Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'flag'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Age of Steel historical discussions
    • General discussions
    • Blohm+Voss
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 23 results

  1. Charles Edward Stuart

    A Treatise On Custom Banners

    A Treatise On Custom Banners By Ove Gjedde Charles Edward Stuart ( [KOS] Kingdom of Scotland | https://bank.carrd.co/ ) There's a fair chance that you will by now have seen images where a player has a flag on their ship that is not the flag of their nation. This is because of a client-side modification to the game that in no way affects gameplay. Other players cannot see your flag unless they are using the same modification as you. One of the perks to Naval Action being entirely hosted and calculated on a server (down to the water and waves) is that it largely, if not completely, eliminates client cheating. Because of that, rules regarding what's done client-side are more lax, as it cannot affect other players. Here's how to change your flag. Things you will need: Naval Action. An image editing program. (This guide uses paint.net, which you can find here. ) A Unity explorer. (This guide uses UnityEX, which is harder to find. Any Unity explorer will work.) Time and patience. Step One: Open your archive explorer and navigate to your Steam directory, and from there to \steamapps\common\Naval Action\Client_Data\. Make a copy of "sharedassets0.assets" and throw it somewhere you can find it if you want to undo your customizations. Open "sharedassets0.assets". Step Two: Find your nation in the list, and Export it as a .dds file. UnityEX does this automatically with the "Export with convert" option. This author suggests sorting the archive by Name to save time. (Nation flag filenames will be provided at the end of this guide.) Having exported the national flag, we now need to navigate to the raw .dds texture and make the edits we desire. I don't like the Danish flag very much in its original state, so we're going to improve upon it. Discontinuity warning. I'm not going to go into how to use an image editor, as I suspect people who have gotten this far know how to use one. But a few decent tips I have are: Do not stray from the resolution used by the game, or your flag will get cut off; and everything past pixel 422 on the x axis will be disregarded. Try not to forget to add a texture to your flag. Simply searching "Transparent flag texture" on Google will typically get you a good selection to pick from. Once you're done creating or choosing your custom flag, proceed to Step Three below. Step Three: Having now made the edits I desire, we need to get the file back into the Unity archive as a .tex file again. Assuming we left the flag with the same name in the folder it was exported to, we can just hit "Import all files" in UnityEX and launch the game. Done. Please note, again, only you (and players with the same modification) can see your custom national flag. It will appear on all ships that are of your nation, or join a battle on your nation's team. Index of file names: France - flag_0006_Fr.tex Espana - flag_0005_Sp_00001.tex OR flag_0005_Sp.tex Pirates - flag_0011_Pirate.tex Great Britain - flag_0003_UK_white.tex VP - flag_0010_Dutch.tex Denmark - flag_0009_Denmrk.tex Sverige - flag_0007_Sweden.tex USA - flag_0001_US_v2.tex Russia - russian_empire.tex Prussia - prussia.tex Poland - polish.tex Neutral - flag_9999_NoTeam.tex If you have questions about this guide, or anything else, please contact me either through the forums, in-game, or on Discord at: Charles Edward Stuart#5482 And please like if this helped you. Shameless self promotion is my thing.
  2. z4ys

    Battle damage and Flags

    Prolog Currently our flags stay untouched and look new even after tremendous rigging damage. Suggestion Flags get a damage layer like sails do, but complete destruction of the flag isnt possible. Details: After/during a battle flags could be damaged and look like this for increased immersion: Pro: increased immersion Con: Dev time
  3. The past month has seen a large decline in port battles and those groups who take the time and effort to create them. It seems every time I hear of someone saying "we should take X port" the immediate response is "will you grind it?" That may be acceptable and the effort required bring hostility to 100% allows both sides to engage in a fight whether that be to defend it, or the opportunity to kill players to make the PB happen faster through the hostility mechanic. I personally hear more folks dislike the current RvR mechanic and wish for change. I propose we drop Hostility missions and rework the old Flag mechanic to create something better. -------------------------------------------------- What I would keep 1. Time windows - the ability to leave it open, or to create a specific time window to defend in 2. Maintenance - I would adjust prices of maintenance, but still keep it. I would propose lowering the Time maintenance to 400k (so the maintenance is 500k and not 600k with a timer) 3. BR limits ------------------------------------------------- New Flag System: 1. Similar to the way Hostility works now, You must purchase the Flag a day before the intended port battle. You MUST purchase the flag within the port's time window as well. In order to Purchase a Flag, you must be the Leader, or Diplomat role within the clan. when the Flag is purchased, it is an item (like a book) and it is put into your personal warehouse in the port you are at, at the time of purchase. The flag can be place into the clan warehouse in order to allow Officers of the clan to gain access to it. A clan can only have ONE (can be adjusted) flag active at a time. I believe this does a few things. A. The moment you Purchase the flag, is the same time the Port Battle happens on the next day (24hrs from purchase) B. the limitation of who is allowed to purchase a Flag stops abuse of random flag purchasing. The limitation of Flag's active in a clan stops abuse of a clan activating tons of flags. C. Flag acting as an item makes it so it must be in a ships hold at the time of the port battle happening 2. The Flag itself makes the following happen: A. The "flag holder" must create a "Battle Group" in order to enter the Port Battle. B. The Flag is an Item that is "used" like a Book. You can ONLY use the flag after creating a Battle Group. you can ONLY use the flag on the DAY OF the Port Battle C. Only those players in the Battle Group made by the Flag bearer are able to enter the Port Battle. 3. If the Flag is destroyed (the player's ship is sunk) anytime BEFORE the Port Battle, the Port Battle is immediately cancelled and Whenever the PB would have happened, the defenders gain a 24 hour rest period (as it is now when a groups fails to take a port). 3A. If the Flag has been "used" and the Flag owner had created a Battle Group. the Battle Group is considered "the flag." This means Anyone in the Battle Group can Enter the Port Battle, This also means that in order for the Defenders to stop the attackers from entering the Port Battle, they must Defeat all enemy players in the Battle Group. This stops the "kamikaze" effect of killing the flag owner before the battle and forces the Defenders to make a real attempt at denying the enemy from entering (all of them). the defender is able to still kill the flag before the Port Battle. But the attacker can use the flag to still allow their battle group to enter. 4. Flags Cost Gold/Currency (for new patch) to create based on the Port's Battle Rating Limit. I don't know what the basis would be for price apart from BR limit. my initial thought is the following: 1,000 gold/currency per 1 BR. So a 2,400 Deep Water BR port's flag would cost 2.4 million. Side note - Shallow Water port flag cost would be reduced by 50% (so 500 gold/currency per 1 BR). ---------------------------------------------------- A port Battle works the same way it would now, you must achieve 1,000 points to win or last throughout the whole battle time (for defenders). If the FLAG bearer dies in a screen (OW) battle that just ensures the attackers are UNABLE to enter the port battle (Although I feel we could change this to something more agreeable if folks don't like this). ---------------------------------------------------- ABUSE CASES? Groups create multiple clans to create multiple flags --- Yeah ok, I don't really care. since Clans have a limited "friendly clan list" I don't see this getting bad or negatively affecting anything. Those who try and multi-flip will always try. Those who multi-flip can't win in a contested port battle so they will lose the port eventually anyway. Alt abuse? --- I don't see it. ----------------------------------------------------- Downsides? The one I can see is that since there are no more Hostility missions, you cannot "Stop" someone from trying to make a Port Battle happen on your port. But in the end, you can Screen the enemy out or win the Port Battle the next day anyway. EDIT all Underlined areas are Edited
  4. Aventador

    National Identity

    After reading through Hethwill's suggestion, I had the idea that instead of a random flag on one of the masts there could be a national flag that you could choose. That way if you are Australian playing for the British nation you could fly the Aussie flag on your mast to represent where you are from. Here's a list of nations that are recognized by the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states. I feel like this would give some sense of nationalism while adding more customization at the same time.
  5. Captain Jean-Luc Picard

    Spanish Flag

    Spanish ensign captured at the Battle of Trafalgar, belonging to the San Ildefonso. The flag had been hung in the crossing of St Paul's Cathedral during Admiral Nelson's funeral service on 9 January 1806. San Ildefonso was captured after only an hour of action in the battle. The ship came under heavy fire from the Revenge and Defence, together shooting away her mizzen and main masts. With 34 dead and 126 wounded, she surrendered to the Defence. San Ildefonso was one of only four prizes captured by the British at the Battle of Trafalgar, along with the Bahama, Swiftsure and San Juan Nepomuceno, surviving the storm that followed the battle. She was used as a store ship and broken up in 1816.\ Source: http://www.rmg.co.uk/content/identifying-san-ildefonso-flag
  6. When we sail in the open world and see a sail on the horizon all we need to do is click the sail and we get all sorts of information. Player name. Player faction. Whether they are smuggler flagged or not. What ship they are in. Why are we given all this information for free? Here is an idea of how I think it should work to create more uncertainty and excitement when seeing a sail on the horizon (I'll elaborate at the end of the post on the functionality could work) To identify the type of a ship you should use the spyglass and zoom in... and if it's too far away to make out exactly what ship it is... well... guess you gotta sail closer then. To know their nationality should also be a matter of seeing the hoisted flag, again, through use of spyglass. Whether they are smuggling or not should require having to sail close to a ship and "scan it" as it were...e.g. stay within the small circle for X seconds or a minute and you will automatically do a "scan" and detect if they are carrying contraband or not. This way anyone who is doing smuggling to (most likely) an enemy faction have two choices if a ship approaches... either keep your course and make no adjustment and hope they just sail past you... or try to avoid the other ship to avoid detection... however starting to avoid might look suspicious and trigger someone to come closer to see what you are up too. As for player name... that should definitely not be known without closer interaction.. granted if we get the ability to name our ships the player might be linked to the ship name. Flag system The player in the ship can decide to hoist their flags or keep them lowered. With all flags down, ergo being all anonymous, you can be attacked by anyone and even if they are same faction as you they suffer no consequences for doing so. However... if you hoist your national colors then regular ROE rules apply and being attacked by same faction will be considered a pirate act by the ship attacking. Also, if you hoist your national colors and your nation is at war with the ship approaching you then you are literally "flagging yourself" as a target. Different types of flags can be hoisted. For instance you can hoist your nations flag to clearly mark your nationality. In addition there would be a flag to identify you as a trader and a flag to identify you...that is, you personally, ergo your name. With all flags lowered anyone who targets your ship get no information about it other than "Unidentified ship" or something like that. Nation flag and trader flag would have to be identified visually. However if you raise the flag that identifies YOU it will, in the top right corner target information box also show your in-game name. So to summarize the flags: National flag - visual information only - when hoisted it applies regular Rules of Engagement between factions. When lowered you are treated as a faction-less and can be attacked by anyone. Trading flag - visual information only - when hoisted it simply lets any ship nearby know that your business is trading. Personal flag - adds information to the target info box on top right, will show the player name. "But Ghroznak...", you say. "How will we be able to talk or send messages to someone in a nearby ship if we don't know their name?", you ask. Well... once you click a ship on the horizon you still get the target info box on the top right where you can choose to "Attack" / "Invite to group" / "Send private message". By simply clicking on "Send private message" you can send text chat to the ship you have targeted even though you haven't identified it's nationality or the player on the ship. Your message will simply be sent to "Unknown captain" and replies would come back as "Unknown captain says: blahblah". So why change things and remove information and adding a flag system? What I am thinking is that this will create more of a mystery on the high seas. Example scenario 1: You are sailing around in your Brig and come upon what looks like a Surprise heading towards you. Your flags are down... his flags are down. Who is he? What is his intention? You proudly hoist your national flag to identify yourself, but he is still coming towards you... with no flags showing. You send him a message... Who are you, what is your intentions? As he comes closer you see him "raise the black". Now what do you do? Example scenario 2: You are in your Trader Brig full of cargo that you are trying to get to an enemy port to sell... as a smuggler. Your nation flag is down. Your trading flag is up. As you draw closer to your destination you see two Rattlesnakes leaving the port and turning towards you. What do you do? Stay the course towards the port? Try to deviate slightly to avoid them coming close enough to "scan" you and see you are smuggling? These situations don't really happen in the game today cause you can click a sail several leagues away and get all the information in a nanosecond. You see a pirate ship leagues away then, well, you just sail around him or away... and he'll be hard pressed to catch up. So what do you guys think about "free" information and basing it more around a flag system and visual identification of ships on the open sea?
  7. I believe hostility system is a step into the right direction, however it’s not working now. Fixing it may improve the game significantly. I’m saying this as a guy who proposed the system in the first place ( afaik ). Sometimes systems don’t work as you intended, or are modified to not to work as intended Edit: The newest version of this post is available under link below. It's constantly updated and allows you to put your comments on top of the text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QReWu6p7LJ3hhKpi4Lf5pbKQrK9NeqDVZU8NdTJtm5c/edit# What doesn’t work: hostility mainly generates PvE, not PvP system of entering PB’s is prone to exploits (log off screen, wave of screeners jump out of harbour) without using exploits, a decently organised defender has a huge advantage, making capturing a port extremely hard and costly system generates 1-2 battles per nation per week, with no meaningful encounters in between (not counting PvE) larger nations gain big advantage in both hostility generation, as quantity is quality now war supply hostility bump is not limited, allowing for a hostility bomb tactic What is important to notice: RvR is completely a domain of clans, and as such every system related with RvR should support clans people want screening encounters, it’s worth to give it to them people want more or less fair fights, which balance out nation size difference and which require skill, not numbers players raising hostility are PvP, not PvE players. It’s hard to convince PvE player to join even a PvE hostility generation mission. That’s why hostility should focus around PvP port battle system should value people's time, giving them interesting, meaningful and fair encounters quickly, without tedious work Some ideas to improve the current system: remove PvE missions completely. Instead, when attacking fleet reaches the mission, launch a notification that the fleet is raising hostility. Allow for any defending captain in an attacked region to teleport to a battle, filling in defending fleet to a BR limit of an attacker. In case defenders don’t show up, raise hostility by X and allow to launch next mission eg. 10 minutes later. this still allows for uneven screening tactics, however it also promotes PvP battles of different fleets in even encounters it saves time of players to get a good PvP In case players won’t show up on a regular basis, you could tweak mechanism to fill in defender’s fleet with AI up to attacker’s BR create war supply encounters, where eg. 4-28 hours in advance (chosen by attacker) there’s a notice that war supplies will be delivered to a harbour. Delivery ships would be allowed to deliver goods only in the specified time (eg. 1 hour), raising hostility eg. only by 50% if all goes well. This would allow for a large screening operations and delivery operations. it makes economy significant for war effort it could be launched both by a defender and attacker it would create more of meaningful encounters at times when port battles are rare, and often happen once per week it empowers organization that clans offer multiple other types of missions could be created with a similar mechanic. Eg. raids could be set 4-28 hours in advance, requiring attacker to sail his ships into the harbour within 30 minutes. Any ship that would get in would have to reach a certain area and eg. stay there unattached for 2 minutes to raise hostility, while defenders could join battle only to a limit of attacker's BR already in the mission. This could raise hostility eg. by up to 30% adds variety allows for experiments with different mission mechanics, defining which are fun, in the same time not influencing player's experience so much creates another opportunity for screening encounters Those are more or less rough ideas. If they were thought through and modified in search of corner cases and exploits, I think after implementation they would improve experience a lot. They would also make game available for much more players who don’t have time to sail for 3 hours in search for PvP, however would likely invest 30 minutes in order to do so. It would make organized even PvP battles more often, which is probably the best side of NA. ps. My first post wasn’t noticed probably since it was in on 5’th page of a large thread, and as such TLDR. That’s why I create this one in a separate thread.
  8. Lannes

    Escadrons Etrangerès

    From the album: French flag

  9. Lannes

    Escadrons Etrangerès

    From the album: French flag

  10. Adrianpixel

    port flag

    How can you move from one player to another port flags? Is prohibited?
  11. This one is for the new upcoming port battle mechanics. As I noted I would give more details on war supplies". So here is my suggestion: (Original: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/?p=276694 ) First of all, for this to work, Marines have to become a resource as opposed to a module. (Or maybe a new resource "Troops"?) Capital generates a new resource "Marine Recruitment Order". (Haven't looked at the price yet, but it should be really high to form a good money sink.) Crafting Marines always costs you 25 Recruitment Orders, 1500 labor, 26 ? Gold Coins. (I must be misreading the BP. ) Crafting Marines gives you 375 XP. Where you craft the Marines defines how many you will get: Capital - 150 Marines Regional - 100 Marines Deep - 50 Marines Tossing Marines into the hold of your ship reduces your amount of maximum crew with the same amount. (It's silly to sail to war with a Trader Lynx. ) (We still need whaleboats. ) Instead of flag planting, you launch an assault: Each whaleboat can drop 20 troops in 2 minutes (similar to a flag drop right now). Multiple whaleboats increase the number of troops dropped. If the dropping ship moves or is engaged within 1 minute, the troops and whaleboat(s) are lost. If the dropping ship moves or is engaged within 2 minutes, the troops are delivered, but the whaleboat(s) are lost. Delivered troops give an hefty increase in hostilities. (I'm not happy yet with the "or is engaged" part.) The idea is that you can take out orders and sail them to the destination of choice. If the front line is far away, then you would use a Trader Lynx. Or you move the orders from port to port. Alternatively you use them at your capital and use a big ship to move troops to the frontline. Effectively it means that big ship movements become of strategical importance. Plus we can still have all the fun around intercepting an assault fleet.
  12. As we all know port battle timers are a pain. Either you have to be awake at some godawful hour or you cant get the support for it during your primetime. BUT, What if you could in a sense have your cake and eat it too. My proposal is a simple one. Keep the port timers. And in addition to them make it so you can buy the flag at anytime but at the expense of 5-10x the base cost of the flag. So it is possible to get that port you wanted, but at a cost. The one thing the devs arent looking at really is the mechanic of our own economics. Do some ppl have the ability to throw down upwards 6 mil for a port flag? sure. but will they for long if they keep doing that? not really or realistically. So instead of the devs trying to make everybody happy by engineering a new system, why not keep the one we all know with the added ability to not be so strongly tied to it. Also know that if you set the timer to when you cant defend but still lose it, that the enemy paid one way or another to get it. Plus we are talking about the chance to take a port not the foregone conclusion that they actually win it. buying the flag doesn't mean anything unless you win the battle. so my idea in example say you wanted to sack "generic portname here" and the timer is set for 04-06. At those times the cost is 400k now if you dont have the manpower at that time you can buy the flag still but at 5-10x the cost, (only balancing would come up with a real number) for the sake of simplicity we'll say its 10x. now that port flag can be bought at anytime but for 4 mil when not in the port's time slot. Could the multiplier be static across all ports? sure could the multiplier be on a sliding scale with a mechanic added like how many times its been sacked in say a 30 day period (again, spit balling) so that the multiplying cost would go up to limit the amount of times its been hit? sure. Again let economics be the mechanic instead of anything else thoughts? ideas? please post
  13. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/?p=273743 As we had our battle at Belize yesterday, it struck me funny that you are actually allowed to buy a flag for another port and bypass the port battle completely. Thinking about it a bit more it didn't make much sense to me, although I think I have done similar things in the past. Rather a port battle should truly blockade all forms of passage. And thus when you are trying to leave the port, you get a "join port battle dialog" with BR info & ship numbers and the same thing happens when you try to enter such a port. So I drafted some questions to see what the general consensus is.
  14. Alrighty, I think that a lot of people are going to be waiting/dreading for this Tribunal post to be put up here. I don't feel like I am personally the best when it comes to forums, but it seems that this is the only avenue that allows for justice to be served in a case like this. I am fine with there being spats in chat and even attacks on the open sea as I think most of us are, but I do not believe that this kind of abuse should be allowed in game, and the people responsible should be punished. The people who griefed our entire clan out of attacking ports that we had planned the entire week waiting for and blocked our ability to play the game, are willingly destroying our gameplay on purpose out of spite. I hope that all of you will agree this should not be allowed, but the only question that should be asked is, what will the punishment be? So I am the leader of the clan FTS inside of Naval Action, we play on the Pirate faction as most of you know. Today we decided to get on early with as many members we could muster during the European Timezone, people dedicated time and effort getting this to happen. So we all logged in early and when the time window for the first port that we planned to attack opened, we sailed out and successfully captured Samana with minimal resistance. This did not go over well with a few of the Pirate Clans who do not agree with what we were doing, that was fine they prefer a certain playstyle and that is ok. They didn't just leave it there though, they had two of their officers purposefully pull flags to to prevent FTS from attacking the remaining ports. As you can see in that screenshot these two officers pulled flags at the same time for ports that were next to the ones we had just recently taken. So now you ask, did they plan on attacking those ports? Probably not, but give them the benefit of the doubt. Until they openly admit it inside of pirate chat. Now, not that Kuthara is the leader of the clan that these two players come from and they are both officers inside of the clan. Now, I'm not one to normally post on the Tribunal trying to get other people punished, but these 2 or 3 players essentially robbed my friends and I of our time and effort, by abusing game mechanics and then gloating about it. To top it all off, we were not able to pull the flag for those ports after they expired, eliminating any possibility of our plans of taking them. Will all the evidence that is here, it is obvious the intention of these individuals and the abuse of current game mechanics that caused a huge discussion on a previous Tribunal post. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/11759-abuse-of-flag-mechanics-2-decision-needed/ These players are obviously guilty of griefing even if not necessarily exploiting. They had the clear intent for this outcome and were probably aware of the Tribunal post discussion about this same topic, but they decided to pull the trigger on their plan regardless. So the question remains, do we want these types of players knowingly abusing game mechanics and griefing other players who are testing the game? Or will we make an example of these two and prevent players from using this style of gameplay in the future, because they know that they will not get away with it. If you made it through this entire post, thank you for reading down this far and I would appreciate any discussion in this thread.
  15. A suggestion for the "Pirates" Faction: A feature where, after capturing an enemy ship, you can hoist that ship's faction's colors to disguise your ship and sneak up on enemies before attacking like in history. For example, pirate ship attacks and captures a British ship, pirate ship is now able to hoist the union jack to sneak up close to enemies and either attack or slip by. There could also be a feature for detecting whether or not a ship is disguising itself or not but I'm not really sure how. Any feedback, suggestions, or something to add on?
  16. Randasd

    Cosmetics:

    Trader ships should have their ports closed. I also think that flags should be flown not just in combat, but also while sailing around.
  17. Yarrr !! OK now i have your attention.... Every pirate started their life as a National (Somewhere!) British, Spanish, Native Indian, Portugese etc. When you join the game you have no reputation, Good or Bad. Only through in game actions should you remain an honourable member of your Nation or through smuggling or piracy become known as Captain Crankey the Notorious British Pirate etc. Piracy was a label not a Nation. Players could Have Naval Rank earned through grinding and pvp against your Nations enemy shipping, Merchant standing earned through trading. Piracy would be a label of notoriety/lawfullness. Honour/Notoriety/Infamy earned by acts within the game, smuggling and piracy would give you bad notoriety and eventually earn you the title "Of ill repute","The smuggler","The Blackguard", "The Pirate", whilst intercepting pirates or smuggler activity would eventually earn you the title "The Honourable", "The Upstanding" etc Players with bad repute, would be limited to visiting Neutral(I prefer Unaligned) ports and National ports where the level of 'policing' would be sufficiently low enough for you to enter with a simple bribe to the harbour master to enter you as Captain 'Smith'. False papers, would give you a chance of appearing to be law abiding while on the high seas or entering ports.(Depending on the quality these could perhaps fool OW players into believing you are neutral or friendly at the very least law abiding, but if your papers fail then you are flagged as wanted or pirate to the investigating players ship who can then engage you. I would suggest the more notorious you become the harder it is to deceive without using the very best falsified signals or papers(Cost associated). Neutral Ports and Nation?? Players should choose their birth Nation. If not one of the main 8 then at least offer some viable 'others' with the odd port dotted around. I also would prefer to align all ports on the map to either the larger nations or perhaps little known local 'self styled governors/warlords' (Guild ownership possible perhaps at some point?) Even the meanest little hamlet would have been claimed perhaps tenuously at some point by one nation or another albeit 100 years earlier without seeing a uniform since. Neutral just sits badly with me. Everyone wanting to be a trader will just roll a neutral toon Yeuch EDIT: As I have made some sweeping statements above or put forward an idea without going into detail, I have been replying to different queries or questions regarding my ideas within the thread to clarify and expand on my OP. Already seeing some very good interpretations and suggestion to expand my initial thoughts
  18. I was wondering which flag will neutral players fly?
  19. Pigafetta

    Venetian flag

    From the album: Flags

  20. Pigafetta

    Italian Navy flag (2)

    From the album: Flags

  21. From the album: Flags

    Crest of the Italian Navy
  22. Blackie

    blackieani

    From the album: Flags

    Blackie's flag
×