Bull Hull

Yes, seriously, it is a FACT that when it came to the issue of building a ship some things NEVER happened accidentally in RL, and so in a game that is attempting to simulate that same ship building mechanic it is stupid for the game to accidentally have some things happen that NEVER happened in RL. Yes, absolutely, for SOME things it makes perfect sense to use RNG as a way to effectively and accurately simulate RL to simplify gameplay. AND for some other things it is stupid to throw out RL and substitute RNG. When it makes sense to use RNG, how it makes sense to use RNG, and when it doesn't make sense, depends upon the situation and the issue. Many players want to play Naval Action, not Fantasy Naval Action. Resorting to making a childish ad hominem attack only shows that you have no credibility and nothing meaningful to add. Cherry picking a few words completely out of context to change my meaning also shows that you have no credibility. What is your RATIONAL explanation for EXACTLY how my comment is pompous? EXACTLY how is it pompous to state a fact/truth/reality? Stating facts/truths/realities seems pretty friggin reasonable/rational to me. Some people might conclude that the only pompous person here is the person who is making a childish ad hominem attack.

Ah, wrong. Your poor reasoning is a fake straw man. The sizes of their stacks of everything is irrelevant because once a builder has enough resources to build a ship then that alone is sufficient. Any extra resources beyond that are irrelevant to building the next ship that has not yet been built. The claim that RNG is the only "fair solution" is a lame false dilemma. The primary reason some players have huge stacks of everything is because they are investing in the CHANCE to get that winning lottery ticket. They are investing in the CHANCE to get accidentally get a 5/5 gold ship by building 20 or 50 or 100 or 1,000 of the same ship UNTIL they win RNG roll of the dice. But eventually they WILL win that lottery as long as they keep trying. Making the certainty of getting that same 5/5 gold ship a function of the direct cost of the ship instead random chance gives EVERYONE exactly the same chance to get that ship as long as they can survive long enough to earn what it costs to build that ship. It is impossible to have a fair solution that is more fair than everyone having exactly the same chance and knowing exactly what that chance is up front. If RNG says my chances are getting that 5/5 gold ship are 1:500, as in 1 in 500 ship building attempts, then the totally fair and equally fair solution is to set the floor for the cost of a 5/5 gold ship of that class at a minimum of 500 times the cost to build 1. That gives EVERYONE exactly the same 1:1 chance of getting that ship IF they can afford it. HOW is it fair for some lucky builder to get that 5/5 gold ship with the very first attempt with a 1:500 chance of winning the lottery, but another builder is building ship number 1,000 because the first 999 attempts didn't win the lottery? HOW is it fair for a lucky ship builder to get a 5/5 gold ship for the cost of building one ship, but that unlucky slob has to spend for resources the cost of 1,000 ships to finally win the lottery when building that 1,000th ship? Such a situation is exactly the opposite of fair. But when EVERYONE had to put in the same cost of a minimum of 500X the cost of building one ship to get that 5/5 gold ship then it is impossible to get more fair for that. Functionally there is no meaningful difference between measuring the cost of building a ship by the cost of the resources for 500 attempt at building, or measuring that cost directly in Reals, or Reals + Daubloons. In other words, if: - Player A grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources to get all of the resources necessary to build 500 ships to win that 1:500 shot at a 5/5 gold ship on attempt #500. - Player B grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources plus Reals (or Reals + Daubloons) to purchase the right to build a 5/5 gold ship. Then that NECESSARILY means BOTH players functionally paid exactly the same price for their ship. BOTH players went through exactly the process to get what was necessary to get the same quality ship. And, more importantly both players HAD to pay the same for their ship. It is impossible to get a more fair solution than that.

Yes, it is very true that there were MARGINAL differences between the quality of the same type ship built by the yard. Or, as you put it, there were MARGINAL disparities between sister ships built by the same yard. Getting an extra box is MORE than a marginal difference. Getting 4 extra boxes is FAR more than a marginal difference. Additionally, none of those sister ships were ACCIDENTALLY built with extra berthing spaces or larger berthing spaces to get more crew. None of those ships were ACCIDENTALLY built with thicker masts or thicker hulls - at least not as long as the builders stuck to the blueprints and didn't forget how to measure. Might marginal differences in the woods had the same effect of having a thicker mast or a thicker hull? Sure. But nobody ACCIDENTALLY built a ship with 19 inch masts as the base instead of 18 inch masts. Nobody ACCIDENTALLY build a 38 inch thick hull instead of a 36 inch hull. If we were to go through the list regional trims how many of those differences NEVER happened accidentally as a variation between two sister ships? Fact is, some RNG crafting results are just flat out stupid because they are crazily unrealistic. And granted some can make sense. But as an in addition to rather than an instead of what we want to build. The claim that in RL they just had to work with it as if they had no alternative is totally bogus. They had exactly the same choice that we have - they could have made the CHOICE to take a ship out for sea trials, decide it didn't perform as well as its sister ship that was the lead ship of the class, i.e. the benchmark as it were, and then decide to trash any ship that didn't measure up to the benchmark and then begin again. But they didn't typically CHOOSE to do that because doing that would have been far too expensive. Ditto for what is possible in the game. FACT: In real life destroying a ship that wasn't good enough for any reason by any standard WAS an option, that was always an option. They could have in fact chosen to scrap ships that were not good enough for whatever reason. In RL there is ALWAYS a choice/option as long as one is willing to accept the consequences of the choice (Covey, 7 Habits). This is an irrefutable and unavoidable fact of RL and GL (game life). Minor/small marginal differences as an RNG variable is perfectly reasonable as a simulation for the RL variations between sister ships built by the same yards. Controlling all variables is indeed impossible. Climate differences meant that sometimes the same species of trees produced lumber and other wood products with minor differences in their characteristics. We should NEVER know about such minor/marginal differences which could/would serve as a realistic simulation of what happened in RL with ship building. I have no problem with marginal RNG differences between ships of the same class. But ACCIDENTALLY getting more berthing when I want to build a ship with a thicker hull and NOT getting the extra berthing I was intentionally trying to build into the ship is stupid. That never happened or happens in real life so it shouldn't happen in the game. Not having the choice to build a ship with a trim is also stupid. ACCIDENTALLY getting a ship that turns a little better when I was intentionally trying build a ship with more berthing while NOT getting the extra berthing that I really wanted is just stupid. Not having the choice to build a ship a little or rolls a little less or has better armor makes no sense. Making those RL shipbuilding choices an accidental result of the whims of the RNG gods is stupid. Now we finally, well actually once again, reveal the false dilemma that the champions for the RNG gods keep fabricating. They insist that we are stuck with a black and white, ether/or, false dilemma. They insist we MUST either have the whims of the RNG gods in total control of ship crafting or there is no RNG. But that is a false dilemma because we can have BOTH. So, for example, if I want to craft a ship with regional trim "X" then I should ALWAYS without exception get a ship with regional trim "X" if that is what I want as long as I can get the necessary skills and materials. Once I have the skills and materials to add trim "X" then I should get trim "X" because that trim was built into the blueprints and so that trim should be build into the ship; and that choice should increase the cost of my ship. Then, IF by some amazing chance the whimsical RNG gods decide to add another regional trim "M" or "Z" or "D" that I don't immediately know about and can't be sure about because I can't see the results then great (obviously extra crew space would be immediately obvious). The RNG gods can randomly always slap on another trim if doing that tickles their fancy. They can always add a little more icing to our cake. But we should ALWAYS have the choice to add a trim if we can afford it, and we should ALWAYS get the trim we want IF we are intentionally trying to build a particular trim into a ship. Then, if we also just happen to get some other marginal benefit from another trim we can't see then oh well, nothing wrong with that if such marginal differences happened in RL shipyards. Similarly, if the whimsical RNG gods choose to accidentally add an extra box when I build a ship then fine, let them go for it, I doubt anyone will complain if they get an extra box. But they should NEVER add more than once extra box than the quality of the ship I am trying to build. But I/we should ALWAYS have the CHOICE to intentionally build a ship with a 1-4 more boxes, and that choice should get progressively more an more expensive. I/we should ALWAYS be able to bake the cake we want as long as we have the necessary skills and materials and we can afford it. If the whimsical RNG gods want to bless us with a slightly better ship by putting icing on our cake or adding to the icing we want then fine. My suggestion does not create an either/or false dilemma as some commenters falsely claim (not implying you are one of them). We can have both/and if some people love RNG so much. But RNG should not eliminate choice. RNG should enhance our choices. We should ALWAYS get the cake we want to bake and intend to bake as the minimum standard, and then if the whimsical RNG gods decide to add some icing to our cake then fine. Our choices for how we choose to build a ship should establish the floor for what we can choose to do, not set the ceiling. If the whimsical RNG goods want to then raise the ceiling a little more then fine. That is a win/win both/and solution that addresses everyone's preferences.

I think dumb and childish ad hominem attacks are the best thing some people can think of and thus they have absolutely nothing useful or meaningful to contribute.

EXACTLY! ! ! I was just about to edit my comment above because a couple of minutes ago it finally dawned on me EXACTLY some people love RNG so much - because RNG makes sure - i.e. GUARANTEES - that some people will ALWAYS have their docks full of gold 5/5 ships because they have the time and the money (i.e. real world money) to play the ship crafting lottery often enough to get all of the gold ships they want and that don't want everyone else to have. So, it they have to craft, or have their buddies in a large clan craft for them, 50 copies of the same ship until they get the gold ship they want then that is what will happen. If they have to craft 100 ships, then so be it. If they have to craft 1,000 ships then so be it. Sooner or later they WILL win the RNG ship crafting lottery. As someone has already made clear, he she believes, the money/resources are infinite - which is patently false regarding money btw - therefore winning the RNG ship crafting lottery is only a matter of when, but NOT if he or she will get the gold ships he or she wants. The LAST thing some people want is an economic system that ensures everyone can and have at least one or a few gold quality ships IF they are willing to put in the time it takes to earn what they need to earn to afford one.

The willfully blind have made it clear that trying to discuss/debate/explain anything with the willfully blind is a total waste of time. They see only what they already believe. The refuse to understand anything that doesn't fit into their small world view. And they use the magic of circular reasoning to rationalize exactly what they wish to belief, and to cling to that which they already believe. The intellectually dishonest who distort, dishonestly cherry pick, and flat out lie about my comments have shown in another way that trying to discuss/debate anything with such intellectually dishonest people is a total waste of time. People who resort to petty criticisms of a typo have nothing meaningful to contribute. The moderators might as well shut this down because a mature, intelligent, and rational debate is not possible.

True - And that was due to differing skill levels and possibly differing materials and NOT the arbitrary whims of the RNG gods.

#1 - WRONG Clearly you don't understand the difference between an empty opinion versus a CONCLUSION formed by rationally/logically evaluating the evidence of relevant facts, truths, and realities of human behavior as we understand human behavior from the sciences of Psychology, Sociology, and especially Economics. FACT: A rational/logical conclusion =/= Empty opinion Rational/logical CONCLUSIONS are informed and justified by using proper logical as the foundation of independent RATIONAL thought to analyze the available EVIDENCE. Functionally your entire poor argument is only a series of empty claims/opinions and poor circular reasoning. For all practical purposes your entire argument is: P1 - RNG "is currently the best way to limit the amount of gold ships" (which is pure supposition and an empty claim/opinion for which you offer ZERO evidence and no logical argument to support) P2 - You dislike RNG "but still prefer the current crafting with RNG over " my idea (which is another empty claim/opinion for which you offer ZERO evidence an no logical argument to support it). P3 - My suggestion "would result in more high quality ships, not less" (your only attempt to explain why you hold the first two empty opinions, which is basically more supposition and another empty claim/opinion for which you offer ZERO evidence an no logical argument to support it) C - Therefore, RNG "is currently the best way to limit the amount of gold ships" (which is incredibly poor reasoning because of the lame circular reasoning you use. You offer ZERO evidence (aka facts, truths, realities) to support any of your empty opinions. And your few attempts to refute any small part of my argument/explanation are all lame fallacies - i.e. a false dilemma, a perfect solution fallacy, and a straw man if memory serves. But unlike you I actually bother to use facts/truths/realities of human behavior - especially economics - and a logical argument/explanation to support my CONCLUSIONS. __________ #2 - WRONG again, and nice try with misrepresenting my explanation. My explanation of bending the cost curve is NOT a "flat resource input instead." You do understand that a cost CURVE is NOT a flat/straight line, right? Your claim that I am wishing for something is patently FALSE. My logical application of the FACTS/TRUTHS/REALTIES of economics is the OPPOSITE of whishing for something, and thus it IS more rational. ROFL I do fully grasp you explanation. That is exactly how I KNOW that your explanation is wrong on the facts and poor on the reasoning. So far it is pretty clear that you don't have a clue what I mean by "bending the cost curve" to limit high quality ships to EXACTLY the same levels that RNG does it. So far it is pretty clear that you can't grasp the facts/truths/realities of Economics that I am describing. If necessary I can draw the relevant supply & demand curves (which are straight line segments in their basic form purely for illustrative purposes) and the relevant bell curve so you can SEE exactly what I am describing because, again, it is pretty clear that you can't grasp the concepts I am describing. Now, for the record, I am not attacking you and I am not trying to insult you. I am only being bluntly honest and truthful to tell like it really is. __________ #3 - When you cherry pick a few words out of CONTEXT to misrepresent my original position you only show a lack of integrity and no credibility. By cherry picking "RNG is stupid" totally out of context you are dishonestly ignoring the logical explanation I provide to explain EXACTLY how/why that CONCLUSION is reasonable. I present FACTS/TRUTHS/REALTIES of economics and human behavior to support my conclusion. You make zero effort to refute any of the facts/truths/realities I present. Consequently, you either agree with all of the facts/truths/realities I present and ignore them because you know you can't refute them, or don't understand them so you ignore them because you can't refute them. I apply the science of Economics to logically explain why/how RNG is stupid. You respond with only empty opinions and logical fallacies to rationalize exactly what you want to believe. __________ #4 - And there the best you can manage is childish nonsense with an ad hominem attack. FTR , Intro to Logic is one of the seven Philosophy courses I tutor so I have more than a little expertise when it comes to recognizing poor reasoning and poor logic. __________ #5 - AND of course you close with another empty opinion and another childish ad hominem attack.

Ah, no, you don't. I don't have a problem with understanding anything when someone has the communication and critical thinking skills necessary to effectively and rationally explain it. You clearly don't understand how to present a sound or cogent argument. Empty opinions don't qualify. EXACTLY how is my dislike or RNG NOT rational? What is your RATIONAL/LOGICAL explanation to support that empty opinion/claim. So far all you have there is another worthless empty opinion that keep repeating the same empty claim. Clearly you cannot understand the difference between a RATIONAL conclusion verses an opinion. I read that suggestion and agree in principle and even built on that idea to improve upon it. That suggestion and my suggestion are NOT mutually exclusive, so nice try with that lame false dilemma.

#1 - Oh, I get that. Ergo my comment about how they need to stop trying to manipulate us into playing the game how they think we should play it instead of how WE want to play it. But yeah, you are spot on with that thesis. #2 - EXACTLY While bending the cost curve that steeply (is that an exponential or mathematical increase, I don't remember) may not be the best way to it, you clearly get the idea that there IS a way to do it in a way that achieves exactly the same results of using RNG but without using RNG to do it. #3 - Brilliant minds think a like, and they tend to believe what they see instead of seeing what they wish to believe. #4, 5, 6 - That is perfectly reasonable. Proper prioritizing and planning prevents pi** poor performance - the 7 Ps of effective leadership, management, and, well, planning. Need to have a good cake before we worry about the frosting. And yes, adjusting to those annoyances is possible to some degree. #7 - LOL Thanks for my first great laugh of the day. That was brilliant. Bravo Zulu again. Anyway, that must have been a fluke of some kind because my last five battles worked exactly as I planned it. The previous once might have but I wasn't paying close attention until it went horribly wrong in that one battle.

EXACTLY! Thanks for beating me to it. I just posted essentially the same idea, but not exactly the same idea, in response to the same post. AND I like your idea even better. So maybe combining my variation on your idea with your idea is/can be the best approach. A builder without the necessary experience might be able to pull off building something better than what they usually build, but it would be a lot more expensive than it would be for someone who has been doing it a lot longer. THIS is why I love brainstorming. Bravo Zulu. That's Navy speak for "Job well done" for you land lubbers. OOOH Now I even see room for a POSSIBLE use of RNG for ship building. Without the necessary experience to consistently get it right adding another box of quality might not work, and if it does it will be more expensive to do it than it is for someone who has the experience to get it right every time. Then repeat and rinse every time a builder adds a box to a class of ship. The chance of failure can go down and the chance of success can go up with each attempt to add another box of quality UNTIL the builder has enough experience to get it right every time. Again, Bravo Zulu.

[edit] Woops, I missed the quote button. AeRoTR: "Normal crafter should produce %1 good ship, while this should go up to %10 for a crafter specialized in a specific ship class, even more. Which best crafter still needing to craft many ships to craft high quality one. And to become master ship builder on specific class, you need to craft many many ships , so this system also releases lots of ships into economy, while rewarding the ones who has put effort on crafting." _____________________ And then the whims of the RNG gods sometimes totally eliminate the relevance and importance and necessity of skill and experience. Frankly, I think experience should play the same role in crafting that it does in fighting/sailing. The more often we build a specific class of ship the better we should get at it and so the cost should go down. Any ship builder should be able to build any ship as long as they have the blueprint and materials and skilled workers necessary to build it. But the first time they build something is harder, takes longer, and is more expensive than the 10th time. That is how it works in the real world. Always has worked that way and always will.

Bending the cost curve can accomplish EXACTLY the same result WITHOUT resorting to relying upon the whims of the RNG gods. A reality of human behavior per ECON 101 is that whenever there is a demand for something someone else will supply that demand - Period. People who want and need cheap average quality ships WILL have a demand for them, and then ship builders WILL supply that demand. People who don't want a VERY expensive 5/5 gold ship won't buy one. People who want BOTH cheap average quality ships for most purposes and a very expensive 5/5 Gold excellent quality ship for SOME purposes will want both, and then someone will supply what is necessary to meet the demand. If someone is willing to risk their 5/5 gold ship on a routine mission that doesn't need that level of quality that is their choice - and sometimes they will lose that bet. I never sailed a 5/5 Gold ship I wasn't willing to lose when I took her out, and I never sailed them all the time when I had them. Having real choices without RNG is a win/win for the producers and a win/win for the consumers. Again, bending the cost curve can control the availability of ships at every quality level. Insisting that RNG is the only way to achieve that is a lame false dilemma.

#2 UPDATE: Noooooooooooooooooo! I just learned that the RNG ship crafting stupidity is even worse than I first thought, because regional trims are gone. That, is, STUPID! That was a GREAT idea at one time; it just could have used some tweaking to make a great idea even better. Regional trims made perfect sense because the necessary skills and materials to use those skills and materials at no extra cost to builders in THAT region WERE in fact/reality regional. But/and those trims should also be available to everyone for the right extra price. Because of a reality of human behavior from ECON 101, whenever there is a demand for something someone else will supply that demand - PERIOD. Consequently, SOME craftsmen and skilled laborers would be willing to export their skills to foreign ship builders for the right price because some people are more greedy than they are a loyal patriot to their own country, especially when ports/regions change hands to another country. The extra cost of using trims from other regions could/should have been a function of the distance and hostility level between two ports and nations. The farther the necessary skilled laborers had to move to work someplace else the more expensive that particular trim should be. Then the hostility level between two nations would/should further increase the cost of using a particular trim. The complexity of the modification/trim to a standard build can also influence the cost of using a "foreign" trim. This could also provide an incentive for some shipbuilders to put a shipyard closer to the "front" because doing that would reduce the cost of using trims. But resorting to the whims of the RNG gods for that? Well, I don't think I need to bluntly state once again what I think of that stupid idea. Oh, wait. . . Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship with extra berthing compartments or larger berthing compartments (i.e. extra/more crew space). Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship that sails better in one way or another (i.e. turns a little faster or goes a little faster). Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship with thicker hull sides (i.e. more armor) or with thicker frames to make it tougher. Please, please, please, stop this crazy RNG nonsense for crafting. RNG for crafting can be done by dropping a note/license/blueprint for a particular trim. Getting an expensive note/license/blueprint for a trim by a drop from looting a kill or a bottle wreck could be a great RNG event.

Sovereign, I understand perfectly that you share my dislike of RNG. But WHY do you prefer the current crafting RNG over my ideas? EXACTLY what is your RATIONAL argument/explanation for how the current RNG stupidity is better than my ideas? Or is an empty opinion the best you can manage? EXACTLY how would my suggestion necessarily result in more not the same number or lesser number of high quality ships? What is your RATIONAL explanation/argument to support that empty claim? What facts/evidence and analysis supports that empty claim? Or is an empty claim the best you can manage? Here, let's try this simple thought experiment. Let's assume that the current random method produces on average one 5/5 success rate of 1:20 build attempts to thus result in say 1 5/5 gold ship per ten players per month. If it takes a month of average play to earn what it takes to produce and sell one, and if it takes a month of average play to earn what it takes to purchase one, then my suggestion will accomplish EXACTLY the same build rate by increasing the cost of the ships through any of the three methods I suggest or ANY other method that anyone else can think of. Maybe someone else can think of a better way to accomplish the same objective. I don't care how we do it as long as we get rid of the RNG stupidity. So, again, EXACTLY how does my idea supposedly result in more such ships? The current RNG method is stupid and unrealistic because master craftsmen did NOT accidentally build high quality products. So far all you have is an empty opinion and a false dilemma fallacy. Next in your second paragraph you switch to a perfect solution fallacy to rationalize the same position in a different way. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a perfect system that is loophole free. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a perfect system that will prevent people who have deep pockets or massive free time from exploiting game mechanics. So friggin what? Those players will ALWAYS be around regardless of the system. That is not sufficient to justify using the stupid approach of relying upon the whims of the RNG gods deciding when we ACCIDENTALLY build a better ship or a superior quality ship. I thought of at least three different ways in which cost of the ships can accomplish exactly the same goal of limiting the number of high quality ships and do that WITHOUT the stupid RNG dumb luck of the draw. And then your 3rd graph fabricates another false dilemma. If the cost of getting that one perfect ship is the same as the cost of building 20 throw away ships then guess what, losing that baby ALSO creates the prefect risk vs reward situation in which losing that bad boy hurts a lot. I ALREADY explain multiple ways to get that same perfect risk vs reward situation WITHOUT resorting to RNG stupidity. The more I read your rationalizations and the absence of any cogent counterarguments to specifically address each and every point/argument I make the more it looks like you didn't really both to read, analyze, and think about my arguments. Instead it appears that you just skimmed through my comment and then reacted to rationalize the position you want without any deep thought. A new player with absolutely no experience or the game's equivalent of real master level skills getting a 5/5 gold ship on the first attempt solely by pure dumb luck is beyond stupid. Getting a ship like that should be the result of putting in the necessary work, not getting lucky. If you want that kind of pure dumb luck sealed bottles can do that. Getting a ship like that should be the result of putting in the work to earn what it takes to afford to build a ship like that or to purchase a ship like that from a master crafter. Someone getting lucky and "rolling" up a ship like that because the whimsical RNG gods decided to bless benevolence upon the builder creates exactly the OPPOSITE of the perfect risk vs reward you seem so intent upon having. That is more than a little hypocritical. That last graph makes for a nice straw man. People NEED ships to play the game. People MUST have ships to play the game. Thus, per the realities of ECON 101, demand for basic quality ships WILL ensure production of plenty of low cost ships to meet that demand. Crafters will make them for themselves as needed or make them and sell them as needed because they can afford to do it and do it as quickly as they can get the mats and the Labor Hours. As long as there is a demand there WILL be a supply to meet the demand for low cost average quality ships, for mid-cost medium quality ships, and for high cost high quality ships and everything in between the extremes of the bell curve. If players can earn what they need to build or purchase a basic ship in a few days of average play time then they will be built and sold and bought as often as necessary. If it takes a month of average play to earn what it costs to build/buy a 4/4 good quality ship then that is what it will be take. If it takes two months of average play to earn enough to afford to build or buy a 5/5 superior quality ship then that is what it will take. Thus, when the best ships cost 20X or 30X or 50X more just to make them available for sale then guess what, they will be as rare as the bell curve says they need to be by bending the cost curve as much as the data tells the developers they need to bend the cost curve in either direction. IF the higher quality ships are too rare, their cost can go down by adjusting what it costs to build them and put them up for sail. IF they are too plentiful the cost can go up the same way. No more RNG stupidity - just pure unadulterated economics at its best and with the vast majority of the players on an equal footing. No need to cater to the extreme outliers who WILL figure out how to game the system. Typical players, the vast majority of players, can and will get what they can afford according to their ability to earn and the work they are willing to put into getting what they want. There is MORE than one way to achieve exactly the same goal of rarity. The RNG way is the lazy and stupid way to do it.

#5 - Please stop with the stupid way our fleet ships sometimes escape. When I order my fleet ship/s to escape the whole idea is for it/them to run AWAY FROM THE ENEMY. I am sick and tired of losing a fleet ship because it sails TOWARD the enemy when I order it to escape. Sailing TOWARD the enemy is the opposite of escaping. The goal should be best speed AWAY from the enemy, not best speed regardless of where the enemy is. #6 - When I order a fleet ship top follow then THAT should be its priority. I am sick and tired of losing a fleet ship because instead of turning to follow me - like I ordered it to do - it sails into a fir ball with an enemy fleet. Thanks for the check from the clerk though. #7 - Please stop making our attempt to use proper tactics when we enter an OW battle circle totally freaking irrelevant. I just finished a battle with an NPC fleet of 13 5th rates. Instead of spawning my Christian and Indy fleeter waaaayyyyyy up wind of the fleet and crossing its T like I thought I was doing we spawned WITHIN FRIGGIN GUN RANGE and the enemy ships were almost broadside to broadside instead of their bows being abeam of my starboard side. What is up with that? They fired as soon as their guns were loaded and didn't even have to turn. Nice job making an attempt at proper tactics useless. And yes, I lost the Indy because instead of following me like I ordered it to it sailed into the fir fall. By the time it made any effort whatsoever to follow me it was too late. At least the Admiralty clerk gave me some compensation for the lost ship. Good job with that one because that is a brilliant idea. Still, getting compensation of less than 1/4 of what I paid for it and its guns still stings. But zero stings infinitely more.

No, RNG is stupid exactly for the reasons I explain. EXACTLY why do you think RNG "is good"? What little there is to your claim seems rather circular. Did you even bother to read my arguments? Because I don't see you offering a rational counterargument. I explain multiple ways to effectively limit the availability of high quality of ships WITHOUT resorting to the stupidity of relying upon the whims of the RNG gods. If that stays long term I will leave the game for a third and last time. And I bet I will NOT be alone. I don't suggest having a cooldown on crafting, not exactly. My suggestion is to put a timer on how long it takes to craft a ship. That is not the same thing as putting a cooldown on crafting. Additionally, not being able to construct anything while a shipyard or drydock or way is unavailable due to other construction does not require a cooldown per se on crafting. Now, if a time delay on how long it takes a ship to finish construction has a similar adverse impact on the servers then oh well, that is a legitimate reason to not do it. Rather than a cooldown per se maybe it can just be a simple on/off toggle that takes days to countdown at the rate of one day per server reset. That way there is no hourly countdown and thus maybe not as taxing on the server. Beginning construction turns it off, then X-days/resets later it turns back on. I don't remember much about programming, but a simple counter loop is pretty easy to program when doing structured programming. That seemed to work just fine back when we could teleport.

So basically you don't have any counterargument so the best you can manage is to agree with the status quo. Exactly how do my suggestions NOT effectively address exactly what you say is the problem with having too many high quality ships?

[Note - Selectively capping key words is NOT yelling. Think outside of the box and instead consider the important role nonverbal cues play in effective human communication. Just saying.] Research in Economics, Sociology, and Customer Satisfaction has routinely found that a reality of human behavior is people act at the margins. Consequently, until the developers end once and for all stupid ideas/mechanics those stupid ideas/mechanics will frustrate players at the margins and drive them away. Yep, I bluntly, honestly, and truthfully said it like it is, some of the game mechanics and ideas developers keep or take out and then put back in the game are so stupid and frustrating that they will continue to drive players away. So, after a long break, a few weeks playing again, then another short break and a few more days of playing again, here are some of the frustrating mechanics and details that are stupid enough that they WILL drive players away at the margins. This is an unavoidable fact, truth, and reality of human behavior. Either "recognize and then work with that reality or reality will automatically work against you." I wish I could remember the source of that quote, which is one of my favorite quotes that I learned at my first shore command almost 30 years ago. To other commenters: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it isn't possible to satisfy all players. That totally misses the point, so save that lame platitude. Also, please save the empty/unsupported opinions and childish ad hominem attacks. Empty opinions that lack the support of a rational argument and supporting evidence aren't worth much, IF anything. While many of the changes to the game are fantastic and want me to love it again - Bravo Zulu to the developers for them - some of the new or legacy stupidity are mind numbingly frustrating and thus they WILL drive away players; often drive them away again IF they return. So, here are the four at the top of my list that I have noticed or remembered the last few days: #1 - Please, please, please STOP trying to manipulate the players into playing the way you think we should play. Meet or exceed OUR expectations instead of trying to manipulate us into meeting YOUR expectations. KNOW YOUR CUSTOMERS, and then meet or exceed their/our expectations. A lot of people are intelligent enough to recognize such manipulation and find it annoying, condescending, and insulting. Such manipulation WILL drive away some players at the margins. #2 - Please, please, please STOP with the stupid idea of turning ship quality over to the whims of the RNG crafting gods. As long as crafters have to craft 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 ships to ACCIDENTALLY get the ship they really wanted to craft in the first place some of them will stop playing because of the frustration. Master craftsmen did/do NOT accidentally build superior quality products. Master craftsmen INTENTIONALLY built/build their products with superior quality. Master craftsmen INTENTIONALLY built/build superior products by committing the necessary time, effort, and SKILL to produce higher quality products. Consequently, increasing the quality of all or select products increases the cost to produce them due to the increase in labor (either more time or more workers with the necessary skills or both) and the opportunity cost of producing fewer lower quality products due to committing resources to making better stuff. Therefore, if the developers don't want everyone sailing around in gold quality ships then limit those numbers the same way the realities of economics does that in the real world - by increasing their cost to produce and thus their cost to sell - which is basic Econ 104 & 105 (aka Macroeconomics and Microeconomics which isn't exactly as basic as Econ 101). Per the law of diminishing returns each marginal increase in quality gets progressively more and more expensive. In other words, increasing the quality of a product by another 10% costs more than the last 10%. Then the next 10% is even more expensive. Then the next 5% is as expensive or more expensive than the last 10%, etc. etc. etc. (that's a "King and I" reference for you youngsters). In other words , the cost curve follows a parabolic curve (pretty sure it is not a hyperbola). Quality (the Y-axis) can never reach 100% (because nothing is perfect) and the cost (X-axis) steadily increases for marginal improvements. Eventually the cost for the next marginal improvement just isn't worth it and available money isn't infinite. Anyway, I digress. Here are some ways for the game to reflect this reality of economics to reasonably limit the number of ships at each quality point: - Building ships takes time, building better ships takes even more time. Gathering all of the resources takes time. Converting resources to materials for construction takes time. Saving up the Labor Hours takes time (btw, the LH limitation is a great idea). The game already handles this pretty well, as in simply and fairly realistically. AND then the game blows this with instantly building the ship as if by magic. Well, how about tying up the way or drydock of a shipyard that is constructing a ship by having to deposit the materials into the shipyard, and then imposing a time for construction that is a function of the quality of the ship. Once activating construction that yard, way, or drydock is unavailable for anything else until the ship is complete. No repairs (which isn't a factor yet because we don't have to use a shipyard for repairs - woops, there's an idea for some more realism) or upgrades or building until ship construction is complete. That is how shipyards work in the real world. Doing more than one thing at a time requires more than one way or drydock or pier depending upon the nature of the work. Consequently, the typical small shipyard with only one way or drydock can be doing the heavy construction on one ship, and the finishing work topside and interior on one or two ships at a pier. Woops, there's another idea for how we should have to expand/improve our shipyards. Don't limit shipyard improvement only to the kinds of ships we can build (i.e. the level of the yard), add a shipyard improvement that improves the QUANTITY of ships it can work on at any one time. Each drydock or way means we can be doing heavy construction (or major repairs, overhaul, conversion) on one ship, and each pier means we can be doing finishing work and light repairs on a second ship. Remember, the other side of the pier needs to be available for receiving supply shipments by, well, by ship. Green/inferior quality ships and blue/standard quality ships can still build instantly. But purple quality should take longer, and gold quality should take even longer. Basically, each additional box that improves the quality of the ship increases the time it takes to build it, and that should progressively increase the cost. Yeah, #1 kinda morphed into more than one idea. - Building better ships costs more. One way to reflect this is to require a payment (reales (sp?) or doubloons or both) of increasing cost for each box we add to build a better ship. Another way is to require an inspector from the Admiralty to certify the quality of a ship each time we add another box beyond the minimum of 3/3 (which also happens in real life because ships require routine inspection and certifications as they are built and then they have to pass sea trials). This basically does the same thing as the first possibility in a slightly different way. Or, increase the taxes on better ships, and the better a ship gets (as a function of the boxes we add however the frak (BSG reboot reference) we want to add them) the higher the taxes. I'm sure there are other ways to functionally accomplish the same thing. The method can be transparent and automatic, or it can be a mechanic we see such has having to purchase inspection certificates or a tax seal or hire an inspector from the Admiralty for sea trials. But regardless of how you do it - STOP with the frustrating stupidity of having the whims of the RNG gods decide the quality of the ship we REALLY want to build the FIRST time we build it. A good 3/3 blue quality ship is fine the vast majority of the time, like for grinding skills and earning cash and salvage goods from PVE kills. But sometimes we need something better, and crafters don't want to have to craft dozens of friggin ships to accidentally get the one we wanted the FIRST time we craft a ship. #3 - Put the Lat and Log grid back on the friggin chart! Sea charts of this era had lat and long lines. Without those lines to provide some standard for estimating distance the trader tool is next to useless for figuring out where we are. Yeah, yeah, I know there is a new perk for that. I don't need to waste a perk slot to know EXACTLY where I am. I only need to know about where I am and a grid with a known distance between the grid lines provides that reference to reasonably estimate our location. The sextant perk is great for some people some of the time who, for whatever reason, need to know EXACTLY where they are. But the rest of us don't need that kind of precision all of the time. We DO however need to have some REASONABLE degree of accuracy for roughly estimating where we are. And yeah, yeah, I know there is still probably some app for that. I don't care. Needing to effectively exit game play to use such an app misses the real point - which is that we shouldn't have to do that because a sea chart SHOULD have Lat and Log lines on it. #4 - Stop with the stupidity of the shoreline being super glue, ESPECIALLY when we can see water under our keel which SHOULD mean that we have NOT really run aground. If we can SEE sea (see what I did there?) under our hull when we are close to shore we should NOT be able to run aground. What the frak is the point of showing us water under our keel if that isn't a useful indication that we have room to the bottom to NOT run aground? That is just stupid to show us water under our hull and have us run aground anyway. Then, IF the ground at the bottom is super glue from which we can no longer escape we should not even be able to pivot as the wind changes or pivot by adjusting our sails. Or, if we can pivot we should also be able to escape - LIKE WE USED TO BE ABLE TO DO (yep, THAT time I am yelling). Please, please, please fix this. Thanks for your consideration.