Kpt Lautenschlaeger

I take it your comment is ironic? 😉 Humour me for taking it literally, as an intellectual exercise. In a regular, open world engagement, the only thing I'd call "cheating" is actually hacking the game's code, so that it behaves in a way the "cheated" cannot foresee. I have not been subject to that, so all I can do is speculate: it may be possible to tweak things like thickness, turn rates, penetration, reload rates, ... In all other cases where I get my ass handed to me, this will be down to factors that, in my dim view of the world, do not constitute cheating: I got ganked: Tough luck. This is frustrating, to be sure, but unavoidable in a sandbox OW. Plus, eluding gankers is another skill set which I can learn. My opponent had a superior ship: again, that happens in a sandbox. If it is gold, fitted with everything but the kitchen sink, that captain probably invested time in the game to get it. Even if they didn't, that is tough luck for me, not cheating. My opponent handled their ship better: again, they can probably do that because they spent more time training, or have a better talent for these sorts of things. For me, that is the opposite of cheating: this is teaching me by taking me to the cleaners. By showing off what they are doing, that captain gives me an opportunity to learn new stuff. In a Gunroom fight, I can extend "cheating" to mean "breaking a pre-battle agreement". For instance, should the participating captains agree not to use reps for some reason, but one of them does, that captain would indeed be "cheater" in my eyes. Or much more damning: "Not a gentleman". But that has not happened so far, nor do I expect it to.

Saha!, vengeance was mine tonight! 😊 To be fair, mine was the tankier ship, and I had the good fortune to hit home with a chain salvo early on. Again, a tense but sportsmanlike fight, with enough time for a bit of banter in chat. 'Ta Griswold.

I agree. But duels are a good way to practice good manners, since you only have an opponent to talk to. No distraction from fleet coordination.

We had our first duel yesterday, and it was very good fun. As you can see, I got the seat of my pants handed to me, in a sportsmanlike manner. I really like playing the game this way.

Hoch geschätzte Kapitäne, wir laden ganz herzlich all diejenigen von Euch, denen der Sinn nach zivilisierten Gefechten mit anderen Spielern im Sinne des guten Sportsgeistes steht, zu diesem Discord ein: The Gunroom - Discord ( https://discord.gg/mTzUuVJ ) Wir legen gemeinsam Wert auf ehrenwertes Benehmen gegenseitigen Respekt und krachende Breitseiten gut gesegelter Schiffe Wir freuen uns, Euch auf dem Ozean zu begegnen. Link zum englischen Originalthread: https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/37048-the-gunroom-good-manners-at-high-seas/

Let me know if you would like me to post this to the German-speaking sub-section (native speaker). Happy to proof-read the Spanish, if you have need.

May I suggest we move the tactical and mechanical discussion to another thread? To keep this one focused on RegularK's idea.

Good thinking, that man. I had jotted down similar thoughts privately a while ago. Might as well make them public here. I'd be happy if you could provide feedback: A Statement on Gentlemanly Conduct, for and between Masters and Commanders, Pursuing their Divers Endeavours in the Caribbean Seas (I) I am content with being Content. (II) I endeavour to provide a challenging fight. (II.1) If my squadron is vastly superior, I will solicit my fellow captains to withdraw some vessels. I will not insist on odds being even, but I will strive that our opponent has a chance to enjoy the battle, rather than be clubbed to death without an actual game. (II.2) I fight to the end. Ending a fight against a superior foe through the application of seamanship is not a dishonourable thing. Refusing an engagement by technical means, or by surrendering before battle is joined, is. (III) I am polite in chat. (III.1) I salute my fellow captains, and my opponents at the beginning and at the end of an engagement. (III.2) I offer my opponent a de-brief in chat after the engagement, as opportunity permits. (III.3) If necessary, and only if necessary, I respond to strong language in measured tones. (III.4) I will speak up if my side’s communication leaves the boundaries of polite conversation between gentlemen. And ladies, for that matter. I will be joining that Discord now.

Oh, definitely. For the sailing warships expertise, for the period flavour, and the buddy-movie-narrative. I finished the series about 5 years, and enjoyed it to the last book.

In Seeferkel's name, we would like to thank all captains who paid their respect. A pleasure to sail with you all. We will post screenshots as a memento.

Thank you for organising this, Despe, I will be there.

Despe postet Ort und genaue Zeit am Sonntagabend im Laufe des Tages. Despe will update this thread with a place and exact time for Sunday evening soon.

I like the idea very much. Tumbado or (and?) La Tortue on Sunday evening sounds like a good time. I will be there in a black Pirate Frigate, I remember Seeferkel sailing such a boat.

Wir haben heute erfahren, dass Seeferkel, Clan Leader der LLAMAs, am vergangenen Donnerstag verstorben ist. Ich selbst bin als Preusse und Russe mit Seeferkel gesegelt, und habe ihn kennen und schätzen gelernt als jemanden, der Naval Action mit Leidenschaft spielt, und kein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt. Damit ist er sicherlich hin und wieder angeeckt, aber für meinen Teil mochte ich seine Kodderschnauze und seinen schrägen Humor gerne. Seeferkel wird mir fehlen. 😔

Ich denke, der zweite Punkt ist der wichtigere: "Mechanismen [...], die es Nationen schwerer macht, sich solch starke Positionen zu erspielen". Ein Reset ohne die Einführung von ebensolchen wird meines Erachtens nur dazu führen, dass sich das System von einem ausgeglichen(er)en Startzustand erneut zu einem Gleichgewicht bewegt, in dem eine Nation (welche auch immer) dominiert. Insofern scheint es mir einen Versuch wert, solche Mechanismen einzuführen und erst einmal zu kucken, ob sich ein neuer Gleichgewichtszustand einpegelt. Falls nicht, wäre die zweite Manipulation ein Reset. Dabei ist der Knackpunkt natürlich, die Mechanismen richtig zu definieren.

Der Vollständigkeit halber: formal bleiben Name und Clan des LLAMA erst einmal bei den Russen. Das allerdings mit deutlich geringerer Kopfzahl, weil einige Spieler (wie eben auch Cid) woanders hingehen. Ist aber keine Auflösung in Streit, Mord und Totschlag, sondern ein Auseinandergehen aufgrund unterschiedlicher Interessen. Jedenfalls aus meiner Wahrnehmung.

I beg to differ. Cid hat lange Zeit die Politik Preußens wesentlich mit definiert und umgesetzt. Da finde ich seine Perspektive hoch interessant. Zumal er klar sagt, dass es eine Sicht der Dinge ist, und nicht die absolute Wahrheit ex cathedra.

Ich möchte da Georg und Cid beipflichten. Wenn ich mir vorstelle, dass ich nach dem Ende einer Runde meine XP und ggf. meine Flotte (oder eine festgelegte, für alle verbindliche Anzahl an Schiffen) behalten könnte, ergibt sich die Möglichkeit... ... eine andere Nation zu wählen. ... mit meiner Lieblingsnation in eine andere Richtung loszutoben. ... mal eine Runde als Pirat auszuprobieren, yarrh. Ach nee, g'scheite Piratenregeln haben wir ja nicht. Das brächte m.E. willkommene Abwechslung in's Spiel. Voraussetzung wäre, das entweder die Runden recht lang sind (3+ Monate), oder der Crafting und Economy Grind abgemildert wird. Oder daß man einmal errichtete Werften/Gießereien/Werkstätten als Redeemabl behält und dann zu einem beliebigen Zeitpunkt einlösen kann.

Schau'n wir mal, was kommt. Ungeachtet dessen möchte ich dieser Publikation meinen Dank dafür aussprechen, dass hier nach langer Zeit mal wieder eine lesbare Debatte stattfand. Kontroversen und gelegentliche Polemik stören mich nicht, solange sie um eine Debatte kreisen, und nicht Selbstzweck werden. Chapeau, also.

I think a map reset without accompanying change in RvR mechanics will essentially result in a replay, terminating in the same situation as we have now. I'm stumped for what change in RvR mechanics could prevent this, I have to admit. I would venture to say that a good first step towards understanding this may be to examine the motivational roots for the current situation. Essentially: what make a nation dominant, and how does that incentivise players to choose nations as they do? So... How does one nation dominate at the moment? I think (and I may be completely wrong, please discuss) because it has (a) many captains; (b) among them competent RvR captains; (c) effective coordination within the nation. Why do many players, and many pro RvR players, gravitate towards such a nation? I don't know, but would like to put forward some hypotheses, like... ... player preference for particular nations. ... large nations offering a safe haven for captains to grow in terms of commerce, PvE XP farming, farming rngesus items, crafting infrastructure ... all the things I missed Once you have the captain base, why/how does a nation coordinate? I don't have a hello kittying clue. Nonsense? Discuss! Please? 😊

I'll give this another try. 😊 RvR mechanism proposal RvR change rationale, current version and whats wrong currently, RvR events work like: process opens with hostility generation by dedicated open world missions, and ends with port battle (closed dedicated instance). Based on personal anecdotal evidence, this leads to stealth rush hostility generation, i.e. dedicated big ship fleets rush out, slam through a couple of missions, and the PB is set in a couple of hours; then a dedicated PB fleet sails next day, and may or may not be screened out. What I don't like about this: RvR campaigns are short, frantic and quite digital. They encourage deploying specialised ships and fleet set-ups. There is little opportunity for independent clans and players to join and contribute ad hoc, with the exception of screening fleets. what I'd like to see: keep the port battle format, because it is a good way to achieve set-piece battles. Extend the open world campaign in time (~2 days) and scope (ship rates and engagement sizes). Proposal on RvR change - switch steps conquest opens with a port battle. I see no problem with this being teleport-into-PB, as proposed recently. Once PB is won, a conquest counter starts registering results of conquest missions in the OW (similar to the current hostility missions). If the attackers fight the counter up to 100%, the port is conquered. I think this has good potential for trial-and-error tuning, with parameters like conquest percentage per mission, daily cap on conquest percentage gain conquest percentage save points (if you fought it up past 50%, it cannot be dropped below that) limitations on available conquest missions et cetera ... to achieve a protracted campaign in the OW, allowing a greater and more diverse set of players to join in.

Lasst uns mal abwarten, wie sich die neuen Hostility-Mechaniken ausgestalten und auswirken. In einer (aus meiner Sicht) idealen Welt würden sie dazu führen, dass um den umkämpften Hafen herum über längere Zeit PvP in größerem Stil passiert, mit einem bunten Mix an Schiffen. Wunschdenken, weiß ich, aber die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt. Und dann dreh' ich nochmal meine alte Leier: meines Erachtens sollten sie die RvR-Mechanik umkehren. Ein Port Battle eröffnet den Reigen, und schließt einen Hafen für die Eroberung auf, wenn der Angreifer gewinnt. Eroberung bzw. Abwehr läuft dann über PvP- und PvE-Gefechte, so wie jetzt Hostility. Allerdings langsamer, nicht so wie aktuell: zwei Missis in 1st rates, aus die Maus.

Finde ich klasse, dass solche Initiativen weiterhin aufkommen, und hoffentlich bestehen bleiben. Ich meine, dass solche Medien mit Redaktion für Neukapitäne mehr bringen als das teilweise doch sehr erbitterte Forum. Und das sage ich ausdrücklich als exKRAKE-neuLLAMA, der sein Fett weg bekommt. Kanns den Preußen nicht verdenken.

Uncapped stacking of modifiers/bonuses. I accept the rationale of having various mechanisms for generating modifiers: books, modules, woods, rare items, as they drive distinct in-game actions and strategies. What bugs me is that the bonuses add up, and the higher tiers of such stacks are more readily available only to players who are very good. So players who have an advantage by being just plain competent, get an additional advantage by having access to higher bonuses.

Something I'd like to see, and would be happy to volunteer for: a player acts as a GM controlling 3 traders (LGVs, TBrigs), and travels from port A to port B in the open world, passing port C. Participants can join the event either as escorts at A, or as commerce raiders at C (e.g. via battlegroup mechanism?). Raiders try to capture or sink the traders, escorts try to fend them off. Event is over when either the traders reach B, or all traders are sunk/captured. GMs can give out "most valued captain" awards based on what they saw.