William the Drake

There does seem to be a bit of confusion: I know that when you try to attack a larger force, you get a message stating "BR Difference too high" does this pertain only when the attacker is the lower BR, or only when attacking NPCs? Regardless of the fact that a privy can sail at beam and upwind better than square rigs, having a system that discourages seal-clubbing may be necessary. But as always, it is finding the balance between absolute freedom and restriction is the hard part.

Make Admiralty orders a dark green exclamation point, make battles dark red crossed swords, crossed cannons? The current color for admin chat (gold) is good. For mods, perhaps dark blue? (To match their "moderator" tag in the forums?

Very happy to see an old enemy! Good luck!

But here's the thing: having people take a specific action to "go" pirate as opposed to simply starting out as one isn't preventing or blocking them from a mechanic, it's delaying them. The mechanic is still accessible to everyone. It's the same as lineships: everyone can sail them, but everyone also has to jump through some sort of artificial hoop to get to them, whether it be leveling up to get the crew for them, or the actual crafting of it. The content is there for anyone and everyone who is willing to work for it. Let's look at ArcheAge, who's pirate system could probably work very well here: in the game, players start on 2 opposing factions. Each player can commit various crimes: killing friendlies (known as "purpling), steeling crops, etc. When a player who has committed crimes is killed, they are sent to a trial. A computer (bot) led trial with an all player jury. Based on evidence that has been collected and reported by other players in the world, the jury can decide if the defendant is innocent or guilty, and if guilty, how long they spend in jail (an actual, in-game jail where a player cannot perform any actions-even emotes- for the entirety of his/her sentence, Real-Time). Once a player commits and is found guilty of a certain amount of crimes, they turn pirate. ArcheAge was the first game my clan came across when we made our exodus from PotBS. It wasn't a perfect fit, but as a F2P MMORPG with naval combat, it was enough. And if there were pirates, we were going to be pirates. Or at least so we thought. The process of becoming pirate was no joke, and you were KoS for any of the other 2 nations, including their OP NPC guards. Furthermore, you lost connection with everything: all the land you had, any clan you were in, gone, and you were sent to the pirate island. As a clan, this was too much to ask from both our members and our leadership. Once we established ourselves, going pirate was no longer an option simply because we were well situated. There are still some plans to go pirate, but it is less of a need and more of a want now. In ArcheAge, when you came across a pirate, you knew that player had put in the work to be a pirate: gave up everything and committed a ton of crimes and spent a lot of time in jail. And that was intimidating. And that's how it should be; pirate players should have a reputation, even for just turning pirate. And if you think it's not possible for whole clans to switch to pirate in this system, many in ArcheAge have, multiple times. Again, the hope is to avoid Pirates turning into the PotBS Pirates, which were in fact just another nation that was pointlessly under-powered.

That's the point: In PotBS, you could be [somewhat of] a troll by accepting the surrender (thus accepting the loot offered for the surrender) and then sink the other player regardless. Here it should be done automatically: if you accept the player's surrender, they are immediately taken out of the battle. Reputation and bounty systems have been discussed for a while here. I hope that development of International relations (war & peace mechanics) will facilitate a need for some of these. Notoriety, Infamy, "Heat" and Bounties

Sid Meier's Pirates! Live the Life should dominate the #1 spot in these lists, if only for the replayability and addictiveness that is to be expected from anything Sid Meier's (looking at you civilization). But seriously, Pirates is the universal pirate game, because everyone at least knows of either the original original '87 game or the 2004 remake, both of which are pretty awesome. Otherwise, AC IV is definitely up there, if only for Ubisoft recognizing the sailing potential from AC III as well as the beautiful graphics and shanties. East India Company and Commander: Conquest of the Americas would be a middle contender (the two are basically the same game, just in different areas of teh world. Unlike Empire: total War, these two focus specifically on overseas trade and combat. They are not spectacular; the naval combat system is somewhat lacking for being such a key piece of the game, but the games are rather challenging overall. Similar could be said of the Port Royale series. PotBS, only because it was my first MMO. Back in the day it was good, but a toxic community, ill-conceived economy patches, and almost no moderator or administrator presence pushed my society and I out of the game. Tropico 2: Pirate cove. A city builder, but technically an Age-of-sail city builder, and you don't come across those often.

Beware the Kraken gents

So it's actually a thing: I have a mate playing it on TS and downloading it myself right now. It's real: you can sail ships. Now if they're serious about actually developing this past April 1st, I have my doubts

But that's just it: i'm saying pirates shouldn't be a nation, or even like a nation: we need to be separate, unique, fun! It's less of another play type and more along the lines of a next-level sort of thing.

Going on the RecordJust out-and-out removing pirates is hardly the direction to go. Pirates are a fact of history and the time period. Pirates can be done, they just need to be done right. At the moment, yes they are more of a nation, but hopefully there will be some changes in the near future that address this. I disagree: as stated in my post on the subject, this would simply be a first step; something that provides some sort of barrier, however superfluous, that creates a known separation between the nations and pirates, and one that may even reduce players who simply "start" as pirates. Furthermore, it would be an initial system whereas later down the line of development, there could be a pirate mechanic like in ArcheAge where to go pirate you must not only commit X amount of crimes, but also be convicted of them.

I meant that when they offered a surrender and the surrender was accepted, the players would not be automatically taken out of the combat instance. So in PotBS, one could accept a surrender and sink the person in the same instance, no re-tagging required.

So...you're Canadian?

It is becoming very apparent with the current Development Poll that diplomacy and (more importantly) piracy war by far the mot popular aspect of the game that the community at large feels needs to be addressed. While on somewhat of a tangent, I believe that the current "Surrender" and "Capture" mechanics are somewhat lacking, and proper implementation could very well assist in starting to separate pirates and nationals in gameplay- both long and short-term. The Surrender Mechanic Now I've only ever resorted to using the Surrender button once (When it comes down to it, I prefer to go out in a figurative blaze of glory, or a more literal blaze caused by a shot in the magazine). I was in a basic cutter, carrying nothing. I think I lost a durability. I'm not sure if my opponent receive anything, be it gold, XP, or otherwise. Now I believe Surrender should be a viable option, however it should have some different possible outcomes. PotBS, when a player surrendered, the player who was surrendering was given an option of how much of their cargo they would surrender (I found this rather amusing, imagining the banter between captains: "Stop shooting! We surrender! Please don't sink me!...But I'm only giving you 25 percent of my cargo!). This was somewhat viable, as the attacker would most likely receive more booty than they would had they simply sunk the ship (if they intended to capture it, there was little incentive to accept a surrender). However, I feel the choice of mercy should not go to the attacker, not the one surrendering. A player can offer to surrender, and when they do, the attacker would be given a list of options on how to handle the surrender A: Ignore the Surrender ("Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarter, or take any from you!") B: Accept the Surrender; commandeer(plunder) goods/repair kits/modules. Surrendering player is allowed to leave, no durability lost. C: Accept the Surrender; Commandeer Ship. Player is effectively "Sunk", loses one durability. Player loses all goods, modules, etc. The Attacker takes the ship as though they had boarded it. D: Accept Surrender; show mercy. Surrendering player is allowed to leave with everything in tact; no cargo or durability lost. The last 3 options could have further implications should a sort of reputation system be implemented: showing mercy would garner a large amount of good reputation. Now, I'm not one to sing PotBS's praises. Like, ever. However what I did find interesting/amusing, was that when someone offered a surrender, the Attacker could accept the surrender, receive the loot from it, and be able to go back on their word and still sink the player. This was something that seemed like the most piratey: "Ok, we accept your surrender, you can go...Lolz, I lied" Now, as much as I loved the piratiness of it, I seriously believe this is not how it should be implemented here. It is far too susceptible to grief and trolling. The Capture Mechanic: "Send to Admiralty" The ability to "capture" and "take command" of a ship is reserved solely for pirates. Captured ships have one durability, and retain all the characteristics and permanent modules of the ship that was captured. - 1/2 way there, When a ship is captured, the quality of the ship and permanent modules are all degraded. Pirates can use resources to "craft" an extra durability for a captured ship (obviously the resources needed to be equal to what is needed to have build a ship of equal quality from scratch, then adjusted based on how much durability is to be added. Example: if ship A, of Fine quality needs 50 planks to be built with 5 durability, then crafting 1 durability for it once it is captured requires only 10 planks. refilling durability in this manner can only be done by pirates. Similarly, pirates can use resources to upgrade the quality of ships and modules The reasoning behind this is simple: the pirates need to be weened off of mass producing ships the same way that the Nations build ships. At first, pirates would still be able to produce all ships. However this mechanic would allow them an alternate means of acquiring ships, thus pulling them away from the shipyard and out to sea to plunder, where they belong. While pirates should eventually have limitations on what ships they can build, pirates should have the ability to capture any and all ships. NOTE: I do not think pirates should "want" to sail large lineships, however until mechanics change that shift pirate gameplay focus to smaller ships, they should not be limited in the ships they can command. Nationals send captured ships to Admiralty- The Nations' only option for acquiring new ships should be through production and trade. They should not be able to commandeer other ships. Any ships they capture should be sent to the Admiralty, at which point the player will receive one (or be given a choice) of a number of possible rewards, all based on the quality, size, rank, etc. of the ship captured. Such rewards could be - 1/2 there, As of Patch 9.7, all NPC ships are sent to admiralty. Reputation Resources Sums of Gold Medium-High Grade Modules (Only temporary? Only permanent?) Ship Tokens: tokens to be traded for a free ship of medium-high quality. (Example: 5 tokens gets you a Privateer, 500 gets you a Victory). Tokens can vary in grade: Token of Service- to be traded for rank 7-6 vessels (given for capture of ships of similar rank), Token of Valor- to be traded for Rank 2-1 ships. Now why this difference? Because there needs to be some give-and-take here; there needs to start being some differences between pirates and Nationals that don't simply limit one or the other. Instead this will place some level on restriction on both, while providing some sort of trade-off. A pirate can easily capture any ship, but that ship would end up being of a lesser quality due to it being captured. Pirates can still field exceptional ships, but they must do so via upgrading captured ones. Whereas Nationals would have the ability to purchase high grade ships with Tokens, essentially for free, but would have to capture a large number of ships of the same quality to be able to do so. ~Cheers

Port security could be so much more: it could be a measure of what types of ships it sends out to patrol and how difficulty it is for a player of an opposing nation to sneak in. Although I would argue that the more security a port has, the more industry and trade would take place, as traders would see it as a safe and secure place to conduct trade. Pirate Havens, Port Security, and Trade Regulations

Clan Management Tools But the devs are wise in approaching it with some caution; there's nothing like having someone come in and steel all your stuff from under your nose. To be completely honest, one of the biggest issues I had with PotBS was how the socs. and influence operated. Basically you just had a big zerg guild just to farm gold and influence.

If I recall correctly, Tin won a Grammy for Baba Yetu (well deserved). Baba Yetu also happens to be the Christian prayer "Our Father" (in Swahili?)

Whatever the international diplomacy system, I truly hope it does not come with the ability to be dictated by one person in said nation: that is just asking for griefing and abuse. The same could be said of having clan-run diplomacy: a zerg clan (who may or may not participate in global conquest) could ruin the whole system. I don't necessarily think it should be random, and I really want players to have a say in it, but knowing MMO players, as sophisticated, civil, and polite as we would like to see ourselves as, I really don't see a player-run mechanic really working, at any level. I seriously think it needs to be done via AI/Random. Or perhaps have war/peace/and alliances implemented depending actions in game? For example (hypothetically) if Big bad England with their highest player population is bullying poor little France, the game could A have Sweden/Norway/Spain (A faction who is close/next to French AO) declare alliance with France (and thus War on England) A third party (U.S.A./Spain) Declare war on England (no alliance necessary with France Have any alliances England has broken (from alliance to peace) I guess you could have war declared based on aggression by players (kind of like a map-wide "unrest" like PotBS had with ports) but again I feel that could be gamed and abused.Also, not sure if gov't type matters. Seams a bit superfluous at this point; mostly seeing as almost all the nations, save the U.S., are monarchies, and even with the U.S. Sailors (or even citizens for that matter) do not vote on who to ally or go to war with, so that would be pretty similar.

Diplomacy, alliances, piracy/privateering is long overdue for being addressed. If piracy wasn't in such a contentious and (in my opinion) faulty state of affairs, I would have easily picked the further development of crew/officers or the further fleshing out of the economy/resource distribution. When it comes to these things, I am normally of the school of thought of 'finish one project before starting another" (such as the economy in this case) . However i believe the longer we leave pirates the way they are (playing more as another nation than as uniquely pirate) the harder it will be to change further down the line.

The initial idea was to quell a huge influx of players into the pirate faction once the game hit EA. However the ultimate goal is to remove the concept of the "Pirate Nation". Other games have attempted to put pirates on the same playing field as other nations; having them compete for territory, duke it out in line-fights, and compete economically, with rather abysmal results (the main culprit here being Pirates of the Burning Sea). Pirates need to be in a league of their own, and by having it where the only way to become a pirate is to commit an act of piracy enforces that idea, as opposed to having pirate listed among other nations looking like a nation itself. Making players consciously go out and effectively break the law adds weight to the idea of actually "becoming" a pirate. You get a message that drives this home: "You will become a pirate, you will be hunted down." During the initial phases of development, pirates were promoted as going to be one of the hardest factions (current status under debate). Having a system where players could wait to become pirate would be beneficial, as players could learn the ropes of the game under the protection of a nation, and then turn pirate when they feel trained and ready for the brutal world of piracy. Also, trading would not be suited for a pirate, smuggling perhaps?

These images are absolutely beautiful. Being a pirate, I am steeling them only so others may bask in their glory

This is some splendid stuff my good sir! Like others, while I do not agree with a few things presented here, I must commend you for your thoroughness of thought and presentation! Very well done. Now, for brevity I'll simply address the things that I think could do with a bit more tweaking. Please don't take this as me simply disagreeing with everything. This I find a bit limiting. The game is ultimately meant to be played as a sandbox, meaning players should feel free to play anyway they want. If they want to waste a couple real-life hours sailing to Somerset, then let them. Limiting how long one can sail arbitrarily is very restrictive. However, this mechanic could find some solid ground if things like crew morale, provisions, and mutiny mechanics were introduced. A crew who is low on provisions would definitely begin to drop off and be more keen to mutiny, thus resulting in the player losing their ship. Both Mutinies and provision mechanics have been suggested before, but never in great detail. I do believe more missions will come. For now, the current mission mechanic is just like the other newer mechanics; more functional than dynamic at the moment. It is simply providing for its primary function and little else: being another source of XP. There are some whispers that this may actually be the case. I even think the devs have hinted at this in one of the loading screens. One that I believe reads: "There are no secret islands...or perhaps..." Now comes the big stuff. For starters, the skill trees. While I personally do like how you've mapped it out, and the overall concept, I cannot the support the fact that the skills themselves offer bonuses (especially in combat). The issue is that in the end you should have players ultimately playing on the same field. While ships can vary in module and build, ultimately every player has access to them. But if you bring in inherited bonuses based on these skills, then ultimately you start to make players themselves unbalanced. in the end, in my opinion, it should be pure player skill that wins the day, not inherited bonuses. I had suggested a while back a similar form of skill tree, though as noted, I ensured that the skills I suggested did not directly affect player performance. I would be very interested in any input you may have there: Skills, Specializations and How the Player Plays I'm a bit confused here, do you mean these are somewhat like patron ships? Again the issue here is the inherited values and bonuses from the choice that doesn't sit well with me. If this is meant to be the ship the player starts with, then i take major issue with starting with the SotS (regardless of the fact that she is a beautiful ship) players need to work their way up. Lastly, I am going to be completely shameless and ask you to take a look at some of my other suggestions, but only because I see many similarities here and would very much like your input: The Case Against a Live Open World Map I feel like having to replace crew after every engagement is a bit much. However, having crew to be replaced or even moved from ship to ship seems more doable: Crew/Marines: Size, Experience, and Morale Yes, but a port should only be able to construct fortifications based on its size, importance, and income. No reason to have a heavily fortified port that has no tactical or economic importance. Pirate Havens, Port Security, and Trade Regulations (You want to look mainly at port security here) You didn't really appear to go into this or what it means, however it could have some big implications. This could be used to determine how the player starts the game, as well as having them geared towards a profession they may want later in the game: Character Profile: Nationality vs. Player's Nation Like I said there's a lot here that is interesting to contemplate, and my response is simply the things I felt could use a second look. Cheers!

I feel it gives me just a little bit more control; I have my crew being a "jack-of-all-trades" or focusing exclusively on one thing. It could be expanded upon by having more precise crew management, but this is a superb first step. More importantly, it gives us concrete numbers to work with, other than just vague "focuses: we know that an X lb gun needs Y number of crew to man, and a leak needs 3 crew to patch. Subconsciously that is way better than going off arbitrary crew focuses. Also, noting the leak thing, I feel this is where the new mechanic really comes into its own. Where before you had to commit the whole crew to survival to fix a few leaks, thus taking time to switch back and forth from survival, now you only use the crew that is needed, allowing crew to stay manned on the guns and sails.

Definitely liking some concepts here, especially crew specializations and the idea on how cre pay can be different based on whether they are pirates (or privateers?) or not. Although individually selecting crew seems to be venturing a bit close to the meticulous. As far as player ranks go, I would argue the contrary of "Any captain could successfully crew a ship given the money." Outside the Navy perhaps, but I do think that working one's way up to a lineship via ranks is better than just farm grinding in a smaller ship until you can jump 2 tiers, even if it means crewing it "less than effectively"

I believe the someone (I think the devs?) had created a poll for renaming clans, and "Fleet" was definitely the leader. And I think somewhere a while back the devs may have said something about guild-held ports. Not 100% sure on that. Anyway, as far as the other stuff goes, I agree that clans could use some toys tools to help manage the clan. Clan Management Tools

I believe the solution to this is simple: make crews non-tradable and cannot be purchased from other players. Ideally, a crew and Marine detachment should stay with one player. This would mean buying a bunch of crew just to "sell" them would be impossible. Kind of like the crews in WoT or Warthunder, but instead of having to retrain crew every tank, you only have to do it every class here. Alternatively, crew and marines could be tradable/sellable, however upon trade/sale, they would take an experience and morale penalty, meaning training your own crew would be a much more sound option. This option seams more realistic too, as a crew could work well together, but if a new captain comes along and does things drastically different, they still need to adjust.