SueMyChin

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/82-clan-and-guild-content/page-2#entry17592

I think the clans/guilds should be to the nations what the East India Company was to the Royal Navy. A group of captains working under one or a number of persons, responsible for organising them and giving them tasks. System How I would do this: As a neutral player when you take a town you can then create the guild/clan to control it. This is now the equivalent to a nations home port, though it will remain capturable. Each clan/guild have a simple communication system like a clan chat, and PM system and some kind of 'tactical notice board' that only designated players see/can edit. You also have a clan/guild list to which you can add players. Players can apply to join by coming into the town. The 'leader' can designate ranks to the players. The top rank gives the player the same authority as the 'leader'. Any subsequent ranks have descending levels of authority, for instance adding to/kicking players from the guild. Ability to see 'tactical strategy board' or sets of commands given to other players. The leaders use the communication tools to organise the players. Some examples - SueMyChin > patrol here. SueMyChin > escort convoy to X. SueMyChin > obtain X amount of lumber. SueMyChin > form convoy and capture X. Commissions given by a clan/guild would work like navy orders. You would be paid (and could be supplied by the clan) but money would go to the clan/guild to spend on wages, supplies, port improvements etc. This sort of system would have players working together to gather resources, defend their port(s) and merchant convoys, explore new areas to gain intelligence. They can either work together or fight each other as they see fit. They aren't forced to either be solely merchants or aggressive PVPers, they have the choice to be creative and strategize. The most organised will thrive. 'Power' I would argue against any system with guild 'ranks' or 'levels' which come with experience gained or numbers of members etc. They incentivise actions that wouldn't otherwise be desirable. For example large clans grouping up on smaller ones for easy experience. Financial power and resources should be the determining factor dictating the size of a clan's/guild's port(s) and outreach. If you want to improve the city/port with better facilities (shipwrights, armourer, forts, hospitals, schools which improve the skill of the officers etc.c) you should pay for it with an initial payment and subsequent upkeep costs. If you're attacked the port and it's buildings may be damaged and they will need rebuilt. This will promote active clan/guild activity and reward the most active. You won't get the above scenario of large groups attacking small ones unless the small clan/guild have lots of resources, it will encourage conflict only where there is reward and should help balance 'ganking' on a clan level to some extent. If you have money you can pay more captains and pay them better. If you blow all of your resources on a fleet of first rates and struggle to supply them it will have economical knock-on effect to the rest of the clan. This way you grow organically and every action has consequences for every member of the clan. EDIT Having back-read though the previous pages to counter a clan/guild becoming competitive on a national level, I would suggest that the clans/guilds are limited in the number of captains. They can increase this by improving their port but there is still an upper limit. Every subsequent port the clan/guild captures will increase the captain limit too but by a smaller figure. Let's say the limit is 30 players for one port (rising to 50 when they have the best facilities) each subsequent port adds a further 5-10 captains to the limit. This way there is no theoretical limit to the number of players each clan/guild can have however, as they branch out it will become increasingly difficult to maintain. The exact numbers would have to be worked on in testing obviously.

Also, windage wasn't exactly something he overlooked so I very much doubt would undermine subsequent tests by disregarding it - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3j8FAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=windage&f=false

A handful of tests? haha The guy wrote thoroughly on the subject spending many years testing his theories too. I also fail to understand how windage is relevant to the subject of velocity loss when he's measuring at the muzzle and then in subsequent intervals and getting consistent results.

He tested it - http://www.arc.id.au/RobinsOnBallistics.html

Benjamin Robbins calculated that a cannon firing a ball at 1700 ft/sec, double-shotted, the muzzle velocity will be approximately 1200 ft/sec, or around the speed of sound. So at short ranges even double shorted, the muzzle flash, report and ball would arrive around the same. Longer ranges it gets a little complicated, depending on muzzle velocity and range, but a shot with a muzzle velocity of 1700 will have to travel roughly 450 foot before the report overtakes the ball. I've also read a few accounts of captains claiming to know the range to an enemy by counting the time between muzzle flash and report, kinda like judging your distance from a thunderstorm. I imagine them stood there on the quarterdeck counting calmly while a cannonball hurtles towards them... Really cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing

It means each ship is created with slightly differing performance 'parameters'. For example: Two yachts made in the same yard, from the same materials will have slightly different characteristics. One may get to 12knts close hauled while the other reaches 13knts on the same point of sail. However the former may carry more leeway than the other. These 'parameters' will be hidden to the players so you will have to work out your ships pros and cons yourself.

It's like the Teletubbies baby came back to save Sweden from the giant, evil, crying Elk. It's the best by far. Love the creativity.

Many would agree with that (me being one of them) and there are also threads about most of the above too if you want to express your opinion there too. I think "Judge the condition of the ships from damage and list etc" is a must. I'm not sure why or how you would have detailed information about the enemy beyond what you can discern from observing them. I think the other points (1, 2 & 3) should be implemented but are able to be turned on or off either in the options menu or on designated key press. So the compass rose, gunnery information and player tags would either be shown or you use the visual information available instead. There would be little benefit to having the them turned on to the experienced players and it would look far better without them Haha, I'd hope you would have checked his allegiances before it got to that stage... but yeah, if the information was 'toggleable' this wouldn't be a problem.

I was thinking more about the lack of risk taking one NPC after another rather than the reward of a one-off jackpot. If they can hit NPCs without any fear of taking damage then they'll do it over and over and they'll make money. Even if the NPC players are the most modest of prizes, the smallest ships are still going to be worth a few bob, without even taking cargo into account. I would happily limit the size of NPC ships, I mean no NPC 'rated' ships sound good to me personally but then if we're to look at the escort system, how much worth will it be if you're sailing a large indiaman and all they assign to your escort is a couple of NPC cutters? ...and we're still punishing players who prefer PVE combat simply because some would prefer not to fight them..? Hardly seems fair. I agree with this entirely but I would imagine that if the open world economy is player driven, the risk of running pirate infested waters, where few venture to go would be far larger. It's an organic supply & demand trade-off rather than an artificially enforced one. Do I think there should be enforced rates for different areas though? Probably not. I just think it punishes some in favour of others tastes and detracts a little from the 'open' part of an open world If we have designated non-NPC areas, then the types of ships NPCs sail and their typical cargo would be found on the nearby 'markets' in far fewer numbers compared to areas where NPCs are found, often captured and sold. This would reduce the reward for NPC prizes organically and mean that any PVP success would reward the extra risks taken. Basically, what you put forward above without any imposed rates and without directly singling out players with a preference for non-PVP combat. It would also give players who prefer NPC combat over PVP somewhere to play and players with a PVP preference somewhere to stay clear of. We could then have it so it's impossible to tell if a passing ship or member of an escort is NPC or a player (as well as hiding a players name) until you're within a certain distance (within hail) of him. Which I really think would improve game-play.

They farm NPCs at little risk, amass huge wealth and it undermines the economy completely. See Elite Dangerous. Unless there is an option to play offline (and I believe their should be, many would have use for it) then people will have to accept fighting other players at some point. Are we going to make allowances for the players who never want to PVP as those who never want to face NPCs, they're just as likely (if not more likely) to quit if it's unavoidable? You will at some point have to face NPS, it's the nature of the escort system at least. As mentioned, a fair compromise, and it will need to be a compromise, is designating an area for PVP only.

Yeh, I'm not so into the gold leaf/aged look personally, it feels gaudy and it's a totally over done cliché. Also, anything too elaborate on a UI detracts from the content behind it. Minimalist with maybe a more dated font and organic lines perhaps but don't get too carried away. The purpose of an interface is not to stand out if anything.

It makes perfect sense. Not only does the escort system pretty much force you to fight NPCs at some point anyway but there are likely to be situations where you have to engage with them for progression. You also have to think about this both ways. If you can see who the players are then you can also see who the NPC players are and you'll get players simply farming NPC's and shunning PVP combat, a problem that's plagued many a MMO game. I would suggest that we can not see if it's NPC or Player (and his name) until you're within a certain distance (within hail) of him. For those of you who want no part in NPC combat there should be certain areas of the map where NPC will not spawn nor follow in escort. This is a compromise that suites everyone and is better for the gameplay in general too.

I'm of the opinion that we don't need to know what damage we've done to an enemy ship or what state they're in beyond what we can discern from looking at them. I understand some of those visuals (holes in the hull, two gun ports smashed into one) won't be possible until a further down the line if at all but we're already able to see sail damage, mast damage and when the ship has taken on water, so you clearly see the value in displaying the condition of a ship visually. Rudder damage wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Damaged/knocked out guns would be discernible from the fact they don't fire when the rest of the deck fires. Other than a ship sitting lower in the water to show the amount of water a ship is taking on, which is already in game, we wouldn't need any other information about the amount of leaks a ship has or if her pumps are damaged. If it's low in the water it's hurting, if it's not keep shooting until it is. No need at all for anything more there. Crew is something different all together. A ship with reduced crew should be generally slower at performing particular tasks and maybe the amount of crew on deck represents the number of crew on board. So for every visible hand on deck they have 50 crew or something. This would change as you optimise the game and are able to show more hands or as the graphic settings are altered if you chose to give the option. If you disagree with this, please suggest why a player needs to know the state of an enemy ship in game beyond what they can see because I can't think of any.

It might be worth having the water fill the actual ship outline in the centre of the compass rose as it takes on water, rather than the whole of the centre. It's a little more intuitive that way and would intrude less on the background as it's a smaller area... Just a thought

I'm not going to get involved in this thread as we'll have to wait and see how the game plays before we can truly judge but one reason that I've used to argue why large groups aren't (or shouldn't, as we have nothing from the devs on this yet, but they should be thinking about it) going to be so practical, is the ability hunt in groups and not lose money. You're going to need to make money from your exploits to run a ship. The more players in a group the less reward they get from any prize capture, rewarding smaller groups or solo players. Obviously any navy ships are supplied anyway but I get the impression the OP isn't worried so much about navies grouping up on solo players. Here's a more verbose explanation from another thread:

I think you're mistaking Public and Private IP address. A public IP is the same for any device using the same connection, usually plugged into your router. Private IP addresses are given by the router in your home and will change for every device connected to it. As far as I'm aware this is true for every 'civilian' home connection in most countries but I may be wrong. Certainly in the majority of countries NA's demographic come from anyway. This means that in order to get around it you would need to have 2 separate connections from your ISP or have some kind of specialised business account with multiple public IP's (or be some kind of hacker-ninja ). It would take effort or a unique set-up to work around.

Two wrongs don't make a right and just because one thing is broken (or not fixed yet) doesn't mean we have to break something else. What you're asking for was tested at the time and thought to be impractical so it wasn't taken up. We don't need to give players the ability to try it themselves because all of the disadvantages (after they've been developed, implemented, balanced & tested) would mean it's rarely if ever used and wouldn't be worth the time having the option. Using your argument we would have ships with furnaces capable of heating shot, explosive shells and HMS Arrow (1796) all of which were thought to be impractical. I don't understand why you think it would be worth the effort really.

We've debated this on other threads and I've used that source as well as sources used in that paper. Firstly, just because the gun is lighter doesn't mean the added weight of the full armament including ammunition & powder would be. A fully supplied 9lber would add 2.14cwt per gun while a 42lb carronade would add 4.04cwt per gun. It also doesn't mean the ship can take the recoil either or that they would actually fit on the deck. As it's difficult to know how practical it would be to fit massive calibre guns on small ships or if the gun would shake the ship to bits without testing, I would suggest we listen to those who knew best. So if you can find an example of a 18th century yacht mounting 42lber carronades, please share.

A pirate would just be a player shunned by every nation (A privateer would be shunned by all but one nation), having to find 'dirty' ports to buy/sell/repair. Without second characters is there any real reason to lock any player to a nation permanently? We know there will be no levels as such but you have to assume there will be a rank system within each nations navy. Moving from one to the other should clear any progression made and start you on the bottom run of the ladder with the new navy you join. As lower ranked players shouldn't be privy to the sort of game changing information that would justify switching nations, it would mean anyone jumping ship with valuable information on his previous nation could only do so at a cost significant progression loss. There might well be other consequences though, I've not though a lot about it. I never stipulated that but it won't make any difference really. The convoy continues on course, you intercept with or without you're 'alt' in the convoy.

If I'm playing as a merchant as one character and join a small convoy, I would assume I'll be privy to the destination, number in escort, relative strength of the group etc. Then I can log off with that character, position myself to intercept with my second account knowing what I need to be successful. This is how in it's simplest form, I'm sure there would be plenty of elaborate ways people will come up with to benefit having two separate playable characters. They aren't game breaking but given what the devs have stated earlier in this thread there are no benefits other than being in two places at any one time, something that probably shouldn't be possible (IMO).

I've never given this much thought before and I'm not sure what the rules game developers have to follow with regards to this are but couldn't GL just track IP addresses for every account and add a section on every players profile page that lists any other accounts that have recently been accessed from the same IP? So two brothers' accounts from the same household, using the same connection, would show up in each others 'linked' players section on their profile. This would make it even harder for players to 'spy' on another group without them knowing. ...Just an idea, I'm aware there are workarounds like proxys or just using another internet connection for separate accounts but that is a lot of hassle to go through and at the very least it's another discouraging step players would have to take.

Awesome. If you stick to the one nation steam accounts then it takes away the only genuine reason to have 'Alt' characters; playing with friends in different nations. Which is better for the game as it stops players or groups batting for both sides. Without levels and specialisation there is absolutely no reason for 'Alts' as any character can perform any role, in any ship, set-up any way. They'll just do better or worse depending on the combinations. Great calls in my opinion.

This is the sort of thing that will need to be experimented with once we can begin testing it and I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly at first. Or how about the suggestion below? There are problems that will arise using damage dealt at the reset. Examples would be: There are two pursuers chasing a third player far off in the distance, so long as the two pursuers fire one shot into each other every few minutes or so the battle doesn't end. Say a pursuer has no shot left after a drawn out battle but is still faster, with double the crew remaining. He could clearly still win by boarding but might not get the time. The battle could end with him just yards away from grappling range. A chase might have chain shot loaded to slow a pursuer down. His aim is to get away, so despite firing the chain and doing damage (thus resting the timer) he won't want the timer to be reset. A privateer might not want to fire at a merchant because it damages his prize. (Should the mechanism be added) he might prefer to come along side and wait for the merchant to strike. Could I propose a distance trigger instead, so that once there are no hostile ships within X distance of each other a short timer begins and if they haven't closed distance before it ends the instance is automatically ended. You could then start an instance with the ships X distance apart, if the chase is faster the instance won't last long. If the pursuer is faster then there is no danger of the instance ending before they come to blows. You would need to give some thought as to how we differentiate between friend and foe in an instance but this must be implemented anyway otherwise, with your quoted idea above, it will simply be exploited as in the first example given. So it's not going to be any extra work. It would also be nice to have an 'end instance' box to tick at the start and remaining throughout every instance. Upon both (or at least 90% in larger battles) of the players ticking the box the instance closes. If only one (or more than 10%) haven't ticked the box then it will remain open until the timer runs down, one side has no ships left or more boxes are ticked. This way players can mutually close the instance whenever they like should it be desirable to do so, say for example if they know the chase is faster and already out of range there's no wasting time looking at a timer.