Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

[Lonar]

1 hour ago, HardyKnox said:

Also, EVE, which had full release several years ago, presently has over 2,000 average players, but falling atm.   http://steamcharts.com/app/8500

Alpha (Pre-Release) status Naval Action has recent average under 700.  http://steamcharts.com/app/311310#1y

So, EVE must be doing something right.

 

Eve is SciFi that sells always better then History or historical Naval ... And also when you want to make Naval Action like Eve please pitch me a Reason to not play Eve i mean honestly why not just play the Original then. And take the historical aspect out of it try to see me as a mainstream random guy with a taste according to it.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lonar

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, Blackjack Morgan said:

Let's just get that Naval Action Legends testing underway and good luck with the Guild Wars meets EVE meets RNG lottery system! 

I have to agree with you here to a certain extent. At least if they get Naval Action Legends underway then the people left in the OW game will be ones interested in helping develop a good open world game rather than a duel type lobby game with an open world aspect.

Dont get me wrong, I hope both games are successful and I hope I can enjoy playing both styles, its just that there are a lot of people trying to influence the OW game direction that would be suited to the lobby style game Naval Action Legends will be.

[Blackjack Morgan]

Just now, Archaos said:

I have to agree with you here to a certain extent. At least if they get Naval Action Legends underway then the people left in the OW game will be ones interested in helping develop a good open world game rather than a duel type lobby game with an open world aspect.

Dont get me wrong, I hope both games are successful and I hope I can enjoy playing both styles, its just that there are a lot of people trying to influence the OW game direction that would be suited to the lobby style game Naval Action Legends will be.

Not sure I would agree with that sentiment. I was extremely interested in helping to develop this game for years till after this latest wipe and the "hardcore" mantra took hold. I simply do not view mindless grinding for ship unlock slots, grinding raw materials, grinding ai for complete RNG mods, or some of the other changes as fun. Never viewed it as "hardcore" but more like mind numbingly boring for the sake of being boring. I found the game to be more enjoyable prior to these changes by a huge margin. Matter of tastes I guess but I have a job and don't need a second one. So, if my only options are between timesink boredom or actually enjoying myself in pvp situations than I'll have to choose the arena mode. It isn't my first choice but it is the one that has been forced upon me.

[Hethwill]

Correct IMO. Didn't go that well. 

[BK-KnightRider]

The analysis and explanation of the problems is spot on.  Congratulations for that.  I'm not so sure about the solutions, especially the parts that are vague or ambiguous.

What does "Nations will close eyes on the privateering activities in the Caribbean region allowing free combat in the region" even mean?  Exactly how would we even have a choice?  We either can or cannot attack another player depending upon what the game allows us to do.  I don't know how we can prevent free combat in the region.

Exactly what does "Caribbean region" mean?  Should we narrowly interpret this as strictly meaning the territory within and surrounding the Caribbean Sea and thus not the Gulf and not the Atlantic?  Or does "Caribbean region" broadly mean the entire map?

Can chartered war companies include players from multiple clans allowing players to belong to both a clan and a war company?  Or will we have to make an either or choice?  If I have to leave my clan to participate in a war company I might as well quite the game now because I will not leave my clan.

Will national capitals remain exempt from attack?  If not then I might as well quite now because I will NEVER pay taxes to pirates or a foreign power if they can control my national capital.   If not, does limiting PB participation to only war companies also apply to defending our national capital?  If I cannot help defend my national capital from an attack by a foreign power or pirates then I might as well.  If war companies can conquer and control every port on the map then the developers might as well eliminate nations and change the name of the game to "Pirate Action."

Frankly, the claim that these changes will eliminate the impact of alts seems ridiculous.  I can't see how these changes can or will have a significant impact on alts.  Players will still be able to exactly the same things with alts that they do now.

[Prater]

23 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

still be able to exactly the same things with alts that they do now

Unless they have embedded themselves into war clans, no, they cannot.

[BK-KnightRider]

Just now, Prater said:

Unless they have embedded themselves into war clans, no, they cannot.

And these changes will prevent this from happening HOW exactly?  Players using alts will still be able to embed themselves in war companies to spy and cheat the same ways they currently embed themselves into other nations and clans, so your point is rather pointless.  Players will still be able to cheat with alts in EXACTLY the same ways they can cheat now.  These changes do nothing to change what people are currently doing with alts.

So, what is your rational explanation for exactly how these changes will prevent players from embedding alts into war companies?

[Prater]

3 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

And these changes will prevent this from happening HOW exactly?  Players using alts will still be able to embed themselves in war companies to spy and cheat the same ways they currently embed themselves into other nations and clans, so your point is rather pointless.  Players will still be able to cheat with alts in EXACTLY the same ways they can cheat now.  These changes do nothing to change what people are currently doing with alts.

So, what is your rational explanation for exactly how these changes will prevent players from embedding alts into war companies?

You are ridiculous.  Unfortunately you don't realize how you are wrong with every statement in this post and how alts work and how they have been used to cause the problems with port battles.

Spying isn't cheating.  Admin has sanctioned it.

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 hours ago, Dragonfire said:

So from what I see so far once again your trying to get ppl to pvp by trying to open up company within a nation verses company in same nation to fight each other as another option?

Super nations with player base will repress smaller factions , nations through taxation and if you don't like that nation tax it hard ?

Well organized nations able to basically run over fractured ones you figure they will work together ? Doubt it history has shown in this game they will either Quit. or move to another stronger nation as gameplay will be way too grind intensive or hopeless.

Just finally get it over with split the map in the middle and have it east v west or North v South countries , direction it is heading.

Your not in a strong nation,  the stronger nation and clans are gonna take till it hurts and tax the max allowed to keep you repressed.

Going to be a go big or go home style

Only thing going to be missing now is religion. Got the death and taxes part coming now lol.

Now can make use of pray button I guess lol.

You want hard core grinder types only to play the game direction it is headed.

 

You know this might be good for big nations that push around little clans too.  In the past we seen this done on PvP2/Global in the US and GB.  Small clans want to fight between the nations but the big clans don't.  They ruled the votes so couldn't pre-patch.  Now they do the same with the congress or what ever GB has.   We seen a few small clans try to do what they want, but with this system a group of small clans can ban together and take over there part of the nation and control it without the other national clans effecting them.  Well as along as they can hold there ground.

I'm going to bet some of them lazy PvE clans are going to tax the crap out of there controlled ports too.  Specially if it gets blockadied or something by others.  The good thing is clans that help the Nation like BLACK can take over a port and run very low tax's to fund there war machine if need be.  While other clans that don't have the econ means will prob have to jack up the prices to make means meet.  It will be interesting but even I'm not sure I like the direction they are looking at going.

7 minutes ago, Prater said:

Unless they have embedded themselves into war clans, no, they cannot.

Are even more making side war clans from the main.   They can set up war clans in other nations that can take control of key ports/regions along with there main nation clans.

[Prater]

3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

 

Are even more making side war clans from the main.   They can set up war clans in other nations that can take control of key ports/regions along with there main nation clans.

Which clans have so many alts that they can do this?  And even then, what's the point?  Might as well take it with their main clan.  It will have more power.  And I bet any large clan in any nation can defeat any alt clan.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater

[CaptVonGunn]

2 hours ago, Lonar said:

Eve is SciFi that sells always better then History or historical Naval ... And also when you want to make Naval Action like Eve please pitch me a Reason to not play Eve i mean honestly why not just play the Original then. And take the historical aspect out of it try to see me as a mainstream random guy with a taste according to it.

  Plus Eve takes no actual skill to hit and kill something.. just time and credits.. Lock on click fire and away you go. no aiming no real maneuvering other then stay in range. 

[Jean Ribault]

Taxing other players is a losing proposition.  Taxes should be imposed at the discretion of the war companies on AI citizenry only, just like in SimCity, and just like in that game they vote with their feet and can either make you or break you as a ruler of that city (port in this case).  Should be the same way here, there's too much impact on other players, is should just be something the war company has to maintain or they potentially could lose the port.

[Salty Dog.]

Without reading the 18 pages.... 

What is stopping everyone from joining the same clan and thus having a nation wide war clan?  Wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of clan wars?  Wouldn't that also advantage the huge borg clan and just let them go around seal clubbing the smaller clans/nations?

 Part of the Admin's OP claim "Alts interfere with conquest. There is not much to add"... however this seems to hugley help those that sail Alts..  Suddenly all those alts can go anywhere enter any port and truck it all back to the "Main" to use.  Seems that this new system would require people to have "Alt" minions to go all those places the main can't.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Salty Dog on Global

[Koltes]

Why make everything so complex?

Allow clans to claim 1 region and use it as their Base of Operations. This region can also be used by other clans. The owner clan can set tax on teleporting and using building (this applies to everyone, including players of the owner clan).

No war companies, but allow clans of one nation to form alliances, thus controlling and the taxation will be ruled by the alliance holder clan.

Allow clans to attack regions with less preparation, but as a result they will be able to only raid - hold temporarily (3 days) and collect goods from producing buildings free of charge.

No warehouse assets can be lost. Warehouse can still be accessed by the officers of the clan and pull out goods through smuggling. Risky, but doable.

Also make 25% of Caribbean non capturable permanent land owned by the crown. Those your safe land with AI patrols.

Allow clans to build prosperity of their land. Higher the prosperity, higher AI defenses and higher level buildings can be made by the clans and the other players of the same nation.

Allow taxation be complex. Not just 5-15% that applies equally to everything. Allow to set separate taxes on teleport, usage of land for production, trade, docking. Allow other clans to rent dock spaces from the owner clan.

Introduce Global Trade hub (3-4 ports on the map that share 1 shop). All deliveries and goods moving is still physical.

 

Also if we intro clans on such a good level, remove nation vs nation RvR. Allow clan vs clan RvR. Make nations such as Spain and GB be permanently at war. Sometimes they can go neutral for short period. Nation politics controlled by devs and only tells people who they can and cant attack in OW.

However if 2 clans at war (declared war between them), this over rules national politics. These 2 clans or alliances can fight.

Pirates are always at war. Like today they will create their own agreements and alliances

Edited August 3, 2017 by koltes

[Prater]

1 hour ago, Salty Dog on Global said:

Without reading the 18 pages.... 

What is stopping everyone from joining the same clan and thus having a nation wide war clan?  Wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of clan wars?  Wouldn't that also advantage the huge borg clan and just let them go around seal clubbing the smaller clans/nations?

 Part of the Admin's OP claim "Alts interfere with conquest. There is not much to add"... however this seems to hugley help those that sail Alts..  Suddenly all those alts can go anywhere enter any port and truck it all back to the "Main" to use.  Seems that this new system would require people to have "Alt" minions to go all those places the main can't.

The problem is, you didn't read all 18 pages, and unfortunately there is stuff spread through all the pages, so no, you can't enter any port (the main post should be updated because not everyone has time or will to read it all).  But, even if you could enter all ports, you can do that now with your main with contraband anyway and do it in the future too.  And what is to stop people now from having alts in multiple nations?  The point admin is making is alts' interference with port battle and conquest, and all the tribunals.  So he has come up with a way that stops them from getting involved.  Now they actually have to embed themselves into war clans.  While not impossible, it is a ton harder than showing up in a level 0 unclanned character in a basic cutter and ruining port battles.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater

[Thonys]

5 hours ago, HardyKnox said:

Also, EVE, which had full release several years ago, presently has over 2,000 average players, but falling atm.   http://steamcharts.com/app/8500

Alpha (Pre-Release) status Naval Action has recent average under 700.  http://steamcharts.com/app/311310#1y

So, EVE must be doing something right.

 

i just checked the player number for eve and at 01.00 hours there were almost 20.000 players (online in the night for EU)

(eve from steam is a alpha[free account players ]game number mostly, and mostly not omega[subscribed] players )

all over the day it is 30.000 players playing

Edited August 3, 2017 by Thonys

[BK-KnightRider]

11 hours ago, Prater said:

You are ridiculous.  Unfortunately you don't realize how you are wrong with every statement in this post and how alts work and how they have been used to cause the problems with port battles.

Spying isn't cheating.  Admin has sanctioned it.

(...)

  If you think spying is the only thing that players do with alts, and if you think players can't cheat with alts in ways other than spying then you don't have a friggin clue what players can do with alts.

Whether the developers tolerate or condone spying is totally irrelevant to whether players are cheating by using alts to spy and do other things.  Learn to think outside of the box because limiting cheating to breaking rules is silly.  Cheating involves doing things to get and unfair advantage over others REGARDLESS of whether the rules permit it.  Using alts is cheating, especially the ways in which some players use alts.

(...)

 

- Stick to the point. Everyone. Please. - the moderation team

[Prater]

2 hours ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Players using alts will still be able to embed themselves in war companies to spy and cheat the same ways they currently embed themselves into other nations and clans, so your point is rather pointless.

This is not cheating.  This is not a problem.  This is not what the admin is going after.  Is that clear enough?  This is completely sanctioned, and not what the admin meant when he said alts will be stopped by interfering with the port battles.  The admin didn't refer to anything in your post that you mentioned about alts and you left everything he was referring to out.  So maybe my opinion is empty because I see no point in telling you what he is referring to, but the fact is your statements on alts completely missed what admin is trying to stop.

Also, when they say Caribbean, they mean the entire world.  If people are referring to the Caribbean, they are referring to the game world.

 

20 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Where do I say that spying is the only thing alts can do?

I can play your game.  Where do I say that you say that spying is the only thing alts can do?

20 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Where do I say that spying is cheating?

Let's have you answer your question:

20 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

whether players are cheating by using alts to spy

 

Cut with the rational crap already.  And throw your debate book out the window.  No one cares about it.  People shouldn't have to study a debate book to discuss with you.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater

[janat08]

Read first 4 pages most comprised of clarification complaints, scanned the rest 10 for admin response. I demand clarifying within the first post by way of edit instead of dropping replies and giving up when the whole topic becomes about what exactly do you mean replies, since I imagine you'd draft final solution within the first post. You could instead try writing a proper post on first go around.

[Malachy]

@admin while I would love to have clan bases and wars, this proposal will make solo players and small clans irrelevant. Unless your in one of the biggest clans you won't be able to experience port battles or half the game. I suggest adding the best parts of this proposal, based and clan warfare to the existing dynamic. Get rid of all but three or 4 nations. The swedes, Danes and such were never involved in Caribbean warfare. I'd say leave France, Spain, Britain and the US, the 4 powers who actually fought during the napoleonic wars (which the war of 1812 was part of)

[Anolytic]

@BK-KnightRider Seriously. I see you spamming everywhere I go this past week, but so far I haven't had the time or energy to call you on your bullshit in any of the other threads you've been posting in. But I was enjoying this topic, and you're not going to ruin it for me!

59 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

I never mention alts in my original comment.  YOU are the one who unnecessarily brought alts into the discussion to make a bogus claim.

This is plainly a lie. Allow me to demonstrate:

3 hours ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Frankly, the claim that these changes will eliminate the impact of alts seems ridiculous.  I can't see how these changes can or will have a significant impact on alts.  Players will still be able to exactly the same things with alts that they do now.

There you mention alts. It is the first post you made in this topic. It is unedited at the time of me quoting it. 

59 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

And there you go again dishonestly distorting my comments.  I NEVER say that this is the problem the developers are going after.  That is YOUR distortion of my comment.  My comment has NOTHING to do with the developers. 

You keep accusing people of distorting your comments. Let's leave aside for now the fact that you write with such a level of ambiguity to allow yourself to reinterpret your own words in hindsight, in order to dodge any counter-arguments. You yourself are guilty of distorting other people's words. In your original comment in this topic you do exactly that to admin's OP. 

3 hours ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Frankly, the claim that these changes will eliminate the impact of alts seems ridiculous.

Admin did not claim in the OP that changes will eliminate the impact of alts. Admin only claimed, quite specifically, that alts ability to sabotage Port Battles will be mostly eliminated, which is true. 

On 02/08/2017 at 4:57 PM, admin said:

Alts.

• Alts interfere with conquest. There is not much to add

 

On 02/08/2017 at 4:57 PM, admin said:

Potential results: This will completely eliminate alts from conquest and will stabilize the map for new players who will have an equal experience irrespectively of the nation chosen.

This is all that admin wrote on the subject.

It is not a goal to eliminate the impact of alts, nor should it be. It is a goal to eliminate them from port battle sabotage, which this proposal goes a long way towards doing.

 

1 hour ago, Prater said:

Cut with the rational crap already.  And throw your debate book out the window.  No one cares about it.  People shouldn't have to study a debate book to discuss with you.

There is nothing rational about his posts. He's not reading a debate book. He's reading a dictionary, or the Wikipedia list of fallacies. He is only using fancy words to sound intimidating, but he is really making a fool of himself by demonstrating that he doesn't fully understand those words. Erroneously and needlessly using difficult words in this manner to make a weak argument look strong is textbook pseudo-intellectualism. Almost every time he has accused someone on this forum of an ad hominem or other fallacy, he has himself made the very same fallacy in his very next sentence. That's irony for you.

59 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

your response to me is a totally pointless point.

This might have sounded nice in your head, but it is a logical contradiction.

59 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said:

However, when someone posts false nonsense I will call it for what it is.  When someone posts irrational nonsense I will call it for what it is.

Clearly you do not recognise either.

1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Where do I say that spying is cheating?

 

1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Whether the developers tolerate or condone spying is totally irrelevant to whether players are cheating by using alts to spy and do other things.

Within two paragraphs you contradict yourself. Here you say that spying with alts is cheating, which is what Prater was referring to and you denied saying just a couple of sentences previously.

1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Learn to think outside of the box because limiting cheating to breaking rules is silly.  Cheating involves doing things to get and unfair advantage over others REGARDLESS of whether the rules permit it.  Using alts is cheating, especially the ways in which some players use alts.

This is what's called an equivocation fallacy. You are changing the meaning of the word "cheating" after the fact to suit your argument. 

Also, cheating is by definition breaking the rules. Your attempt to expand the definition would make it a tautology. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Anolytic

[Prater]

45 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

There is nothing rational about his posts. He's not reading a debate book. He's reading a dictionary, or the Wikipedia list of fallacies. He is only using fancy words to sound intimidating, but he is really making a fool of himself by demonstrating that he doesn't fully understand those words. Erroneously and needlessly using difficult words in this manner to make a weak argument look strong is textbook pseudo-intellectualism. Almost every time he has accused someone on this forum of an ad hominem or other fallacy, he has himself made the very same fallacy in his very next sentence. That's irony for you.

 

By saying "cut the rational crap", I mean, stop telling me and everyone else to respond with what you consider rational.  All of his posts claim everyone else is not logical and everyone else is irrational and then he demands we respond with his view of what is a rational argument.  By "debate book," I mean, every post he cries foul, throws a flag, and says, point against you, your entire argument is invalidated for this remark, 10 yard penalty.  Or that is how it appears to me.  I didn't take debate, so I don't know the fine points, and it appeared like he was trying to use debate club tactics as an excuse to avoid discussing the topic.  Thanks for clearing up what is going on.


Admin is trying to express 3 problems and hope to come up with a system that solves these problems.  At least these are the 3 main things I take away from the topic.
 

• He realizes that alts in conquest are a major problem and need a major solution.  Rereading his posts he does not say the alts in conquest problem will be solved, but that is a potential result and makes it appear to be a goal.
• RvR can cause damage to new players by driving them away when the nation they picked is not functioning well.  They had no idea what they were getting into when they picked this nation.  "Defeated" nations, nations which are 1ported/knocked down to one region, have their access to resources and ports they call home limited.  This isn't healthy gameplay for a stable population.
• RvR can cause damage to the existing playerbase, because a nation which gets whittled down to a few players cannot hope to compete or get back up on their feet.  How many mass exodus have we seen in Naval Action?  How many nations have been 1 ported?

These problems require a drastic solution, and he outlines it.  Which happens to be what many people have called for.  I'm not one of them, but if it fixes these problems I'm for it.

As for alts, hopefully alts can't interfere with port battles and it will require them to embed themselves within a war clan, taking up time and money to do so, and a chance of getting caught.  No more low level alts in basic cutters or other low ships interfering in RvR.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Prater

[Skully]

9 hours ago, BK-KnightRider said:

Cheating involves doing things to get and unfair advantage over others REGARDLESS of whether the rules permit it.

Ehrm ... I have to simply call this bullshit. Breaking rules or bypassing mechanics is cheating. Seeking an unfair advantage is warfare.

 

11 hours ago, Prater said:

And I bet any large clan in any nation can defeat any alt clan.

You might find yourself not getting good odds on such a bet. Then again it would be very hard to actually find a taker. 

If alts manage to get high up the chain in Charters, all the better. The Charters are player controlled and should be able to deal with such incursions (if caught) by kicking the alts, spies and saboteurs alike.

[Prater]

Just now, Skully said:

You might find yourself not getting good odds on such a bet. Then again it would be very hard to actually find a taker. 

If alts manage to get high up the chain in Charters, all the better. The Charters are player controlled and should be able to deal with such incursions (if caught) by kicking the alts, spies and saboteurs alike.

So which clan(s) have enough alts to form an alt clan and cause major disruption?

[mikawa]

What argument is out there to prove that the discussion about small and big nations will not be the same about small and big war companys? In my opinion the problem is only shifted but not solved.

Small Example:

I have outpost & shipyard in a town and this town will be captured by another war company. Now I should pay 25% Tax. What prevents me from just joining that company, so that I "earn" my own Taxes? It sounds for me more reasonable than to engage in RvR to capture it back.

Edited August 4, 2017 by mikawa
Typo