Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction at the Margins

[Bull Hull]

The willfully blind have made it clear that trying to discuss/debate/explain anything with the willfully blind is a total waste of time.  They see only what they already believe.  The refuse to understand anything that doesn't fit into their small world view.  And they use the magic of circular reasoning to rationalize exactly what they wish to belief, and to cling to that which they already believe.

The intellectually dishonest who distort, dishonestly cherry pick, and flat out lie about my comments have shown in another way that trying to discuss/debate anything with such intellectually dishonest people is a total waste of time.

People who resort to petty criticisms of a typo have nothing meaningful to contribute.

The moderators might as well shut this down because a mature, intelligent, and rational debate is not possible.

 

[Slim McSauce]

There has been no proof that RNG crafting has improved the market, while there is empirical evidence that gold ships have further tipped the balance in combat between haves, and have not's. Now hardcore players have full docks of gold ships, and dominance continues.

It's gold marines and fine woods repeated over again.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Bull Hull]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

There has been no proof that RNG crafting has improved the market, while there is empirical evidence that gold ships have further tipped the balance in combat between haves, and have not's. Now hardcore players have full docks of gold ships, and dominance continues.

It's gold marines and fine woods repeated over again.

EXACTLY! ! !  I was just about to edit my comment above because a couple of minutes ago it finally dawned on me EXACTLY some people love RNG so much - because RNG makes sure - i.e. GUARANTEES - that some people will ALWAYS have their docks full of gold 5/5 ships because they have the time and the money (i.e. real world money) to play the ship crafting lottery often enough to get all of the gold ships they want and that don't want everyone else to have.  So, it they have to craft, or have their buddies in a large clan craft for them, 50 copies of the same ship until they get the gold ship they want then that is what will happen. If they have to craft 100 ships, then so be it.  If they have to craft 1,000 ships then so be it.  Sooner or later they WILL win the RNG ship crafting lottery.  As someone has already made clear, he she believes, the money/resources are infinite - which is patently false regarding money btw - therefore winning the RNG ship crafting lottery is only a matter of when, but NOT if he or she will get the gold ships he or she wants.  The LAST thing some people want is an economic system that ensures everyone can and have at least one or a few gold quality ships IF they are willing to put in the time it takes to earn what they need to earn to afford one.

[Slim McSauce]

Crafting is just as bad, nothing has improved for the market but pvp has been made worse with further imbalance. Can anyone refute this? Taking all comers.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[jodgi]

2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

Crafting is just as bad, nothing has improved for the market but pvp has been made worse with further imbalance. Can anyone refute this? Taking all comers.

Don't want to refute it, but what are you referring to with regard to crafting and imbalance?

[Slim McSauce]

8 minutes ago, jodgi said:

Don't want to refute it, but what are you referring to with regard to crafting and imbalance?

Same as every other imbalance in the game. The top players have the top equipment, which don't exactly need because they are the top players. They use  the better equipment to even further smash the average player and knock them out of the competition. It's like if the US tax bracket got lower as wages went up, it's just backwards.

I wonder how you can seriously ask any regular player to pvp against ships that are 20-50% better than average, against players who are already above average in skill. Not only that but tell those people with gold ships to go fight and die but have a fun battle. Of course they won't, they're too attached to their ships. They'll run instead or straight up not fight.

Like, how can you literally make a developer campaign to go out and fight, have fun and not worry about losing not even a month later add more reasons not to do that? Jesus christ, we already went through this with gold marines and fine woods. EVERYONE WILL END UP USING GOLD MARINES AND FINE WOODS. stop repeating the same mistakes over again ya dinguses.

edit

heckin hoot I just noticed your signature, these developers need a list ffs.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[jodgi]

3 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Same as every other imbalance in the game. The top players have the top equipment, which don't exactly need because they are the top players. They use  the better equipment to even further smash the average player and knock them out of the competition. It's like if the US tax bracket got lower as wages went up, it's just backwards.

I wonder how you can seriously ask any regular player to pvp against ships that are 20-50% better than average, against players who are already above average in skill. Not only that but tell those people with gold ships to go fight and die but have a fun battle. Of course they won't, they're too attached to their ships. They'll run instead or straight up not fight. It's so dumb it hurts my head. Little consistent thinking in NA.

Ah, yes! I've been singing that refrain for a long time but I always get the "Get out of here! This is a sandbox and not your stoopid handholding arena games!"

Ship crafting in itself is ok, though, isn't it?

[woodenfish]

I think Bull Hull is Donald Trump, or he has been reading too much of his Twitter feed

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, jodgi said:

Ah, yes! I've been singing that refrain for a long time but I always get the "Get out of here! This is a sandbox and not your stoopid handholding arena games!"

Ship crafting in itself is ok, though, isn't it?

Well yes of course.

But read your signature from admin

"...We prefer to focus on motivating the fighting, not running... ... The test shown that people prefer less risk..."

and then they go and add more risk and more reason to run with gold ships. What the hell man.

and people have the nerve to say we're wrong, all the evidence you need is right there.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[jodgi]

Heh, there's a reason I've kept that sig. Posters want all kind of "hardcore" (please be my victim without complaining) stuff that "makes things matter" all the while saying it will work for PvP. 

[z4ys]

When you look at warehouses of players that are around for a while then you will find out that they are cramped with stuff.

So making gold ship just an expensive choice is fake. Because what is expensive when players can have unlimited stacks of everything?

RNG is the only solution that is fair to everyone. It's the same for the guy who just got into crafting and has just a handful of mats and the one who has almost unlimited mats.

Edited January 4, 2019 by z4ys

[Hethwill]

in "Wargame Experimentation and Analysis: Re-Examining Executed Computer Assisted Wargames" we read...

Game theory suffices if all the possible results of an engagement are known, and payoff values can be calculated for each one. However, this is highly unlikely in combat operations.

In short, it is often impossible or impractical to attempt to solve many large-scale, real-world game situations, as the potential number of outcomes quickly overwhelms the participants.

And this is the simple truth that we, as players, in a large majority wish to know and control all possible venues of approach, resolution and outcome. Be it at logistics, defining engagement or combat itself. We risk less when we deal with unknown quantities, no matter how much info we get - and the great unknown quantity is the battle itself as it is the major uncontrollable beast.

For NA this means - having resources and consumables always available at all times, even if Conquest would deny it, rules of engagement to deny opponents opportunities to score on our mistakes, and finally the combat meta.

At the level of logistics and Conquest "end game" ( let's not fool ourselves, game design is based around combat and everything leading to combat, being the end combat mode the major battles for a port ) any multiplayer group can more or less control what to do and what to achieve.

Once combat is joined, no matter the quality of ships - blue standard or exceptional gold - the incentive to take the risks is exponentially worsened in the mind of the wargame players.

As stated, multiplayer NA should not try to assess all details as the best laid out ships and laid out conquest operations - or patrol zone operations - will collapse when in contact with the enemy.

My own personal quirk with the "road to combat" is exactly this. Too many information makes "combatants" less willing to risk, as they "compute" too much of it and, in the majority of engagements will determine - without any certainty - that they will lose and therefore wish to deny or simply evade the combat resolution.

RNG in crafting ships is simply one abstract mechanic to simulate disparities - many for unknown reasons - between sister ships in the age of sail. It wasn't the wind, the captain or the trimming. Fact is, some ships built in the same yards, by the same architects and teams did behave different. Alas, in the real world they had to work with it. Here in game we have the option to simply destroy the ship and try again. In a RL that was no option. The ship would be given command and would sail to fight enemies.

And in this last bit a Blue standard quality ship can perform admirably, as Gold exceptional ship is no guarantee of success. 

 

 

[Bull Hull]

8 hours ago, woodenfish said:

I think Bull Hull is Donald Trump, or he has been reading too much of his Twitter feed

I think dumb and childish ad hominem attacks are the best thing some people can think of and thus they have absolutely nothing useful or meaningful to contribute.

[Bull Hull]

6 hours ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

in "Wargame Experimentation and Analysis: Re-Examining Executed Computer Assisted Wargames" we read...

Game theory suffices if all the possible results of an engagement are known, and payoff values can be calculated for each one. However, this is highly unlikely in combat operations.

In short, it is often impossible or impractical to attempt to solve many large-scale, real-world game situations, as the potential number of outcomes quickly overwhelms the participants.

And this is the simple truth that we, as players, in a large majority wish to know and control all possible venues of approach, resolution and outcome. Be it at logistics, defining engagement or combat itself. We risk less when we deal with unknown quantities, no matter how much info we get - and the great unknown quantity is the battle itself as it is the major uncontrollable beast.

For NA this means - having resources and consumables always available at all times, even if Conquest would deny it, rules of engagement to deny opponents opportunities to score on our mistakes, and finally the combat meta.

At the level of logistics and Conquest "end game" ( let's not fool ourselves, game design is based around combat and everything leading to combat, being the end combat mode the major battles for a port ) any multiplayer group can more or less control what to do and what to achieve.

Once combat is joined, no matter the quality of ships - blue standard or exceptional gold - the incentive to take the risks is exponentially worsened in the mind of the wargame players.

As stated, multiplayer NA should not try to assess all details as the best laid out ships and laid out conquest operations - or patrol zone operations - will collapse when in contact with the enemy.

My own personal quirk with the "road to combat" is exactly this. Too many information makes "combatants" less willing to risk, as they "compute" too much of it and, in the majority of engagements will determine - without any certainty - that they will lose and therefore wish to deny or simply evade the combat resolution.

RNG in crafting ships is simply one abstract mechanic to simulate disparities - many for unknown reasons - between sister ships in the age of sail. It wasn't the wind, the captain or the trimming. Fact is, some ships built in the same yards, by the same architects and teams did behave different. Alas, in the real world they had to work with it. Here in game we have the option to simply destroy the ship and try again. In a RL that was no option. The ship would be given command and would sail to fight enemies.

And in this last bit a Blue standard quality ship can perform admirably, as Gold exceptional ship is no guarantee of success. 

 

 

Yes, it is very true that there were MARGINAL differences between the quality of the same type ship built by the yard.  Or, as you put it, there were MARGINAL disparities between sister ships built by the same yard.  Getting an extra box is MORE than a marginal difference.  Getting 4 extra boxes is FAR more than a marginal difference.  Additionally, none of those sister ships were ACCIDENTALLY built with extra berthing spaces or larger berthing spaces to get more crew.  None of those ships were ACCIDENTALLY built with thicker masts or thicker hulls - at least not as long as the builders stuck to the blueprints and didn't forget how to measure.  Might marginal differences in the woods had the same effect of having a thicker mast or a thicker hull?  Sure.  But nobody ACCIDENTALLY built a ship with 19 inch masts as the base instead of 18 inch masts.  Nobody ACCIDENTALLY build a 38 inch thick hull instead of a 36 inch hull.  If we were to go through the list regional trims how many of those differences NEVER happened accidentally as a variation between two sister ships?  Fact is, some RNG crafting results are just flat out stupid because they are crazily unrealistic.  And granted some can make sense.  But as an in addition to rather than an instead of what we want to build.

The claim that in RL they just had to work with it as if they had no alternative is totally bogus.  They had exactly the same choice that we have - they could have made the CHOICE to take a ship out for sea trials, decide it didn't perform as well as its sister ship that was the lead ship of the class, i.e. the benchmark as it were, and then decide to trash any ship that didn't measure up to the benchmark and then begin again.  But they didn't typically CHOOSE to do that because doing that would have been far too expensive.  Ditto for what is possible in the game.

FACT: In real life destroying a ship that wasn't good enough for any reason by any standard WAS an option, that was always an option. They could have in fact chosen to scrap ships that were not good enough for whatever reason.  In RL there is ALWAYS a choice/option as long as one is willing to accept the consequences of the choice (Covey, 7 Habits).  This is an irrefutable and unavoidable fact of RL and GL (game life).

Minor/small marginal differences as an RNG variable is perfectly reasonable as a simulation for the RL variations between sister ships built by the same yards.  Controlling all variables is indeed impossible.  Climate differences meant that sometimes the same species of trees produced lumber and other wood products with minor differences in their characteristics.   We should NEVER know about such minor/marginal differences which could/would serve as a realistic simulation of what happened in RL with ship building.  I have no problem with marginal RNG differences between ships of the same class.  But ACCIDENTALLY getting more berthing when I want to build a ship with a thicker hull and NOT getting the extra berthing I was intentionally trying to build into the ship is stupid.  That never happened or happens in real life so it shouldn't happen in the game.  Not having the choice to build a ship with a trim is also stupid.  ACCIDENTALLY getting a ship that turns a little better when I was intentionally trying build a ship with more berthing while NOT getting the extra berthing that I really wanted is just stupid.  Not having the choice to build a ship a little or rolls a little less or has better armor makes no sense.  Making those RL shipbuilding choices an accidental result of the whims of the RNG gods is stupid.

Now we finally, well actually once again, reveal the false dilemma that the champions for the RNG gods keep fabricating.  They insist that we are stuck with a black and white, ether/or, false dilemma.  They insist we MUST either have the whims of the RNG gods in total control of ship crafting or there is no RNG.  But that is a false dilemma because we can have BOTH.  So, for example, if I want to craft a ship with regional trim "X" then I should ALWAYS without exception get a ship with regional trim "X" if that is what I want as long as I can get the necessary skills and materials.  Once I have the skills and materials to add trim "X" then I should get trim "X" because that trim was built into the blueprints and so that trim should be build into the ship; and that choice should increase the cost of my ship. Then, IF by some amazing chance the whimsical RNG gods decide to add another regional trim "M" or "Z" or "D" that I don't immediately know about and can't be sure about because I can't see the results then great (obviously extra crew space would be immediately obvious).  The RNG gods can randomly always slap on another trim if doing that tickles their fancy.  They can always add a little more icing to our cake.  But we should ALWAYS have the choice to add a trim if we can afford it, and we should ALWAYS get the trim we want IF we are intentionally trying to build a particular trim into a ship.  Then, if we also just happen to get some other marginal benefit from another trim we can't see then oh well, nothing wrong with that if such marginal differences happened in RL shipyards.

Similarly, if the whimsical RNG gods choose to accidentally add an extra box when I build a ship then fine, let them go for it, I doubt anyone will complain if they get an extra box. But they should NEVER add more than once extra box than the quality of the ship I am trying to build.  But I/we should ALWAYS have the CHOICE to intentionally build a ship with a 1-4 more boxes, and that choice should get progressively more an more expensive.  I/we should ALWAYS be able to bake the cake we want as long as we have the necessary skills and materials and we can afford it.  If the whimsical RNG gods want to bless us with a slightly better ship by putting icing on our cake or adding to the icing we want then fine.

My suggestion does not create an either/or false dilemma as some commenters falsely claim (not implying you are one of them).  We can have both/and if some people love RNG so much.  But RNG should not eliminate choice.  RNG should enhance our choices.  We should ALWAYS get the cake we want to bake and intend to bake as the minimum standard, and then if the whimsical RNG gods decide to add some icing to our cake then fine.  Our choices for how we choose to build a ship should establish the floor for what we can choose to do, not set the ceiling.  If the whimsical RNG goods want to then raise the ceiling a little more then fine.  That is a win/win both/and solution that addresses everyone's preferences.

[Hethwill]

Sure. I suggested before that all crafted ships to be Blue standard. No RNG.

[Angus MacDuff]

22 minutes ago, Bull Hull said:

That never happened or happens in real life so it shouldn't happen in the game.

Seriously??!!  Get off your pompous soap box.  The game simulates many aspects of RL naval warfare but also throws RL out the window for useable gameplay. 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Sure. I suggested before that all crafted ships to be Blue standard. No RNG.

Nah, all crafted ships be 5 slot standard, with a selected crafting bonus and a regional refit bonus for dark blue/purple ships. No gold ships. No reason to lock away mod slots for the average player.

[Bull Hull]

7 hours ago, z4ys said:

When you look at warehouses of players that are around for a while then you will find out that they are cramped with stuff.

So making gold ship just an expensive choice is fake. Because what is expensive when players can have unlimited stacks of everything?

RNG is the only solution that is fair to everyone. It's the same for the guy who just got into crafting and has just a handful of mats and the one who has almost unlimited mats.

Ah, wrong.  Your poor reasoning is a fake straw man.  The sizes of their stacks of everything is irrelevant because once a builder has enough resources to build a ship then that alone is sufficient.  Any extra resources beyond that are irrelevant to building the next ship that has not yet been built.  The claim that RNG is the only "fair solution" is a lame false dilemma.  The primary reason some players have huge stacks of everything is because they are investing in the CHANCE to get that winning lottery ticket.  They are investing in the CHANCE to get accidentally get a 5/5 gold ship by building 20 or 50 or 100 or 1,000 of the same ship UNTIL they win RNG roll of the dice.  But eventually they WILL win that lottery as long as they keep trying.  Making the certainty of getting that same 5/5 gold ship a function of the direct cost of the ship instead random chance gives EVERYONE exactly the same chance to get that ship as long as they can survive long enough to earn what it costs to build that ship.  It is impossible to have a fair solution that is more fair than everyone having exactly the same chance and knowing exactly what that chance is up front.

If RNG says my chances are getting that 5/5 gold ship are 1:500, as in 1 in 500 ship building attempts, then the totally fair and equally fair solution is to set the floor for the cost of a 5/5 gold ship of that class at a minimum of 500 times the cost to build 1.  That gives EVERYONE exactly the same 1:1 chance of getting that ship IF they can afford it.  HOW is it fair for some lucky builder to get that 5/5 gold ship with the very first attempt with a 1:500 chance of winning the lottery, but another builder is building ship number 1,000 because the first 999 attempts didn't win the lottery?  HOW is it fair for a lucky ship builder to get a 5/5 gold ship for the cost of building one ship, but that unlucky slob has to spend for resources the cost of 1,000 ships to finally win the lottery when building that 1,000th ship?  Such a situation is exactly the opposite of fair.  But when EVERYONE had to put in the same cost of a minimum of 500X the cost of building one ship to get that 5/5 gold ship then it is impossible to get more fair for that.

Functionally there is no meaningful difference between measuring the cost of building a ship by the cost of the resources for 500 attempt at building, or measuring that cost directly in Reals, or Reals + Daubloons.  In other words, if:

- Player A grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources to get all of the resources necessary to build 500 ships to win that 1:500 shot at a 5/5 gold ship on attempt #500.

- Player B grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources plus Reals (or Reals + Daubloons) to purchase the right to build a 5/5 gold ship.

Then that NECESSARILY means BOTH players functionally paid exactly the same price for their ship.  BOTH players went through exactly the process to get what was necessary to get the same quality ship.  And, more importantly both players HAD to pay the same for their ship.  It is impossible to get a more fair solution than that.

[Hethwill]

5 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

No reason to lock away mod slots for the average player.

There's only "player".

3 slots is enough and truly balances more.

but yes, you want 5. I got it.

I suggest 3.

We disagree. We fine.

[Bull Hull]

4 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Seriously??!!  Get off your pompous soap box.  The game simulates many aspects of RL naval warfare but also throws RL out the window for useable gameplay. 

Yes, seriously, it is a FACT that when it came to the issue of building a ship some things NEVER happened accidentally in RL, and so in a game that is attempting to simulate that same ship building mechanic it is stupid for the game to accidentally have some things happen that NEVER happened in RL.  Yes, absolutely, for SOME things it makes perfect sense to use RNG as a way to effectively and accurately simulate RL to simplify gameplay.  AND for some other things it is stupid to throw out RL and substitute RNG.  When it makes sense to use RNG, how it makes sense to use RNG, and when it doesn't make sense, depends upon the situation and the issue.  Many players want to play Naval Action, not Fantasy Naval Action.

Resorting to making a childish ad hominem attack only shows that you have no credibility and nothing meaningful to add.  Cherry picking a few words completely out of context to change my meaning also shows that you have no credibility.  What is your RATIONAL explanation for EXACTLY how my comment is pompous?  EXACTLY how is it pompous to state a fact/truth/reality?  Stating facts/truths/realities seems pretty friggin reasonable/rational to me.  Some people might conclude that the only pompous person here is the person who is making a childish ad hominem attack.

[Hethwill]

What is exactly your point ? get rid of RNG. We got it.

Suggestions been put up for Standard quality to be the no rng.

Same as Exceptional quality to be the no rng.

Are you simply arguing for the sake of it or contesting that in reality frigates build of the same plans and models and measurements and same woods, running same trials and trims, did indeed sail different for some unknown reason - one being more stiff than others for example ? Is it bad to simulate this fact because.... !?

I am with you man, Blue 3/5 for everyone.

[Bull Hull]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 12:32 PM, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

What is exactly your point ? get rid of RNG. We got it.

Suggestions been put up for Standard quality to be the no rng.

Same as Exceptional quality to be the no rng.

Are you simply arguing for the sake of it or contesting that in reality frigates build of the same plans and models and measurements and same woods, running same trials and trims, did indeed sail different for some unknown reason - one being more stiff than others for example ? Is it bad to simulate this fact because.... !?

I am with you man, Blue 3/5 for everyone.

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

[Hethwill]

I am all about marginal effect, Formula 1 marginal. 0,001% marginal

That's probably the RNG for a Exceptional build.

What is your marginal number of possibility that a shipyard builds a sister ship from the same plans and measurements and woods and she comes out better for some reason  ?

 

[Slim McSauce]

trying to emulate the magic that is real life ship building to RNG gambling lootbox ships is insulting because it neither serves the culture nor the gameplay. Hence the ship market being just as bad and more OP unbalanced ship in  the hands of already skilled players. Ya gotta think about these things more than just once.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Palatinose]

@Bull Hull, your proposal has been seen in this game. At the time I didn't sail and didn't see any friend or enemy sail a non-golden (superior) ship. Dispite your rational argumantation chains, human nature is not rational at all. Greed is what drives players. Greed for the best gear/ships aka an advantage over the enemy. To satisfy this greed a player will bow to any bearable grind. Imo you drastically underestimate how much effort the average player will put in anything to achieve the best. Remeber it is - as someone said before - a game where money (or reals/doubloons/vic marks/ressources) is only limited by the time you put into the game or in other words: how much $ you're willing to pay for alts aka reducing even this one limiting factor. 

To transfer this to crafting: RNG provides this NA world with a random amount of golden ships, which is very low and imo drastically lower than with any grindable crafting system. Yes - rich (not necessarily good) players have a higher amount of better ships. The opposite would be everyone (but absolute beginners) sails golden ships. In that case, why not just have basic ships to spare the grind? Well to satisfy what players want (even if it's only in their mind as everybody has it): advantages. 

Without doubt there are exceptions to my assumption of greedy or "golden ship only" players. I'm convinced though by experience in this game, that the majority will behave like explained above. Therefore I think of the RNG crafting system as the best, because fairest system for non-hardcore players.