Tenet

Your argument must have been weak if you are using such a weak deflection to defend. You ignored a major group of players that does not fit, and actually opposes in some ways, every single other group in your post. You said nothing about the trait producing cooperation among opposites. Do you always only directly respond to Yes-men and supporters? That's a characteristic of the inflexible and uncooperative. More on cooperation from Lao Tze, GNL is not Lao: I have to note that I have not been reading and thinking about those extracts of wisdom often enough, and avoidable mistakes were made. http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v4.html

You are missing at least one more type, the one that just wants classic 3-faction RvR without any prospects of domination and without driving opponents out of the game. The person that likes the screening and 25v25 PB and the OW maneuvering that reaches that culmination, and for whom long term strategical implications are more of a detriment than a goal. For such a person the map would always Reset in "rebellion" whenever one side got too strong and whenever two sides would push too hard against the third. Why isn't that kind of player represented in your summary? You think there are no such French? The reason you aren't working together isn't because you have different types of people, but because they are generally too lazy as a whole, and don't understand that sometimes to move forward you need to take a step sideways. You have too many classical "Scrubs" in matters of cooperation. Was the first thing you did after wipe is create a national meeting to set short and long term goals and listen to all the different types voice their preferences? Did you establish a central voice chat where all nation members must stay connected by convention? Did you elect empowered representatives with specifically written mandates and goals for Diplomacy, allowing each player type to thrive? Did even try to create an appearance of a respectable entity that can be somewhat trusted in anything by other Nations?! I interviewed several French players over the past month and there was always the hint of the "scrub" in much of the argumentation of their position: http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html For example: "The Danes were unfair to me once, therefore, forever, I will never work with the Danes to win the game (to balance the map, to survive an attack from a larger foe, to gain more long term opportunities to PvP/Trade/RvR, etc. " The funny thing is that the Dutch also have scrubs, but of a different kind. The French can be quite on meta in ship building and battle tactics and bringing the right ships to the OW. The Dutch have some individuals that reject the meta without even testing and take multiple beatings to convince. The French are completely off-meta on internal organization and cooperation, and don't even play the same game as the rest of the server. You have multiple individuals that declare various forms of cooperation as "inherently impossible" while providing no evidence of conducting any clean and unbiased experimentation. The Dutch have just as many people with wildly different in-game priorities, but who, on the level of clans and diplomacy, work very well together. Internal frictions exist, but they are kept in check by the prevailing drive to cooperate - the recognition that to achieve a personal goal becomes much easier if trading forms of effort with a person of entirely different goals in the game. This is particularly glaring when I talk politics with a French player - the claims become entirely irrational and speak of deep ignorance of the reality on the server. Non-existing alliances are quoted, pre-wipe grievances that should have no relevance from "play to win" perspective. There is some weird role playing considerations involved - a French pride that manifests itself in superficial declarations but contradicts the reality of this being just a game. These traits exist in other nations, but to a much lesser degree. Words of a Nation, behavior of tribal clans. This is the core of your problem - you may be keeping up to speed on how to sail ships, but your cooperation game is the weakest on the server. You are trying to justify your bad game by claiming good game is impossible, while ignoring that many others succeed where you fail. Naval Action tests more than your ability to utilize a Teak/Teak Victory in a PB, or to mount a raid against fat traders. I seem like bashing the French in this, so here's a necessary edit: players low in cooperation ability exist in all nations, trouble starts when they become a majority of the influencers. p.s. Bartle Taxonomy isn't the word of god. He's a mere human, he was writing from a perspective of a developer that did not have PvP experience, and his view on PvPers as only "Killers" was incredibly shallow. He failed to predict or recognize the sporting mentality and competitive PvP, for example. Quoting him in general, without specific arguments, becomes a form of "support by authority", a logical fallacy.

Your propaganda has been corrected in purple. P.S. Classy move to end the battle in the Port, Teutonic. We'll meet again.

I was in that encounter, and it's not exactly as you describe... I lured you into a gank with my Reno, coordinated the fleet and burned your speed-build upgraded heavy frigate. The battle resulted in some losses because another person overruled my calls and split the fleet - pulling people out the battle to save a straggler. That straggler was not part of the pursuit force and should have been abandoned to sink in punishment. We were not compelled to split, and had we stayed together no one else would sink. Why do you call a custom speed build Essex (or was it Endy?) a mere "Frigate"? I barely noticed that key hidden among the boasting. Is saying "Custom Heavy Frigate" bring too much PTSD? I thought we treated you kindly after the battle, salutes and compliments. Points some Dutch should have learned: - Slow ships don't bloody count. People bringing unmaxed "tanky" uselessly slow garbage heaps to an OW chase. This results in whining about being out of shooting range for the chase, and pressure to split up. - People, at the time, not having chase ships in multiple ports to have the gage when responding to incursions. - Overruling the lead in a chase and splitting forces is almost always awful My results from that battle: - Proved to certain ignoramuses that a Reno "with no bow chasers" can bloody well chase. - Achieved all main objectives: trap a Runner fleet and burn the most expensive ship.

Do you have a recording/stream? Should mention the wind shifted mid battle, coming from the North and giving France the weather gage. It was fun indeed, we exchanged some iron.

Agree completely with all arguments. One more excellent suggestion to promote open world PvP - since if grinding hostility is lucrative, both sides will be inclined to show up and fights between fleets will be more likely.

Correction: According to the Naval Action Crafting Calculator the cost of ships is 100% to 200% higher due to Labor Hour costs compared to their cost in materials. The cost in Labor Hours of making Specialty Wood Frame Parts is obscene. The cost in Labor Hours of making Tar and Planking is obscene. Labor Contracts go for 250 to 500K on open market BEFORE massive ship-sinking conflicts occurred. We were told that ships will be easier to craft - they reduced material costs several times, but no one is touching the LH costs. LH costs are buried throughout the system, from extracting resources to crafting. There is also a huge PvE grind of unlocking your Warehouse to the point where you can store the ship materials and resources all at once to build a ship. There is also a huge PvE grind to unlock skill books and ONE-DURA critical ship upgrades. I may disagree with OP on other issues, and so with many posters in this thread, but there is no doubt whatsoever that this game is too heavy on PvE and that PvP rewards are awful for the time investment required. The problem isn't that PvP is a money sink, it's that resetting and going out again went up from 1 hour fight 1 hour grind to a ratio of 1 to 10 in one update. Exception being small unit tactics that benefit from the "Uncatchable Joe" protection (chasing is a time waste, no reward for catching).

Right, I'm actually playing devil's advocates and explaining exactly how this is not an issue. He is saying people constantly popping out with ships will be a bigger issue with my suggestion. I think the "problem" already exists but is no real problem, as you said. My suggestion is purely quality of life - I want to spend less time transporting my spare ships out to the frontline - transport and store more of them at a time without these new handicaps while still being possible to intercept in OW.

The harassing, if any, still involves sailing from a friendly port into enemy waters with each ship. If you don't want the "expanded warship docks" option in Free Ports, you have a point and that can be an exception. If I sail out of Pampatar to attack De Espana I have to spend 15-25 minutes depending on the wind getting there, then finding the enemy, then fighting. If I lose, I still have to sail back in a basic cutter, and sail out again, spending 30-50 minutes to reset even if I had a ready ship waiting. If I win, the enemy in home waters refits a store ship in minutes. The repeated showing is already in the game, so my suggestion is just a minor quality of life improvement. The real way to make someone stop attacking is to break their morale or running them out of time - that's the real cause of any result you get.

You are right, and that part of the suggestion can be reworked - it's there for balance options not realism. Perhaps the assigning of prize crew will be a sufficient limit - I want some middle ground between "unable to move ships around" and "ships follow in fleet and fight for you". I need the "moving" part without the "fighting" part of the perk, and to be able to move more ships than can fight. I also think moving ships in prize crews that can't fight back (for balance reasons) should be available as a basic ability for all captains. I want to hear an argument from someone who doesn't like the actual idea of being able to prepare for PvP by moving larger groups of your ships out to an outpost, and storing them there for fighting.

Why are you talking about teleports. You are not even responding to the topic written out. The ships in my suggestion have to be physically be moved to another port - perhaps with prize crews that don't have the manpower to fight back, but enough to raise sails and follow. Previously we could move 5 durability at a time, and teleport (which is the part you understandably dislike). Previously we could dock 5 durability per slot (which is the part of this suggestion you also didn't address). Now we have to sail 2 ship at a time in most cases out to outposts instead of 5-10 dura as before, and the frequency of PvP declined in areas where sailing distances aren't tiny (outside the pirate islands).

I would want that except I think they won't be able to load that all to the server and you want the least amount of client side calculation as possible.

This is much more noticeable once you sail ships with more guns. Trust me, OP is right, currently once the first shot in a broadside volley is fired, the rest behave as if the ship remained on the same phase of the roll. Only turning affects the following shots. You have to fire a broadside to see it, individual shots obviously don't share that behavior. I can't decide whether the suggestion will improve the game or make it too complex.

1. Give everyone Ship Towing ability: Fleet Control Perk change: New extra feature: Ship Towing - transport multiple uncrewed ships at once (limited to tier 5, see explanation) Dock Storage change: Existing: 5+3+3 etc. Ship Slots that can accept any ship New: 5 extra slots that can accept ONLY Tier 5 Warships. Optional: Only Light Frigates and below. Their storage can be restricted to only accept repairs (to avoid affecting slot balance). Explanation: 1. Ship Towing is needed to promote OW PvP as a way to prepare for longer PvP sessions on front lines. This function of the basic Fleet Control will allow a heavy ship to tow multiple smaller ships out to an outpost. Towed ships do not show up in battle (or if they do, they can't fight back). If the towing ship gets destroyed or captured, they get lost. (both these points can be adapted) Each ship will have a new number - Tow Size. Only ships of 5th rate or lower can be towed. Example: Constitution = 6; Suprise = 2; Snow = 1; Constitution can tow 1 Constitution or 3 Surprises or 6 Snows; Surprise can tow 1 Surprise or 3 Snows; Snow can tow 1 Snow; You will be able to bring multiple ships out to a remote outpost and then use them to fight against enemies, allowing you to prepare for an evening of fighting with less sailing around. This will be risky - if you get intercepted you can lose a fortune in ships. (Whether they can be captured or just sunk or sold is a balancing question. I am uncertain). For this suggestion to truly shine, the Docks need a similar themed expansion: 2. Docks Storage will have 5 expanded slots exclusive to 5th rate or below Warships. Perhaps it can be further limited to ships of a certain Tow-size, making it available for light frigates but not the heavier ones. Perhaps that storage could be configured to accept no items except Repairs. What people didn't realize is that when we lost Ship Durability, the size of our Docks was effectively proportionally reduced - now to achieve the same # of lives we have to have 5 time the ships in most cases. This update will provide you with 5 slots exclusive for 5th rates or lighter ships to engage in OW PvP with more zeal and aggression, not fearing a prolonged down-time and rewarding people that prepare replacements. Feedback and Questions about this suggestion are welcome!

Many things are not like in Age of Sail - the fact that you survive getting sunk or captured being one of many examples. This is about the gameplay. The current tag-circle in the game is much smaller than sight range - not sure why you are arguing about "out of sight"? Are you agreeing with me that it should be bigger to avoid ridiculous situations where you can see a battle start but can't get in because "can't join battles" timer? We did something wrong according to the current terrible restrictions - never denied the mistake. The "sail as a fleet" implies right now in the game to fit your ships one on top of another, sometimes being unable to see the actual model. Anything else can allow a fleet to be "cut up". That's counter-intuitive and ridiculous. Perhaps I should re-post this thread focusing on the "can't join battle" timer, because that's actually the thing that prevents a proper response within the current system.

One workaround would be to remove the "can't join battle" timer from PvP, and reduce the pre-battle counter below it's current length. The other workaround would be to have a system that responds dynamically to the sizes of fleets involved and their distance from secure locations like Regional Capitals.

You literally ignored every grounds written in earlier posts and spammed this thread trying to derail and flame bait. Good job failing to argue your side and making me win by default. The tag circle has nothing to do with realism or miles or staying close - it's very small compared to the scale and movement of bigger ships in the Open-World. The BR system is static and treats a 1v1 the same way as a 25v25, for no reason specified by anyone in this thread. The "can't join battle" timer after PvP battles is ridiculous and NO ONE in this thread tried to defend it so far. WHO IS RUNNING FROM THE FIGHT AGAIN?

Says the guy protecting himself by the magic "can't shoot for 60 seconds" timer and "can't join battle" timers. Good luck trying to Goebbels approach - your arguments don't grow stronger through repetition.

If you paid any attention to the top post you would notice that your open world ganking is protected or even improved if the system is made dynamic - the further away, the smaller the BR, the smaller the timers. You want to play guerilla warfare? Excellent - stay out of populated areas and strike at actual isolated targets. Fleet vs. Fleet PvP needs less lawyering magic and more dynamic rules. What's the defence for 60 second waits before a battle starts? People with old PC's? What's the defense for the 100+ second "can't join battle" timer after leaving another? PvE Farming? Keep the rule applicable to PvE missions only. ALT Farming? Figure out how to remove it from the game. Group PvP should be the priority because it keeps people coming back and promoting the game to their friends.

Are you paying attention? We were on top of the join circle but could not join because of the "Can't Join Battle" timer that happens when you leave another battle. That other battle also included 1 minute of just waiting for the battle to start - even when the enemy was almost instantly sunk and battle-over.

It's "plenty" unless you have a "can't join battle" timer preventing you from joining the next battle right on top of you, or the Timer preventing you from instantly firing on the enemy next to you. Those timers need to go?

Here comes BORK to defend the lawyering they happened to benefit from this time, and may the game burn. YOU didn't have the people to defend against all the nations you attacked and you are relying on these magic limitations to avoid the actual fight that was brought to your front door. The ridiculously small tag circles relative to BR involved (once you have 10+ ships in an area) The ridiculous limitation on joining a fight after leaving one if there was another battle right near the area. These are the things you selfishly support because "this time" you benefitted from the rules. There is also the timer preventing you from joining another battle. There is also the timer you have to wait inside the battle before it starts. If you want 3 minute timers or less, you need to balance the other timers too, and the Tag Circle and other features of this system.

Yes you are proposing the current lawyer magic spaceship shields remain intact because YOU personally benefit from them and the hell with the gameplay or PvP. The battles were so close when we exited one of them, half our group was right at the edge or inside the join circle for the other battle. We were literally lawyered by Magic out of joining it because of the overlapping timers. This is no "revenge fleet" situation. BR and tagging settings should not be the same for both 1v1 and 10v10 and 25v25 situations. They should be DYNAMIC and adjusting to the SCALE of the forces involved.

Will work. Write out a counter argument.

You missed our example where we were literally on top of each other in game terms. We were not a "revenge fleet" we were not "warped in upon a spaceship" WE WERE RIGHT THERE. That battle lasted over 30 minutes - we could not join near or far or anywhere. YOU are the one defending MAGIC BLOCKING OF PVP. We MAGICALLY cannot assist a ship dragged into a battle almost on top of the battle we left. You are the one trying to lawyer yourself out of fights with imaginary conditions.