played by the same physical person, are causing more and more frustration with the general playerbase (i.e. non-alt-users). Even without shady things like preventative tagging, counter-aggression, and battle-filling, a person with more than one account has that many more crafting hours, outposts, production buildings, and market contracts. It is the very definition of pay-to-win. Individuals like @Anolytic, who have admitted to having no less than six accounts, are capable of easily belting out exceptional first-rates every single day.

This is a major problem for the game at large. Usage of alts in the game, while it is nice for GameLabs, financially, for now, seriously hinders the health of the community and the longevity game. The very ships that the devs have indicated that should be rare and, explicitly, exceptional, are no big deal for people with multiple accounts.

Shady tactics like using cross-nation alts to hide in battles, countering or abusing hostility, and entering large-ship battles in small ships, only to escape shortly after the battle begins, are all examples of game-breaking tactics that ruin the fun for the game.

I propose that holders of alts at least be allowed to surrender their alt accounts for redeemables (paints and ship chests) for a short period of time. Following this grace period, any person found using an alt should be banned permanently.

First off I'd like to refer you to @Snoopy when it comes to the whole SOLs are exceptional idea!!!

Secondly as Augustus already said many people could be named and shamed. In fact I have come to believe that off the 400-600 still active during peak times at least 20-50 must be alts by now. So a name and shame on @Anolytic is completely useless here and also has no place. Also I with absolutely no alts whatsoever (I don't even have an account on the other servers or alts in any of the games I have ever played) can produce a 1st -3rd Rate every 2-3 days without clan help (although due to the development in regards to crafting since November it has been a major pain/time grind and had some major wear and tear on my motivation to start this game in the first place). SO let's face it his advantage in the terms of crafting can only be seen as extra help/slave labour and only gives him a minor advantage - I don't even see this being worth 35€ once!!!

Thirdly I think we are past the point where alts can be forbidden. People have not only been allowed to buy more accoutns but by some moderators and on occasion the devs even encouraged to by alts. To take them out now would nearly come down to fraud and would crush any cooperation there ever was with the devs.

All of that being said - I agree with you that allowing alts was a major mistake to begin with. Not when it comes to crafting. As I said before I see no problem there as people working together and grinding resources can still achieve major production. However as you mentioned people can sadly not be trusted with uncontrollable assets. The spy problem has at some point been so bad that talking about anything but the weather in the GB Nation chat came down to treason. And people dick around with alts to ruin port battles and tag fleets.

I personally have mostly left RvR but about once a week I tend to show up for one. Yet I always live by the rule that when I see anyone using shady tactics on either side I am out of there. Believe me that is the best you can do and yes that is killing the fun.

February 25, 2017

There is no cost but you obviously no longer ahve access to the clan's warehouse so anything you deposited in there will be out of reach once you leave.

February 25, 2017

jajaja - all the best to you guys

lookin forward to seeing your corpses dangle from my yardarm

February 24, 2017

@Kloothommel People losing their rag over ports on the other end of the map that only had the reason to not see them in the enemies hands. I'd be more annoyed about the ships we lost defending that strategically useless pile of crap for the last months... I have come to really like my little crafting corner in which I sit and craft not caring about RvR. Have ships and waste em thats your problem

Also this is me adressing everybody who just lost their silver mine in a frontline port

February 24, 2017

You know some of us actually like palying first rates and not jsut because they carry a lot of guns. This is by no means a realistic game so why do a small amount of people constantly demand that us SOL captains lose our content?!?! I could even agree to the demand to make 5th rates the leading ship class however can people get this bloody content removal/nerf idea out of their heads please.

Maybe jsut maybe the idea could come up to just make 5th rates more viable so people for RvR and the majority of PvP sail 5th rates. Then us SOL captains can still enjoy ourselves without losing our aspect of the game and you guys can look at a lot more frigates. Tbh I dont even know why I still bother trying to talk this over - should SOLs ever be removed/made nearly unusuable I'm outta here anyway. The Surprise and Rattlesnake are fun maybe once or twice a week but thats it and thats not enough.

February 23, 2017

11 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Would a pump suit help and be a product to enable marathon streamers to keep their blood flowing ? Oh business opportunities

Adapt one of those space suits for gamer purposes Doesn't need a closed air cycle but all the food/pee stuff can stay

February 23, 2017

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/

http://www.readex.com/content/americas-historical-newspapers

https://archive.org/

http://library.law.yale.edu/research/guides/resources/americas-historical-newspapers

https://storycorps.org/

http://library.princeton.edu/resource/4336

https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/indexes/eanx

http://www.lib.umd.edu/dbfinder/id/UMD07772

https://libraries.indiana.edu/americas-historical-newspapers

https://www.usmcu.edu/historydivision

http://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/ELECTRONIC-LIBRARY/

Not sure how accessible some of these sources are gonna be for you guys but that should cover you for a while.

Also you can access all the .gov/.org pages for more sources they tend to reach quite far back soemtimes and are open source.

February 23, 2017

7 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Still a good stretch every 90 minutes ( 10 minutes break ) is a must i would say, even being fit.

yeah of course the occasional 10-30misn break should be in there - for the intake of food without a live feed of a guy munching on a burger in the very first place

February 23, 2017

Well the 24 hour streams aren't necessarily that bad. And charity streams are kinda fun as well. But there is a reason streamers usually do these with a day break before and after and they tend to have supproting gamers who can jump in/lead the action for a while so there can be little breaks. Been on a few myself as a supporting gamer and although 24 hours is entirely possible a certain physical wellbeing should be a prerequisite for actually doing that.

February 22, 2017

Totally agree. The mciromanagement of untis that leave good positions is annoying. And when I have to order them back to their top notch position they lose men due to being shot in the back an entirely unnecessary scenario considering all they had to do was not move forward. I can deal with micro managing attacks/pursuits as if I miss out on it all I lose is not ahving killed 100 enemies (can always just do it later) but micro managing retreats/holds means unnecessary losses that dont come back while I am unaware of the units actions (especially on big battlefields there might be a few seconds during which you didnt spot the idiocy yet) and while I try to correct the units actions.

Even for newer units - a hold order means hold. If newer units run away due to moral losses I dont mind but to run forward away from secure positions...

February 21, 2017

Now dont get me wrong I love the idea of fishing boats. If people want to use them hey its more variety. However do you really wanna make it even harder to get any fighting going considering it would thin out the warships crowd?

February 19, 2017

Fleets simulate the escorts the lack of palyerbase can no longer provide (it also never pays off/is a waste of time unless youre escorting clan resources to the clan warehouse). It is only incompetence that stands in your way of boarding a trader even/in particular as a lone ship. While I can somewhat even see the point the playerbase can sadly not be trusted to actually attack a trader/warship with a limited/no fleet on their own and not do the ususal 5 ship gank fleet we can't just abolish the solution to it. And as this is easily overcome with skill (or at least I never had a problem) it is also not a problem that needs immediate addressing!

February 18, 2017

27 minutes ago, admin said:

You don't have to get me, and we don't have to get you. We offered you a game for a good price (through steam). That was a deal. Nothing else.
We don't have to get each other at all

On the serious note
This is a development forum and NN uses up 80% of moderation time - th time that can instead be spent on clearing things in game development topic and collecting and structuring feedback.

I get limiting the moderation time but you might wanna rethink your statement!!! You can develop the best game in the whole wide world and with no community to play it that means absolutely nothing! Community interaction and management is as much a part of game development as is coding and background research!!!

February 17, 2017

1juzyk.jpg.4b2217e938e4c45bdebb3cbeb44830ea.jpg

1jv065.jpg.2d2e19e13305b66e39fc29a389bd2f6d.jpg

February 15, 2017

Yeah I am aware of the marking thing but that was not there before mate! Did you take it out in between?

February 15, 2017

Didn't know Tommy left the game?!

Btw when I wrote my comment Vicious' post was only a single line. That entire seemingly empty box underneath did not exist!

February 15, 2017

My condolences to the Americans

Have fun with that guy.

Edit: When I wrote my comment VIcious post only had a single line and not that entire 'seemingly' empty box underneath it!

February 11, 2017

3 hours ago, koltes said:

Yet every patch seem to nerf pvp one way or another.

Yeah well the problem with that is that PvE hasn't seen much of a change for easily a year now. Fleets was the last big one. I play both PvP and PvE and I find less joy in both lately... I'm pretty much just crafting for the enthusiastic guys these days as I will still support those.

February 3, 2017

4 hours ago, Alan Demarest said:

All I can say is that I am sick and tired of "screening".

I play this game to have battles, not sit in empty port while watching points tick up, because enemy fleet can't get in to fight us.

In what historical setting did a battle outside of a port prevent the fleet from attacking the port after the battle? Did the admirals in question go, "Oh shoot, it'll be outside the orders the admirality gave me! Better sail back!"

Ok you can bring forth a lot of arguments in this discussion but that one is just pure bullshit. Navies would constantly fight delaying actions with mxied or unconclusive results. This was meant to buy the land defenses time to set up meaning that by the time the screen was broken there was no chance anymore to get the marines ashore without massive losses. The french screen near Yorktown even emant that the fleet sent to evacuate Cornwiallis army could not safely reach shore and had to abort leaving an entire army trapped ashore and thereby allowing the US to become the US for good.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by JollyRoger1516