Bull Hull

EXACTLY! The developers effectively punish all players who have any interest in doing anything other than PVP for even part of their playing time. Through their transparent and insulting manipulation the developers are making it perfectly clear that they think all players on the PVP server should be hard core PVP/RVR and everyone else with any other interest should be banned to the PVE server.

The developers need to stop insulting our intelligence by manipulating us as if we are stupid children they need to manipulate into playing the game the way THEY want us to play the game instead of empowering us to play the game the many ways that We the Players want to play the game. The developers seem to steadfastly refuse to recognize and accept the fact/truth/reality that players fall onto a continuum of play style preferences that range from hard core PVE/RVE to hard core PVP/RVR plus many degrees/combinations of both possibilities in between those two extremes. Consequently, instead of empower us to easily play how we want to play the developers keep trying to manipulate us into playing either hard core PVP or hard core PVE while they seem to hate every style in between those two extremes. For example, I just realized that they have gone back to the stupid idea of requiring permits to build many ships instead of a select few. At first glance after the last update I thought we could use Combat Marks to purchase a note we can use to get a ship like we could recently do with doubloons - which I thought was a great idea. That was a great way for players who have no interest in crafting to get ships. That was a great way for casual players who don't have the time to earn reals to purchase ships from crafters. That was a great way to make it easier to replace ship losses, and thus that was a great way to incentivize taking more risks instead of avoiding risks because it is too hard to replace a lost ship. But then after using CBs to purchase what I thought was a note for a ship I soon realized it is only a permit to craft a ship. Well, to hell with that. I am sick and tired of such manipulation and so I will no longer play along with such insulting manipulation. I have no problem earning CBs because I want to do it. But I refuse to do it because the developers are manipulating us into having to get them to build a lot of the ships I/we might want to build. If I can't build ANY ship just because I want to build it and without having to jump through arbitrary hoops for the developers then I won't jump through the developers' hoops. So, that means it is time once again, for the third time to be specific, to quit playing for a while to see if the developers will stop treating us like stupid children that they have to manipulate. Frankly, I pity players who have no interest in joining a clan, because the developers seem to hate them. I pity casual players who don't have a lot of time, because the developers seem to hate them. I pity players who don't have deep pockets to afford multiple accounts, because the developers seem to hate them. I pity players who want to play the game any way other than how the developers think they/we should play the game, because the developers seem to hate them.

I don't know what carronades you have been using but all of the carronades I have used are not accurate beyond 150 yards or so. That is why I rarely use them. I hate seeing all or most of them consistently fire and miss high. Even with accuracy mods and skills I have never seen carronades be what I would call accurate except when I was close to the target, as in closer than 100-150 yards.

There were always some exceptions due to the role of a particular class, and there were some differences between two different time frames (i.e. pre Napoleonic verses post Napoleonic). Nice try with that variation on a perfect solution fallacy. Clearly your concept of what qualifies as a "valid choice" is drastically different from mine. Clearly you think that personal tastes are invalid. Some players don't care about min-maxing more than other considerations. Too bad you totally miss the real problem, which is the stupid way that PVE missions are now so unnecessarily limiting. This is one of the best examples of how the developers treat us like stupid children who they have to manipulate into playing the game the way they want us to play it instead of empowering us to play the game we want to play it. We the Players should have the choice to do all PvP, or all RvR, or all PvE, or all RvE, and ANY combination in between. The combat missions should empower those differences in taste instead of arbitrarily limiting them by essentially punishing players who want something other than PvP and RvP gank fests. There is no valid reason for us to not have the option/choice/freedom to be able to do combat missions for all/every ship regardless of rating the way we used to be able to do them solo or as a group or whatever. Having to sail around for sometimes up to 45 minutes or more to MAYBE find a target of opportunity is a very unfun waste of time that serves no useful purpose. Leveling up a ship is now a mind numbingly tedious waste of time. Clearly the developers hate casual players to don't have a lot of time. Clearly the developers hate players who have an interest in something other than PvP. Clearly the developers hate solo players who have no interest in joining a clan. Clearly the developers hate players who don't have deep pockets to afford multiple accounts. I don't recall using the word perfectly. That is your distortion. But hey, if you need to be so literal then more power to you and any semantic games and false dilemmas you wish to embrace. The simulations can be reasonably accurate instead of perfectly accurate. They can be relatively accurate (i.e. as in relative to how other ships handle) instead of perfectly accurate. But sure, I would LOVE the chance to sail and fight the ships with perfect accuracy so I can adapt and overcome exactly the same way real skippers had to adapt and overcome. Then I could then use that benchmark as the standard for determining/measuring how to tweak the ships for reasonable playability and still have a reasonable level of accuracy. I have no interest in playing Fantasy Naval Action, and I am getting sick and tired of the developers treating us like we are stupid children that they need to manipulate into playing the game the way they want us to play it instead of empowering us to play it the way we want to play it. But this is a topic for a different discussion. If the damage carronades do is reasonably accurate to how carronades actually performed then there is no valid reason to arbitrarily change them. Physics is physics.

What's really not cool is arbitrarily buffing or nerfing ships to satisfy some arbitrary and mythical standard of silly balance. The ships in the game should accurately simulate how the real ships sailed and fought. That is the only way for the game to succeed as tactical war game simulation. I have no interest in playing Fantasy Naval Action. So the more the game leans on arbitrary/magical RNG and "balancing" the less interest I and many other people have in playing the game. I have known more than a few players who quite because of the game getting too unrealistic. The developers constantly treating us like stupid children who have to be manipulated into playing the way the developers think we should play doesn't help either.

What a ship can contend with is and should be irrelevant. What matters to a ship's rating is how many guns a ship has and not what it can contend with and not whether it has longs or mediums or carronades. The Indefatigable frigate was a 44 gun "Great Frigate" and so it was a 5th Rate, by definition, and so it should be a 5th Rate in the game. The only time an Indefatigable armed solely with carronades should be able to "contend with" a 4th Rate is if the skipper of the 4th Rate is incompetent enough to let the Indefatigable close range for the carronades to be effective. The best defense against carronades is range. Just ask the skipper of the Essex who lost because the Essex had only carronades, which is something the skippers of the Essex had been warning the Navy about for years. That is also why the skipper of the Java lost when he fought the Connie. Because of bad intelligence he got from the British embassy that the Essex was the only US ship operating in South American waters he thought the Connie was the carronade armed Essex. So, he stood off at what he thought was a range outside of the effect range of the carronades on the Essex. But when the Connie took away half his mizzen mast on the 2nd or 3rd broadside he figured out too late that he was not fighting the Essex.

Per the standard British rating system - which this game is supposedly using - ships with 50-60 guns were/are 4th Rates - PERIOD. Some, as in the "Great Frigates" or super frigates, were ALSO considered a SOL because they could serve in a battle line, but they were still 4th Rates; as in not 3rd Rates. Ship rigged ships with 20-48 guns were/are 5th Rates (basically 32-44 guns) and 6th Rates (basically 20-28 guns). Whether those guns were longs, mediums, or carronades was totally irrelevant as long as the gun was mounted on a gun carriage instead of a swivel. The size and weight of the ship was essentially irrelevant. The number of crew was irrelevant. The HPs should be totally irrelevant. The British Rating system that was and is the standard for objectively rating ships counted the number of cannons to determine a ship's rating. Other considerations were essentially irrelevant. Consequently, the USS United States, USS President (granted, not in the game), and USS Constitution were/are 4th Rate Great Frigates and nominal Ships of the Line. They were not 3rd Rates. As originally built the HMS Indefatigable was a 64 gun Ardent Class 3rd Rate. After its conversion to a frigate the Indefatigable was a large 44 gun Great Frigate, AKA a 5th Rate, which is basically what we have in the game. As originally built the HMS Agamemnon was a 64 gun Ardent Class 3rd Rate. For all practical purposes we have the same ship in the game. Why the game makes it a 4th Rate has never really made much sense. Granted, it was a small 3rd Rate, but it was still a 3rd Rate and not a 4th Rate. If a small or relatively weak 3rd Rate routinely loses to some 4th Rates then oh well. A 3rd Rate is still a 3rd Rate, a 4th Rate is still a 4th Rate, and a 4th Rate is not a 3rd Rate REGARDLESS of which ship wins or loses the most heads up fights. That is just the reality of the way it was and thus the way is should be.

Good grief, don't be so literal to fabricate a red herring. The chance of capping a ship that was built the way I want it build are slim. That is just a different and harder way to do RNG, which is just go out and keep capping ships until I get lucky enough to cap the one I really want. The TIME I would waste doing that is a resource I am wasting to get the ship I really want but can't craft. I know some of you people hate reality and any mention of reality, but in the real world that functions according to the realities of human behavior human beings - including players - tend to prefer more choices rather than being manipulated into fewer choices. In the real world and real economics of building things something built with less quality than is less expensive than the same something built with better quality. Again, some of us prefer to play Naval Action - a tactical and strategic war game simulation - instead of playing Fantasy Naval Action.

If you dislike modules and books so much then how would you effectively and reasonably simulate the fact that ships can be taken into a shipyard for modifications, and so those mod boxes simply simulate the necessary yard time for an overhaul that modifies the ship? How would you simulate the fact that a skipper doesn't sail a ship alone who skill books are an effective and easy way to simulate and represent the experience of the crew and the officers who lead that crew? Without a great core of great Officers and Petty Officers leading great crew a great skipper would only be average or mediocre. I wish we could have elite officers and legendary officers like is possible in Starfleet Battles and many of the other table top and PC tactical war games I have played. I have no doubt that I am in the minority on this because many players obviously prefer shooters to be as arcadey and unrealistic as possible, but I have zero interest in playing a tactical and strategic simulation that totally ignores the Officers, Petty Officers, and crew that make a great skipper and great ship possible.

While I agree in principle, crafters and players should still have the choice to build significantly less capable and thus less expensive ships if they want when something less expensive is sufficient. For example, why waste money and resources on a top of the line 5/5 quality ship that we fleet when all mods except for speed mods magically stop working when we fleet a ship? I prefer more choices rather than fewer choices, but your suggestion is better than the current stupid way of having to rely solely upon the benevolent whims of the RNG gods.

This is a fascinating variation on several ideas, which I don't think I have seen before, and it seems mostly reasonable and so it might be a reasonable compromise. My issues with this approach is that the permanent modifications the boxes represent and take are more about how the ship is built or modified than it is about the skill and experience of the skipper. Consequently, for those of us who strongly prefer realism when it is possible to do realism in a reasonable way, how about an experienced skipper having to also have to pay a hefty tax to for a permit/license/blueprint that represents the time and cost of putting the ship into a drydock for a major overhaul that changes the physical capabilities of the ship. I mean, it isn't like the skipper wakes up one morning after crossing an XP threshold and the ship magically has new and different masts, or a few inches of new armor. But yeah, your way of simply unlocking another box is the easy but less immersive way to do the same thing.

Because the benchmark the Admiralty's shipbuilders are building to is the ceiling rather than floor because that is the most efficient and economical way for the Admiralty to produce ships for the government's navy. Because master shipbuilders who don't want to work for the Admiralty can build a better product than the ordinary shipbuilders who work for the Admiralty. Basic economics and how the science of Economics accurately describes human behavior.

Then you were sailing with different people than the ones I was sailing with back then because the vast majority of the people I knew were NOT always sailing in 5/5 gold ships. Did most people have at least one? Sure. Was that the only thing they were sailing? Not even close. And I was one of those people who routinely sailed in something other than the 5/5 gold ships I had in SOME of the classes I sailed in. I have ZERO problem with people who are willing to bear any grind to EARN the privilege to have a 5/5 gold ship or even a few 5/5 gold ships. Such people who bear the grind DESERVE the reward because they put in the necessary work to afford their Precious. I am not underestimating anyone. Indeed, my comments have pretty said exactly the opposite. Maybe you didn't read all of my comments to fully understand my position. My issue is making that privilege purely a function of dumb luck. EVERYONE should have to endure the same grind to earn the same privilege. If someone is willing to put in the work then fine, I solute such people. I reject your variation on a perfect solution fallacy because it is impossible to have a system that some people will not exploit in some way. So, rather than throw in the towel to such people I say ignore them because REGARDLESS of what the system is the same people will figure out some way, some loophole, that will permit them to game the system to collect a horde of whatever it is they covet. So, if they covet docks full of many 5/5 gold ships then well, that is what they have by any means necessary. Keeping a stupid RNG system because of those outliers is not the best approach to take. EXACTLY how is pure dumb luck fair? That is a sad way to define fair. There is nothing fair about valuing pure dumb luck over a willingness to put in the necessary effort to EARN a specific privilege. Finally, the insistence that the only way to provide higher quality ships is through the whims of the benevolent RNG crafting gods is a lame false dilemma because that is not the only way and it is far from the best way. If people love the RNG chance of getting a better ship then fine, make that possible through some means OTHER than crafting. You like to talk about fair, okay, let's talk about fair. How is it fair for a player who has no interest in crafting and so he or she can never receive the benevolence of the RNG crafting gods who decide to bestow the gift of a better ship? Players who don't craft are thus locked out from the chance of getting a gold ship UNLESS they can afford the inflated price that a greedy crafter might charge, or UNLESS they happen to have a friend or clanmate who is willing to share for a fair price. So, what about solo players who have no interest in belonging to a clan? EVERY player should know up front EXACTLY what they will have to do at a minimum to get the ship they want. If I want to build my own and pay a hefty certification fee/tax to the Admiralty of 1M or 3M or 5M or 10M reals plus thousands of daubloons to get the ship I want then THAT is perfectly fair to everyone who wants to craft their own. And if everyone knows what that certification fee/tax the crafter paid is, and if they can figure out what it cost for a crafter to crafter to craft the ship a player prefers to buy instead of craft, then THAT is perfectly fair because then everyone can determine if the sellers price is a fair reflection of the production cost. So, how about this as a fair compromise: - Eliminate RNG for ship quality - period. EVERY ship players build should/will have exactly however many boxes the player chooses to build into it, and the cost to for the Admiralty to certify ships of superior quality can reflect the quality of the ship. - Eliminate RNG for getting a regional trim. EVERY crafter should be able to craft a ship according to the availability (i.e. cost) of the necessary skills, materials, and blueprints. The farther away the source of necessary skills and materials and blueprints are the more expensive they are - period. Perfectly fair/equal for everyone. - Keep RNG for a 2nd and unknown regional trim as icing on the cake the crafter bakes. This can and should satisfy those who adore RNG. - Make superior quality ships available as a blueprint drop or redeemable drop for the same class ship whenever a player sinks a ship at EXACTLY the same chance that crafters have to craft a ship. Why are crafters the only people with a shot at superior quality ships? In other words, if the RNG gods currently deem that I have a 1:50 chance of crafting a purple ship when I craft a ship, or 1:200 chance of crafting a gold ship, then EVERY player - i.e. not only crafters - should have a 1:50 chance of getting a blueprint or redeemable for a purple when I sink or capture an NPC ship. Now, if the data shows that people sink ships in OW 10X faster or 50X faster than crafters craft ships then change the drop rate to 1:500, or 1:2,500, or 1:5,000, or whatever frequency the developers deem appropriate. Ditto for a 1:2,000 or 1:10,000 or 1:25,000 chance of getting a gold ship. This can and should satisfy those who adore RNG. And we know who will not find this approach satisfactory, right? Those who don't want anyone else to have the Precious they covet, and those who want only crafters to be the source for each Precious.

Nice try with the lame line drawing fallacy that tries to avoid the real point. Besides, I have already given an answer to this. A random and hidden regional refit in addition to the choice we make can be an easy way to provide a marginal difference. Getting another mod box is more than a marginal difference. So, I guess that is your answer - mod boxes are more than a marginal difference, trims are a marginal difference. There, you insisted that I draw a line, so I drew a line.

What is my point, exactly? Seriously? I can't explain it any more thoroughly, and your interpretation can't be much more wrong. I NEVER say anything about no RNG of any kind for ship crafting. I NEVER say anything about blue 3/5 for everyone. Some crafting RNG can be done in a way that isn't stupid. The current way of doing ship crafting RNG is stupid. Many, I bet most players, want to play Naval Action, not Fantasy Naval Action, not Whims of the RNG Gods Naval Action.

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.