Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction at the Margins

[Bull Hull]

[Note - Selectively capping key words is NOT yelling.  Think outside of the box and instead consider the important role nonverbal cues play in effective human communication.  Just saying.]

Research in Economics, Sociology, and Customer Satisfaction has routinely found that a reality of human behavior is people act at the margins.  Consequently, until the developers end once and for all stupid ideas/mechanics those stupid ideas/mechanics will frustrate players at the margins and drive them away.  Yep, I bluntly, honestly, and truthfully said it like it is, some of the game mechanics and ideas developers keep or take out and then put back in the game are so stupid and frustrating that they will continue to drive players away.  So, after a long break, a few weeks playing again, then another short break and a few more days of playing again, here are some of the frustrating mechanics and details that are stupid enough that they WILL drive players away at the margins.  This is an unavoidable fact, truth, and reality of human behavior.  Either "recognize and then work with that reality or reality will automatically work against you." I wish I could remember the source of that quote, which is one of my favorite quotes that I learned at my first shore command almost 30 years ago.

To other commenters:  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it isn't possible to satisfy all players.  That totally misses the point, so save that lame platitude.  Also, please save the empty/unsupported opinions and childish ad hominem attacks.  Empty opinions that lack the support of a rational argument and supporting evidence aren't worth much, IF anything.

While many of the changes to the game are fantastic and want me to love it again - Bravo Zulu to the developers for them - some of the new or legacy stupidity are mind numbingly frustrating and thus they WILL drive away players; often drive them away again IF they return. So, here are the four at the top of my list that I have noticed or remembered the last few days:

#1 - Please, please, please STOP trying to manipulate the players into playing the way you think we should play.  Meet or exceed OUR expectations instead of trying to manipulate us into meeting YOUR expectations.  KNOW YOUR CUSTOMERS, and then meet or exceed their/our expectations.  A lot of people are intelligent enough to recognize such manipulation and find it annoying, condescending, and insulting.  Such manipulation WILL drive away some players at the margins.

#2 - Please, please, please STOP with the stupid idea of turning ship quality over to the whims of the RNG crafting gods.  As long as crafters have to craft 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 ships to ACCIDENTALLY get the ship they really wanted to craft in the first place some of them will stop playing because of the frustration.  Master craftsmen did/do NOT accidentally build superior quality products.  Master craftsmen INTENTIONALLY built/build their products with superior quality.  Master craftsmen INTENTIONALLY built/build superior products by committing the necessary time, effort, and SKILL to produce higher quality products.  Consequently, increasing the quality of all or select products increases the cost to produce them due to the increase in labor (either more time or more workers with the necessary skills or both) and the opportunity cost of producing fewer lower quality products due to committing resources to making better stuff.

Therefore, if the developers don't want everyone sailing around in gold quality ships then limit those numbers the same way the realities of economics does that in the real world - by increasing their cost to produce and thus their cost to sell - which is basic Econ 104 & 105 (aka Macroeconomics and Microeconomics which isn't exactly as basic as Econ 101).  Per the law of diminishing returns each marginal increase in quality gets progressively more and more expensive.  In other words, increasing the quality of a product by another 10% costs more than the last 10%. Then the next 10% is even more expensive.  Then the next 5% is as expensive or more expensive than the last 10%, etc. etc. etc. (that's a "King and I" reference for you youngsters).  In other words , the cost curve follows a parabolic curve (pretty sure it is not a hyperbola).  Quality (the Y-axis) can never reach 100% (because nothing is perfect) and the cost (X-axis) steadily increases for marginal improvements.  Eventually the cost for the next marginal improvement just isn't worth it and available money isn't infinite.  Anyway, I digress.  Here are some ways for the game to reflect this reality of economics to reasonably limit the number of ships at each quality point:

- Building ships takes time, building better ships takes even more time.  Gathering all of the resources takes time.  Converting resources to materials for construction takes time.  Saving up the Labor Hours takes time (btw, the LH limitation is a great idea).  The game already handles this pretty well, as in simply and fairly realistically.  AND then the game blows this with instantly building the ship as if by magic.  Well, how about tying up the way or drydock of a shipyard that is constructing a ship by having to deposit the materials into the shipyard, and then imposing a time for construction that is a function of the quality of the ship.  Once activating construction that yard, way, or drydock is unavailable for anything else until the ship is complete.  No repairs (which isn't a factor yet because we don't have to use a shipyard for repairs - woops, there's an idea for some more realism) or upgrades or building until ship construction is complete.  That is how shipyards work in the real world.  Doing more than one thing at a time requires more than one way or drydock or pier depending upon the nature of the work.  Consequently, the typical small shipyard with only one way or drydock can be doing the heavy construction on one ship, and the finishing work topside and interior on one or two ships at a pier.  Woops, there's another idea for how we should have to expand/improve our shipyards.  Don't limit shipyard improvement only to the kinds of ships we can build (i.e. the level of the yard), add a shipyard improvement that improves the QUANTITY of ships it can work on at any one time.  Each drydock or way means we can be doing heavy construction (or major repairs, overhaul, conversion) on one ship, and each pier means we can be doing finishing work and light repairs on a second ship.  Remember, the other side of the pier needs to be available for receiving supply shipments by, well, by ship.  Green/inferior quality ships and blue/standard quality ships can still build instantly.  But purple quality should take longer, and gold quality should take even longer.  Basically, each additional box that improves the quality of the ship increases the time it takes to build it, and that should progressively increase the cost.  Yeah, #1 kinda morphed into more than one idea.

- Building better ships costs more.  One way to reflect this is to require a payment (reales (sp?) or doubloons or both) of increasing cost for each box we add to build a better ship.  Another way is to require an inspector from the Admiralty to certify the quality of a ship each time we add another box beyond the minimum of 3/3 (which also happens in real life because ships require routine inspection and certifications as they are built and then they have to pass sea trials).  This basically does the same thing as the first possibility in a slightly different way.  Or, increase the taxes on better ships, and the better a ship gets (as a function of the boxes we add however the frak (BSG reboot reference) we want to add them) the higher the taxes.  I'm sure there are other ways to functionally accomplish the same thing.  The method can be transparent and automatic, or it can be a mechanic we see such has having to purchase inspection certificates or a tax seal or hire an inspector from the Admiralty for sea trials.

But regardless of how you do it - STOP with the frustrating stupidity of having the whims of the RNG gods decide the quality of the ship we REALLY want to build the FIRST time we build it.  A good 3/3 blue quality ship is fine the vast majority of the time, like for grinding skills and earning cash and salvage goods from PVE kills.  But sometimes we need something better, and crafters don't want to have to craft dozens of friggin ships to accidentally get the one we wanted the FIRST time we craft a ship.

#3 - Put the Lat and Log grid back on the friggin chart!  Sea charts of this era had lat and long lines.  Without those lines to provide some standard for estimating distance the trader tool is next to useless for figuring out where we are.  Yeah, yeah, I know there is a new perk for that.  I don't need to waste a perk slot to know EXACTLY where I am.  I only need to know about where I am and a grid with a known distance between the grid lines provides that reference to reasonably estimate our location.  The sextant perk is great for some people some of the time who, for whatever reason, need to know EXACTLY where they are.  But the rest of us don't need that kind of precision all of the time.  We DO however need to have some REASONABLE degree of accuracy for roughly estimating where we are. And yeah, yeah, I know there is still probably some app for that.  I don't care.  Needing to effectively exit game play to use such an app misses the real point - which is that we shouldn't have to do that because a sea chart SHOULD have Lat and Log lines on it.

#4 - Stop with the stupidity of the shoreline being super glue, ESPECIALLY when we can see water under our keel which SHOULD mean that we have NOT really run aground.  If we can SEE sea (see what I did there?) under our hull when we are close to shore we should NOT be able to run aground.  What the frak is the point of showing us water under our keel if that isn't a useful indication that we have room to the bottom to NOT run aground?  That is just stupid to show us water under our hull and have us run aground anyway.  Then, IF the ground at the bottom is super glue from which we can no longer escape we should not even be able to pivot as the wind changes or pivot by adjusting our sails.  Or, if we can pivot we should also be able to escape - LIKE WE USED TO BE ABLE TO DO (yep, THAT time I am yelling).  Please, please, please fix this.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Njord]

1 hour ago, Bull Hull said:

Please, please, please STOP with the stupid idea of turning ship quality over to the whims of the RNG crafting gods.

I don't like RNG either and it can be really frustrating but it is currently the best way to limit the amount of gold ships. Currently 3/5 trim ships are widely used and 5/5 very rare but with your suggestion they would become standard very soon, no matter how much time crafting them will cost ( there are alt accounts, admiralty DLC and people that put over 10k hours playtime into the game ). Then you have all power gamers, who can put the time and resources in, sail 5/5 gold ships and average players sail 3/5.

Currently with the RNG ships like T/WO 5/5/Very Fast are ultra rare and of immeasurable value, only because of the RNG and the fact that you can't simply get one, if you put enough time and effort in. Now I have only ever seen one golden T/WO/Very Fast Bellona for example, it is a beyond excellent ship but the chances of you ever facing one are rather slim. Firstly it is super rare and secondly very few would be ballsy enough to bring it to a fight where its performance would matter, risking to lose it.

So you gotta ask yourself, do you want 5/5 gold ships to be the absolute meta? I know I don't with all the mod stacking.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Sovereign

[Bull Hull]

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

[Bull Hull]

No, RNG is stupid exactly for the reasons I explain.  EXACTLY why do you think RNG "is good"?  What little there is to your claim seems rather circular.  Did you even bother to read my arguments?  Because I don't see you offering a rational counterargument.  I explain multiple ways to effectively limit the availability of high quality of ships WITHOUT resorting to the stupidity of relying upon the whims of the RNG gods.  If that stays long term I will leave the game for a third and last time.  And I bet I will NOT be alone.

I don't suggest having a cooldown on crafting, not exactly.  My suggestion is to put a timer on how long it takes to craft a ship.  That is not the same thing as putting a cooldown on crafting.  Additionally, not being able to construct anything while a shipyard or drydock or way is unavailable due to other construction does not require a cooldown per se on crafting.  Now, if a time delay on how long it takes a ship to finish construction has a similar adverse impact on the servers then oh well, that is a legitimate reason to not do it.

Rather than a cooldown per se maybe it can just be a simple on/off toggle that takes days to countdown at the rate of one day per server reset.  That way there is no hourly countdown and thus maybe not as taxing on the server.  Beginning construction turns it off, then X-days/resets later it turns back on.  I don't remember much about programming, but a simple counter loop is pretty easy to program when doing structured programming.  That seemed to work just fine back when we could teleport.

[Bull Hull]

#5 - Please stop with the stupid way our fleet ships sometimes escape.  When I order my fleet ship/s to escape the whole idea is for it/them to run AWAY FROM THE ENEMY.  I am sick and tired of losing a fleet ship because it sails TOWARD the enemy when I order it to escape.  Sailing TOWARD the enemy is the opposite of escaping.  The goal should be best speed AWAY from the enemy, not best speed regardless of where the enemy is.

#6 - When I order a fleet ship top follow then THAT should be its priority.  I am sick and tired of losing a fleet ship because instead of turning to follow me - like I ordered it to do - it sails into a fir ball with an enemy fleet.  Thanks for the check from the clerk though.

#7 - Please stop making our attempt to use proper tactics when we enter an OW battle circle totally freaking irrelevant.  I just finished a battle with an NPC fleet of 13 5th rates.  Instead of spawning my Christian and Indy fleeter waaaayyyyyy up wind of the fleet and crossing its T like I thought I was doing we spawned WITHIN FRIGGIN GUN RANGE and the enemy ships were almost broadside to broadside instead of their bows being abeam of my starboard side.  What is up with that?  They fired as soon as their guns were loaded and didn't even have to turn.  Nice job making an attempt at proper tactics useless.  And yes, I lost the Indy because instead of following me like I ordered it to it sailed into the fir fall.  By the time it made any effort whatsoever to follow me it was too late.  At least the Admiralty clerk gave me some compensation for the lost ship.  Good job with that one because that is a brilliant idea.  Still, getting compensation of less than 1/4 of what I paid for it and its guns still stings.  But zero stings infinitely more.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bull Hull

[Njord]

2 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

So basically you don't have any counterargument so the best you can manage is to agree with the status quo. 

Maybe you didn't understand. I share your dislike of RNG but still prefer the current crafting with RNG over your idea.

2 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

Exactly how do my suggestions NOT effectively address exactly what you say is the problem with having too many high quality ships?

Your suggestion would result in more high quality ships, not less. I want less total high quality ships, if it means less people actually sail them because of rarity and value. In my opinion they should either remove 3/5 ships and make 4/5 and 5/5 ships the standard or keep them very limited and rare through the RNG.

As I already said, theoretically labour hours, doubloons, resources and even player accounts are unlimited and thus it doesn't matter how much time, labour hours, resources doubloons or shipyard space it will take to build a perfect high quality ship - everyone who is willing to make the investment will do it. Captain Reverse would only sail gold ships and many of the players he would meet, who aren't as invested in the game as he is, would probably sail 3/5 pleb boats and he wouldn't risk anything either when meeting another veteran in gold ship, because he already has the next ready on one of his alt accounts.

With the RNG the gold ships are so rare and valuable that it creates perfect risk vs reward. You can get that perfect ship with excellent performance but when you finally lose it, it really hurts and you lose a lot of value. Tell me how to get that without RNG and I am all ears. 

Even if I hate RNG, at least any new player has the chance to get a gold ship on his first try with a lot of luck. Also a very beneficial byproduct of the RNG combined with limited dock space, is that people build a lot of ships to get higher chances for higher quality ones and once they run out of dock space they have to get rid of the "duds" which are still very competitive and good ships that some poor noobs can buy or get for free.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Sovereign

[Bull Hull]

Sovereign, I understand perfectly that you share my dislike of RNG.  But WHY do you prefer the current crafting RNG over my ideas?  EXACTLY what is your RATIONAL argument/explanation for how the current RNG stupidity is better than my ideas?  Or is an empty opinion the best you can manage?

EXACTLY how would my suggestion necessarily result in more not the same number or lesser number of high quality ships?  What is your RATIONAL explanation/argument to support that empty claim?  What facts/evidence and analysis supports that empty claim?  Or is an empty claim the best you can manage?

Here, let's try this simple thought experiment.  Let's assume that the current random method produces on average one 5/5 success rate of 1:20 build attempts to thus result in say 1 5/5 gold ship per ten players per month.  If it takes a month of average play to earn what it takes to produce and sell one, and if it takes a month of average play to earn what it takes to purchase one, then my suggestion will accomplish EXACTLY the same build rate by increasing the cost of the ships through any of the three methods I suggest or ANY other method that anyone else can think of.  Maybe someone else can think of a better way to accomplish the same objective.  I don't care how we do it as long as we get rid of the RNG stupidity.  So, again, EXACTLY how does my idea supposedly result in more such ships?  The current RNG method is stupid and unrealistic because master craftsmen did NOT accidentally build high quality products.  So far all you have is an empty opinion and a false dilemma fallacy.

Next in your second paragraph you switch to a perfect solution fallacy to rationalize the same position in a different way.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a perfect system that is loophole free.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a perfect system that will prevent people who have deep pockets or massive free time from exploiting game mechanics.  So friggin what?  Those players will ALWAYS be around regardless of the system.  That is not sufficient to justify using the stupid approach of relying upon the whims of the RNG gods deciding when we ACCIDENTALLY build a better ship or a superior quality ship.  I thought of at least three different ways in which cost of the ships can accomplish exactly the same goal of limiting the number of high quality ships and do that WITHOUT the stupid RNG dumb luck of the draw.

And then your 3rd graph fabricates another false dilemma.  If the cost of getting that one perfect ship is the same as the cost of building 20 throw away ships then guess what, losing that baby ALSO creates the prefect risk vs reward situation in which losing that bad boy hurts a lot.

I ALREADY explain multiple ways to get that same perfect risk vs reward situation WITHOUT resorting to RNG stupidity.  The more I read your rationalizations and the absence of any cogent counterarguments to specifically address each and every point/argument I make the more it looks like you didn't really both to read, analyze, and think about my arguments. Instead it appears that you just skimmed through my comment and then reacted to rationalize the position you want without any deep thought.

A new player with absolutely no experience or the game's equivalent of real master level skills getting a 5/5 gold ship on the first attempt solely by pure dumb luck is beyond stupid.  Getting a ship like that should be the result of putting in the necessary work, not getting lucky.  If you want that kind of pure dumb luck sealed bottles can do that.  Getting a ship like that should be the result of putting in the work to earn what it takes to afford to build a ship like that or to purchase a ship like that from a master crafter.  Someone getting lucky and "rolling" up a ship like that because the whimsical RNG gods decided to bless benevolence upon the builder creates exactly the OPPOSITE of the perfect risk vs reward you seem so intent upon having.  That is more than a little hypocritical.

That last graph makes for a nice straw man.  People NEED ships to play the game.  People MUST have ships to play the game.  Thus, per the realities of ECON 101, demand for basic quality ships WILL ensure production of plenty of low cost ships to meet that demand.  Crafters will make them for themselves as needed or make them and sell them as needed because they can afford to do it and do it as quickly as they can get the mats and the Labor Hours.  As long as there is a demand there WILL be a supply to meet the demand for low cost average quality ships, for mid-cost medium quality ships, and for high cost high quality ships and everything in between the extremes of the bell curve.  If players can earn what they need to build or purchase a basic ship in a few days of average play time then they will be built and sold and bought as often as necessary.  If it takes a month of average play to earn what it costs to build/buy a 4/4 good quality ship then that is what it will be take. If it takes two months of average play to earn enough to afford to build or buy a 5/5 superior quality ship then that is what it will take.  Thus, when the best ships cost 20X or 30X or 50X more just to make them available for sale then guess what, they will be as rare as the bell curve says they need to be by bending the cost curve as much as the data tells the developers they need to bend the cost curve in either direction.  IF the higher quality ships are too rare, their cost can go down by adjusting what it costs to build them and put them up for sail.  IF they are too plentiful the cost can go up the same way.  No more RNG stupidity - just pure unadulterated economics at its best and with the vast majority of the players on an equal footing.  No need to cater to the extreme outliers who WILL figure out how to game the system.  Typical players, the vast majority of players, can and will get what they can afford according to their ability to earn and the work they are willing to put into getting what they want.  There is MORE than one way to achieve exactly the same goal of rarity.  The RNG way is the lazy and stupid way to do it.

[Sir Loorkon]

At first I disliked RNG crafting. Now I like it because players produce more ships to get a special one. That makes a lot of cheap 3/5 ships for the market. The only reason why this is not working atm is the low playerbase and the fear of an upcoming wipe. 

I personaly do not like gold ships because I care to much about them (so I am not full concentrated to win but not to loose when fighting) and most of them rotten in habour. I started sailing them when the „wipe talking“ started because I want to loose them in PvP myself, not by a wipe.

[AeRoTR]

2 hours ago, Sir Loorkon said:

At first I disliked RNG crafting. Now I like it because players produce more ships to get a special one. That makes a lot of cheap 3/5 ships for the market. The only reason why this is not working atm is the low playerbase and the fear of an upcoming wipe. 

I personaly do not like gold ships because I care to much about them (so I am not full concentrated to win but not to loose when fighting) and most of them rotten in habour. I started sailing them when the „wipe talking“ started because I want to loose them in PvP myself, not by a wipe.

Normal crafter should produce %1 good ship, while this should go up to %10 for a crafter specialized in a specific ship class, even more. Which best crafter still needing to craft many ships to craft high quality one. And to become master ship builder on specific class, you need to craft many many ships  , so this system also releases lots of ships into economy, while rewarding the ones who has put effort on crafting.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

Normal crafter should produce %1 good ship, while this should go up to %10 for a crafter specialized in a specific ship class, even more. Which best crafter still needing to craft many ships to craft high quality one. And to become master ship builder on specific class, you need to craft many many ships  , so this system also releases lots of ships into economy, while rewarding the ones who has put effort on crafting.

true, maybe they should add a new kind of "rank", you gain experience on crafting a certain ship, in the start you craft 3 upgrade slots ships, but if you have crafted lets say 100 of the same ship you then have the experience to craft a exceptional ship a 5 upgradeslots one.

[Suppenkelle]

Thanks for the effort to actually put together a long and elaborate (first?) post. Some comments from my side:

#1 I am reading in the forums for more than three years now. There is one thing which you seem to fundamentally misunderstand: This game is not developed to please customers in any way. The Devs purely and decidedly develop the game THEY want to play. While they listen to customers opinions, they are only prepared to take over ideas that help the game forward in the direction THEY want. Or at least  doesn’t hinder the development in their preferred direction. Nothing we could write as customers would fundamentally change the course of the game. You simply have to accept that or leave. Personally I came to like it very much. The Dev’s attitude might seem a bit harsh sometimes, however, they show a level of dedication only found in someone truly interested in what they are doing. 

#2 I actually like the idea of making purple and golden ships prohibitively expensive but not rng anymore. Like doubling doubloons, labour hours, and xp needed to make a ship “fast”, doubling again for “very fast” and doubling again and again for 4 and 5 slots. It could be tied to additional crafting levels and xp. Something like: you need to be a very experienced yard manager (additional xp needed), need highly trained and expensive workers (additional doubloons), and need more time (additional labour hours) to craft a truly exceptional vessel.  But please understand, it is in no way any priority for the Devs.

# 3 The chart is a joke, I completely agree. Looks like a map in a fantasy game. Or these things you get handed out for free in a tourist office. Gruesome.  Navigation is (will be in a short time) gone from the game, triangulation won’t work anymore when the trader tool is gone, so, it will either be magic GPS or navigating along the shore like the old Greeks. Very sad. But again, this is no priority, better learn to live with it.

#4,5,6 I can’t  see these being a priority for development in the next months. Better take as given and learn to avoid the situations.

#7 not sure you are completely aware of the RoE in open world battles. But this has probably been answered already, as it took a while to write this.

[Bull Hull]

#2 UPDATE: Noooooooooooooooooo!  I just learned that the RNG ship crafting stupidity is even worse than I first thought, because regional trims are gone.  That, is, STUPID!  That was a GREAT idea at one time; it just could have used some tweaking to make a great idea even better.  Regional trims made perfect sense because the necessary skills and materials to use those skills and materials at no extra cost to builders in THAT region WERE in fact/reality regional.  But/and those trims should also be available to everyone for the right extra price.  Because of a reality of human behavior from ECON 101, whenever there is a demand for something someone else will supply that demand - PERIOD.  Consequently, SOME craftsmen and skilled laborers would be willing to export their skills to foreign ship builders for the right price because some people are more greedy than they are a loyal patriot to their own country, especially when ports/regions change hands to another country.  The extra cost of using trims from other regions could/should have been a function of the distance and hostility level between two ports and nations.  The farther the necessary skilled laborers had to move to work someplace else the more expensive that particular trim should be.  Then the hostility level between two nations would/should further increase the cost of using a particular trim.  The complexity of the modification/trim to a standard build can also influence the cost of using a "foreign" trim.  This could also provide an incentive for some shipbuilders to put a shipyard closer to the "front" because doing that would reduce the cost of using trims.  But resorting to the whims of the RNG gods for that?  Well, I don't think I need to bluntly state once again what I think of that stupid idea.  Oh, wait. . .

Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship with extra berthing compartments or larger berthing compartments (i.e. extra/more crew space).  Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship that sails better in one way or another (i.e. turns a little faster or goes a little faster).  Nobody ACCIDENTALLY built/builds a ship with thicker hull sides (i.e. more armor) or with thicker frames to make it tougher.  Please, please, please, stop this crazy RNG nonsense for crafting. RNG for crafting can be done by dropping a note/license/blueprint for a particular trim.  Getting an expensive note/license/blueprint for a trim by a drop from looting a kill or a bottle wreck could be a great RNG event.

[Bull Hull]

7 hours ago, Sir Loorkon said:

At first I disliked RNG crafting. Now I like it because players produce more ships to get a special one. That makes a lot of cheap 3/5 ships for the market. The only reason why this is not working atm is the low playerbase and the fear of an upcoming wipe. 

I personaly do not like gold ships because I care to much about them (so I am not full concentrated to win but not to loose when fighting) and most of them rotten in habour. I started sailing them when the „wipe talking“ started because I want to loose them in PvP myself, not by a wipe.

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

[Bull Hull]

[edit] Woops, I missed the quote button.

AeRoTR:  "Normal crafter should produce %1 good ship, while this should go up to %10 for a crafter specialized in a specific ship class, even more. Which best crafter still needing to craft many ships to craft high quality one. And to become master ship builder on specific class, you need to craft many many ships  , so this system also releases lots of ships into economy, while rewarding the ones who has put effort on crafting."

_____________________

And then the whims of the RNG gods sometimes totally eliminate the relevance and importance and necessity of skill and experience.  Frankly, I think experience should play the same role in crafting that it does in fighting/sailing.  The more often we build a specific class of ship the better we should get at it and so the cost should go down.  Any ship builder should be able to build any ship as long as they have the blueprint and materials and skilled workers necessary to build it.  But the first time they build something is harder, takes longer, and is more expensive than the 10th time.  That is how it works in the real world.  Always has worked that way and always will.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Bull Hull

[Bull Hull]

2 hours ago, Wyy said:

true, maybe they should add a new kind of "rank", you gain experience on crafting a certain ship, in the start you craft 3 upgrade slots ships, but if you have crafted lets say 100 of the same ship you then have the experience to craft a exceptional ship a 5 upgradeslots one.

EXACTLY!  Thanks for beating me to it. I just posted essentially the same idea, but not exactly the same idea, in response to the same post.  AND I like your idea even better.  So maybe combining my variation on your idea with your idea is/can be the best approach.  A builder without the necessary experience might be able to pull off building something better than what they usually build, but it would be a lot more expensive than it would be for someone who has been doing it a lot longer.  THIS is why I love brainstorming.  Bravo Zulu.  That's Navy speak for "Job well done" for you land lubbers.

OOOH  Now I even see room for a POSSIBLE use of RNG for ship building.  Without the necessary experience to consistently get it right adding another box of quality might not work, and if it does it will be more expensive to do it than it is for someone who has the experience to get it right every time.  Then repeat and rinse every time a builder adds a box to a class of ship.  The chance of failure can go down and the chance of success can go up with each attempt to add another box of quality UNTIL the builder has enough experience to get it right every time.

Again, Bravo Zulu.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Bull Hull

[Bull Hull]

1 hour ago, Suppenkelle said:

Thanks for the effort to actually put together a long and elaborate (first?) post. Some comments from my side:

#1 I am reading in the forums for more than three years now. There is one thing which you seem to fundamentally misunderstand: This game is not developed to please customers in any way. The Devs purely and decidedly develop the game THEY want to play. While they listen to customers opinions, they are only prepared to take over ideas that help the game forward in the direction THEY want. Or at least  doesn’t hinder the development in their preferred direction. Nothing we could write as customers would fundamentally change the course of the game. You simply have to accept that or leave. Personally I came to like it very much. The Dev’s attitude might seem a bit harsh sometimes, however, they show a level of dedication only found in someone truly interested in what they are doing. 

#2 I actually like the idea of making purple and golden ships prohibitively expensive but not rng anymore. Like doubling doubloons, labour hours, and xp needed to make a ship “fast”, doubling again for “very fast” and doubling again and again for 4 and 5 slots. It could be tied to additional crafting levels and xp. Something like: you need to be a very experienced yard manager (additional xp needed), need highly trained and expensive workers (additional doubloons), and need more time (additional labour hours) to craft a truly exceptional vessel.  But please understand, it is in no way any priority for the Devs.

# 3 The chart is a joke, I completely agree. Looks like a map in a fantasy game. Or these things you get handed out for free in a tourist office. Gruesome.  Navigation is (will be in a short time) gone from the game, triangulation won’t work anymore when the trader tool is gone, so, it will either be magic GPS or navigating along the shore like the old Greeks. Very sad. But again, this is no priority, better learn to live with it.

#4,5,6 I can’t  see these being a priority for development in the next months. Better take as given and learn to avoid the situations.

#7 not sure you are completely aware of the RoE in open world battles. But this has probably been answered already, as it took a while to write this.

#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.

[Njord]

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

Sovereign, I understand perfectly that you share my dislike of RNG.  But WHY do you prefer the current crafting RNG over my ideas?  EXACTLY what is your RATIONAL argument/explanation for how the current RNG stupidity is better than my ideas?  Or is an empty opinion the best you can manage?

I think I explained myself sufficiently. You being unable to understand or accept that is not really my problem. There is nothing rational about your dislike of RNG, it is an opinion and nothing more, nothing less. You explained the system you would suggest, and I explained why I prefer the current one, despite my dislike for RNG.

Look at @AeRoTR 's suggestion. This is more the direction crafting should be heading.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Sovereign

[Njord]

6 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

Normal crafter should produce %1 good ship, while this should go up to %10 for a crafter specialized in a specific ship class, even more. Which best crafter still needing to craft many ships to craft high quality one. And to become master ship builder on specific class, you need to craft many many ships  , so this system also releases lots of ships into economy, while rewarding the ones who has put effort on crafting.

I would love a system like this where the fewer ships you specialize in the higher your chance for high quality will be. There would have to be some cooldown or cost or reset involved so you can not change that all the time obviously. Ideally you would specialize in 1-3 ships to get the highest chance for high quality ships. Sounds excellent.

[AeRoTR]

@Sovereign yeah like other many thousands of examples in gaming history, which there are more thousands of ideas, already implemented in many games which are succesful. But you know, DLC ships were great addition, good job Boss.

[Bull Hull]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:53 PM, Sovereign said:

I think I explained myself sufficiently. You being unable to understand or accept that is not really my problem. There is nothing rational about your dislike of RNG, it is an opinion and nothing more, nothing less. You explained the system you would suggest, and I explained why I prefer the current one, despite my dislike for RNG.

Look at @AeRoTR 's suggestion. This is more the direction crafting should be heading.

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.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Bull Hull

[Njord]

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

Empty opinions don't qualify.

Your preference for your suggestion is an empty opinion just as much as my dislike of it. So according to you, it does not qualify.

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

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.

Here, have a good read. Having quality of ships depend on flat resource input instead of RNG is not more rational, it is merely your wish. You being unable to grasp my explanation is, like I already mentioned, not my problem. Maybe it is you, who is lacking reading and thinking skills after all?

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

So far all you have there is another worthless empty opinion that keep repeating the same empty claim.

 

On 12/29/2018 at 8:36 PM, Bull Hull said:

RNG is stupid

Like this one? Sounds very rational indeed and it is all that your "reasoning" amounts to, sadly...

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

Clearly you cannot understand the difference between a RATIONAL conclusion verses an opinion.

The further I read your post, the more I think you actually faced a mirror while writing it.

18 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

That suggestion and my suggestion are NOT mutually exclusive, so nice try with that lame false dilemma.

You are right, they are not. But even tho he only dropped 3 lines, it is more elaborate and better for the average player than yours.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Sovereign

[Bull Hull]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 9:47 AM, Sovereign said:

Your preference for your suggestion is an empty opinion just as much as my dislike of it. So according to you, it does not qualify.

__________

Here, have a good read. Having quality of ships depend on flat resource input instead of RNG is not more rational, it is merely your wish. You being unable to grasp my explanation is, like I already mentioned, not my problem. Maybe it is you, who is lacking reading and thinking skills after all?

__________

Like this one? Sounds very rational indeed and it is all that your "reasoning" amounts to, sadly...

__________

The further I read your post, the more I think you actually faced a mirror while writing it.

__________

You are right, they are not. But even tho he only dropped 3 lines, it is more elaborate and better for the average player than yours.

#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.

[Bull Hull]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 12:27 PM, Intrepido said:

Nobody in the present. But in the old days some ships behave better than others even if they shared the same plans.

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

[Njord]

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

#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.

Or maybe you just have your own reality? You should really stop bullshitting, mate. Because that's all that it is, really.

Where exactly is your "rational / logical evaluation of relevant facts"? Is is somewhere in between this "Hurr Durr RNG is stupid, remove please!" nonsense with your only suggestion being to replace it with resource cost increase?

I'll tell you again, since you seem to be trying so hard to understand.

There is an limited amount of the best crafting woods ( mainly teak and white oak ) available. Fact.

There is an unlimited amount of basic resources, doubloons and labour hours available. There is no limit to them, you just have to keep playing and have more accounts to get more. Fact.

Now a hardcore player has this finite amount of crafting wood and this infinite amount of everything else. With RNG he will never get 100% high quality ships from this limited wood amount, because he "wastes" most of it for standard ships that he will most likely throw cheap on the market or give away to poor players.

With your system he gets 100% high quality ships from this wood, since he has theoretically unlimited supply of the other items ( doubloons, LH, basic resources ). He also has no "dud" standard ships to sell cheap or give away.

Everyone who has the rare woods will go for maximum quality, no matter the system. People always seek the advantage over others, it is human nature.

Thus with your system there are a lot more high quality ships and a lot less standard "throwaway" ships available.

How can you not understand that? What is so complicated?

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

#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.

As I already explained, it does not matter how much the increased cost will be, since there won't be anything to lose if you commit. Pay maximum price for maximum quality.

Currently the RNG crafting is high risk versus high reward. You can put as many resources in as you want, you are not guaranteed a high quality gold ship in return.

RNG is the very reason why the system works, sadly.

Also about your "facts/truths/realities of economics" talk... you do understand, that this is a video game, yeah?

You have to balance the players who have very limited time to put into they game versus those who play multiple hours every day somehow. Why do you think they went with the RNG system in the first place? They could simply have made gold ships cost 100.000 doubloons and 50.000 LH for example. So why do you think they didn't?

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

#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.

You don't have to explain to any player why you dislike RNG, everyone does and that is the whole point of it. People not being able to get anything they want on demand is a really triggering experience for many in this modern society. 

You trying to prove a system based entirely on maths being "stupid" via your lovely facts/truths/realities fetish, is somewhat amusing still. Don't blame me, please.

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

childish nonsense with an ad hominem attack

Wait, are you referring to my comment here or yours? 

 

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

a little expertise when it comes to recognizing poor reasoning and poor logic

It doesn't seem to extend to applicability for MMO game design...

17 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

#5 - AND of course you close with another empty opinion and another childish ad hominem attack.

Every opinion that is not yours is "empty", isn't it?

Also if you see a "childish ad hominem attack" in me stating how I prefer another posters idea over yours, then you probably have some serious inferiority complex going on and you might want to talk to someone about that.

 

Anyways, the only thing we can agree on is that there could be a better system than RNG for crafting and only the future will tell what the devs have in mind, if anything at all.

As far as I am concerned I wasted enough time on this topic, when the current RNG system might be final and not even up for debate with the release coming up. Thanks for the chat and good luck with your suggestion.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Sovereign

[Angus MacDuff]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 2:07 PM, Bull Hull said:

ECON 101

You ought to drop all the real world economics and logic.  This is a GAME.  There is no real world.  Your OP does not take into account that there is unlimited money for those who want it, so any economic logic is valueless.  As @Sovereign tried to tell you (and you refuse to listen), if we went by your logic, the hard core PLAYERS of the GAME would have nothing but 5/5 gold ships and the production of inferior ships will dry up.  When we were on the test bed, everyone had to rank up in crafting XP.  We all built some garbage ships and got to rank.  Crafting XP is easily gained and again, is not real world skill, therefor cannot be explained with real world economics.  The GAME economy needs everybody building all level of ships.....because its not real world and the meta needs to remain with standard ships as the norm.  Otherwise the word "premium" can be removed as 5/5 gold would become standard.

BTW, its "Fur ball", not "Fir ball".  What branch of the military WERE you??!!