National Reputation Persistence (Karma) - Entry to enemy battles.

[Never]

9 minutes ago, Archaos said:

This is why it should be time decay rather than a single payment or a use of prolific forger to reset reputation.

I agree it would be better with a cooldown timer, that maybe even stacks if you keep joining battles against the same nation. If desired add the payment too, but after you pay it, is when the cooldown timer could start counting down. 

[Vernon Merrill]

4 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

I'm trying to understand the Karma thing...

I can initiate any fight against any nation and it doesn't affect my karma

But if I join someone else battle I'll change my karma toward the "victim"? And then clean your karma with money? It sounds like the Catholic Church when they were selling Indulgences to sinners...

Why not have something simpler: let us see who our enemy is in open water and allow alliance to clans.

Think of it only as an “honorable use of flag” mechanic instead.  It’s easier to wrap your head around.  If you are the one actually making the tag, at least it’s “honorable” and acceptable to gentlemen of the period, even enemies.  If you “join” an already started battle and take on a flag other than your native flag, that is seen as “dishonorable” to gentlemen of the period and your reputation will suffer.   

[Louis Garneray]

1 minute ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Think of it only as an “honorable use of flag” mechanic instead.  It’s easier to wrap your head around.  If you are the one actually making the tag, at least it’s “honorable” and acceptable to gentlemen of the period, even enemies.  If you “join” an already started battle and take on a flag other than your native flag, that is seen as “dishonorable” to gentlemen of the period and your reputation will suffer.   

Yeah but.... there were alliances at the time... The French were not alone at Trafalgar vs the Brits...

We can see in the game now the predominance of clans over nations. That would make more sens to me to have alliance system, it would give us a more dynamic pvp.

[Percival Merewether]

I guess this will then encourage players to escape by tagging AI then?

[Busterbloodvessel]

3 hours ago, admin said:

 

4 hours ago, admin said:

 

We are no longer satisfied with everlasting ability to false flag. 
 

 

 

This wiffs of the old alliance system and inhibiting PVP zone activity. 

Is there no way that this could be implemented at clan rather than personal level?

Buster (Even Moses only received 10 commandments)

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Busterbloodvessel

[Christendom]

so I mean   I kinda get where this is coming from.  Most MMORPGS have some form of reputation system that is a hard check on no limits PVP.

I feel like this system would work if we had an alliance system in place that was only tied to RVR with Allies, Neutrals and Enemies.

Allies would be hard coded with an RVR alliance, but OW PVP still exists with consequences.
Neutrals would be all other nations that are not declared enemy.  Sinking them also has consquences.
Enemies are fair game

- nation x and nation y are allied
- player from nation x sinks players from nation y conistently and lowers his reputation.
- player can no longer enter nation y's ports, OW battles OR port battles.  And can't purchase goods from nation y players in the shop.

If player continues to sink allied nations ships and traders his reputation gets removed and is automatically made into a pirate.  

Insert the same for Neutral (non declared enemies) traders.  Players who sink them can, but will lose reputation and the ability to things in free towns like repairs, re-crew and buying from the shop.  Eventually turning pirate once his reputation is as low as it can be.  

Basically if you want to be a reaver and sink everything, you can do that.  But the game has checks in place so you can't have your cake and eat it too

-------

Personally all of the above would be a game I'd very much like to play.  The karma system seems like a watered down version of a real reputation system that will ultimate stifle PVP in a game that historically has population issues.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Christendom

[Wraith]

The proposed system is similar to ideas I proposed a way back (I'd link to them but my forum posts were "disappeared"), as a precondition needed for full clan-based RvR with nations being only a backdrop. I think this is a good move, both for its intended purpose and potentially for opening up some new mechanics and systems. I applaud @admin for taking a chance on it and think it's worth testing.

A couple of suggestions though... I'd still like to see a system where you could join a battle as an observer, before determining whether to engage, especially if there's reputation hits that you're weighing. Additionally, instead of just paying to reset your reputation I would like to see slow decay in reputation values. And most importantly I'd like to see positive reputation gain for consistently helping other nations, etc.

I think it would also make sense to make it so a clan's reputation is the sum/average of officer reputation, and make that clan reputation tied to being able to support trade and RvR activities (including port battle entry, hostility, etc. etc.). 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Wraith

[Daxav]

First of all, although the new mechanics seem a really harsh change, I am with @admin. I believe they are addressing one of the most discouraging problems that players (especially casual ones) experience... you sail to dangerous waters hoping to engage on PvP with someone you have a chance, and 50 seconds later 3 gankers join in.... just a big waste of time. 
I like the reputation system. It makes sense that if you mess with other nations, you suffer some consequences.
I think that some clarifications are needed from @admin  urgently, before we all spin the interpretations any further

1. Will the PZ be exempted from this rule? I can see arguments both way. The first, is that PZ is indeed the wild west, and we go there to get savage PvP. We know what it is for. However, the unbalanced player base in each nation is also somewhat annoying... you are enjoying your PZ-PvP, and suddenly 6 russians join in on the other side. Game Over. I have joined pirates against russians in PZ, and I would like to keep doing that, and I can accept that with new rules, then I will have a bad karma with russians. Sucks because I will have "penalites" with the largest faction, but fair enough... I suppose that I deserve it :).
2. How exactly will port access be modified. This is very important. We need to know the consequences of choices. Will it affect warships and traders? Will I be able to still trade at russian ports while I continue to join pirates into sinking russians at the PZ? Or will I have a penalty (increased tax? access to only certain goods?) Will I be able to access with warships at foreign ports with whom I have good reputation? This is seems complicated, as you can still attack ships near this port (not JOIN, but attack). Will I be able to place contract at foreign ports with whom I have good reputation? (I'd like this).
3. As many have pointed out, the need for an alliance system is popping up everywhere. This has to be formalized. I like the personal reputation, but it goes with the alliance system. Enemy nations should be fair game all the time. Players from Neutral nations should be only honorably attacked (not joined against). Friends should be off limits. Simple. Everyone knows this. The alliance system would also allow for sailing warships into friendly nation ports. Lovely. And if you then break the alliance, new rules apply, and your reputation plays the role again.
4. On a fully fledged reputation system, as proposed by others, there should be a way to clean your dishonorable acts (time, by doing honorable acts), and not by throwing money at it. I suppose that if the fine is really big, people will think twice... but otherwise, I fear that the super rich will still exploit and pay their way out. We will see.

Hope we get more details on these new mechanics soon.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Daxav

[Ghift]

4 hours ago, Anolytic said:

Sooo...you're saying that for every choice we make in PvP from now on, we are limiting our future choices in PvP? 

By definition we're all eventually only going to be able to join the battles of ONE other nation, if any. And that nation might be different for different people in the same clan. People from the same clan, sailing together, in the same group, will not be able to join the same battles. 

Did you take into account that alliances change? Or that a nation you're allied to might be enemy with another one of your allies? Or the fact that there are different clans within the same nation with different agendas. And sometimes you know that a particular clan is in an area or battle and you join against them even though you would not join against other clans in that nation.

Does every exploit have to be countered by an extremely restrictive mechanic that punishes all of us, especially the ones who never abused? Why can't we just go on reporting abusers and they get banned, but the rest of us can go on using the mechanics normally.

srsly... if i attack a player of a nation.. i won't be able to join in a battle against it after?? 

if the player i chase escapes, my friend tags him outside,  i can't join in it after? 😂😂

i ask honestly, are you willing to kill "hunting" in this game? thx god one of you had the smart idea to put patrol for 5th rates.. but after that?

I totally agree with Anolytic.. why punish everyone if only few arseholes uses exploits?

it's 2 years i keep asking to rebuild Port Battle with mix Br as it was time ago.. so everyone can join and mix frigates with 3rd rates, 2nd rates and 1st.. but the only thing i see is this:

 

devs: "what do you think about it?"

player base: "this"

devs: "no problem we do as we want anyway"

 

do i have to put the screen of what people voted on seasoned woods to explain the concept?

i don't understand the point of acting this way.. 3 months ago 1k people online.. now 400/500 MEH, keep working for the people ;)

[Hethwill]

12 minutes ago, Ghift said:

srsly... if i attack a player of a nation.. i won't be able to join in a battle against it after?? 

If you JOIN a battle against said nation.

Read opening post.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Hethwill

[Barents]

so i need to decide now whom i want to support and whom i want as enemy. Once i made the decision i am stuck with it until i use the forger dlc and switch nation or pay an amount of money money, reals or whatever.

Doesn´t that sound alot like the old alliance system? Only worse because people of the same nation can´t fight the same nation because of their former behavior?

i see a lot of frustration if people are out in a group and some people can´t join battle because they sided with the "enemy" in patrol zone before. Sounds like alot of fun.

And another question: How will you explain this system to the people who are not reading this forum?

[William Death]

Instead of tying it to nations, why not tie it to clans?

It will move us one step closer to the clan-based system this game needs to thrive, and one step further away from paper nations with troll/rogue clans.

[Henry Long Castle]

5 hours ago, Anolytic said:

I think you're looking at this from completely the wrong side. At least the opposite perspective of most (PvP-)players. When people go hunting for PvP, they're not looking for what side in a battle they can help. They are looking for what side in the battle they can hurt. You're hunting pirates, and you see a battle against pirates, you want to join against pirates. You don't care if it's danes, brits or russians attacking the pirates. If the battle is open you're joining. But now... if you ever joined a battle against danes, brits and russians you're not gonna be able to fight those pirates. 

Don't you see how this is HUGELY exploitable?

Anyone who wants to be practically invulnerable better just bring a friend from another nation sailing with them while raiding. You see a gank squad or somebody chasing you that you don't wanna fight, just attack each other and you then have a better than even chance that your pursuers won't be able to join either side of the battle at all.

Is it better than I for example can be hunting with a british friend and have him join a battle to raise the br enough for me to be able to join as well on the opposite side ?
I think this only affects people that like running around with friends from other nations...

[John Sheppard]

This honestly seems very exploitable like Anolytic has said , most serious clans have alts in most if not all nations which they can bring along and hide in battles from gank fleets . It's really not that hard to know who is friends with who and use the appropriate alt .
 

This feels worse than the old alliance system , way worse IMHO , it poses the same restrictions on PvP without the benefits of stopping rogue clans like the alliance system would . Honestly if you can't be bothered to deal with griefers all the time just bring back the alliance system it's way better than this , perhaps tweak it a bit something like Chrissy proposed above (except the going pirate part)

There are other games that i remember having similar successful systems like X3TC/AP (also very good economy systems)

Edited June 11, 2020 by John Sheppard

[John Sheppard]

Also one more very important thing just got brought up in discussion .
What about when nations do agreed fights for practice? this will no longer be possible . This is very important thing that @admin needs to think about . At the very least there should be a "i forgive you" button that you can press and not have the battle count against the enemy's reputation

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Let's limit PvP on the PvP server, I'm sure that'll keep folks playing.

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Let's limit PvP on the PvP server, I'm sure that'll keep folks playing.

I am not sure how it limits PvP as you are still free to go out and attack any enemy nation without affecting your reputation. As I understand it your reputation is only affected if you join on one side of and already started battle. e.g. you are GB and you come across a Russian vs Swedish battle and you join on the side of Russia, then your reputation will be negative against Sweden, so after that battle you would not be able to join as Swedish against another nation in another battle.

Seems quite a good mechanic to me to stop other nations joining on your side just to open up BR for others to join against you. To me its like declaring your position as to which side you are friendly with or not, if you are allied/friendly with a nation why would you jump in a battle against them. If you are neutral to both nations then why would you bother interfering with their battle, just sail on by and find your own battle and leave others with the dilemma whether to join or not. 

[admin]

14 hours ago, John Sheppard said:

Also one more very important thing just got brought up in discussion .
What about when nations do agreed fights for practice? this will no longer be possible . This is very important thing that @admin needs to think about . At the very least there should be a "i forgive you" button that you can press and not have the battle count against the enemy's reputation

Read the post first.
You can practice by attacking.. Attacking is not affected. Joining the battles is affected. Read the announcement first

There will be no I forgive you button. If you joined against Britain. Britain now hates you, because you were dishonorable and attacked under a false flag.  
Players might still love you, But you wont be able to reinforce Britain from now on.
 

 

14 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Let's limit PvP on the PvP server, I'm sure that'll keep folks playing.

People from other flags who join your battle and interfere (by helping the enemies) lose us more players. 

I dont care about not being able to join Reverse battles with ram dinark or their alts after this change - they will find the way.
I care about 10 rookies who get upset because some assholes ruined their day by blocking or "accidental" chain, under false flag.

 

[Teutonic]

6 hours ago, Anolytic said:

Sooo...you're saying that for every choice we make in PvP from now on, we are limiting our future choices in PvP? 

By definition we're all eventually only going to be able to join the battles of ONE other nation, if any. And that nation might be different for different people in the same clan. People from the same clan, sailing together, in the same group, will not be able to join the same battles. 

Did you take into account that alliances change? Or that a nation you're allied to might be enemy with another one of your allies? Or the fact that there are different clans within the same nation with different agendas. And sometimes you know that a particular clan is in an area or battle and you join against them even though you would not join against other clans in that nation.

Does every exploit have to be countered by an extremely restrictive mechanic that punishes all of us, especially the ones who never abused? Why can't we just go on reporting abusers and they get banned, but the rest of us can go on using the mechanics normally.

Personally...

I would have thought working on a better alliance mechanic would be a lot more enjoyable and rewarding for players than to restrict and make it harder to PvP...

[Raxius]

what about players like me???

 

I like to pvp all nations depends how i feel when i wake up in the morning, casual players will suffer from this too, imagine due to timezone pop they pvp in specific area during weekdays to weekend.. meaning they are permanently having to pvp that area even if the timezone they play changes?

I don think there is anything wrong with current system, bring back voted alliances or something if you give players too much to think about it isn''t as fun.. i dont like the actions of today will affect me in 6 months... national diplomacy changes so rapidly... what about the pooor pooor pirates??? who will honestly get good karma with them?? pirates will die.. because by default they attack everyone!

[Hethwill]

You can attack all.

JOINING battles not.

Please people, READ.

[Raxius]

ok i will sit outside a battle for an hour just to retag.. an half my clan cant enter it.. excellent off the hip solution to a problem that there are many GOOD solutions offered by the community..that have been ignored..

great work!

 

edit:  You have also made the tag circle smaller to force this mechanic! - a mechanic like this you should make the tag circle 3000m wide... why not?? its not as outrageous as the mechanic about to be implemented.

 

final edit: and with AI??

say i want to be allied to sweden (just an example) we cannot join battles on swedish side if we are sinking their AI.. great news.. i will attack russian ai... wait what if we want alliance with them later??? this mechanic is garbage

Edited June 11, 2020 by Raxius

[Farrago]

6 hours ago, Anolytic said:Anyone who wants to be practically invulnerable better just bring a friend from another nation sailing with them while raiding. You see a gank squad or somebody chasing you that you don't wanna fight, just attack each other and you then have a better than even chance that your pursuers won't be able to join either side of the battle at all.

Although under your scenario, after the two friends have done this once, they will no longer be able to mutually aid each other as they will have bad karma for that opposing nation. 

[Raxius]

Just now, Farrago said:

Although under your scenario, after the two friends have done this once, they will no longer be able to mutually aid each other as they will have bad karma for that opposing nation. 

it means once at war always at war regardless of what happens internallt or politically across all nations.. its about as forceful as being part of the nation you help...and  its a permanent choice... you attack a foreign nation in pvp.. now they have you attacking them everytime.. opportunity to help them?? no can do.. mechanic is about as flexible as a solid oak spoon

[Lt Sekiro]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Read the post first.
You can practice by attacking.. Attacking is not affected. Joining the battles is affected. Read the announcement first

There will be no I forgive you button. If you joined against Britain. Britain now hates you, because you were dishonorable and attacked under a false flag.  
Players might still love you, But you wont be able to reinforce Britain from now on.
 

 

People from other flags who join your battle and interfere (by helping the enemies) lose us more players. 

I dont care about Ram Dinark not being able to join Reverse battles after this change - they will find the way.
I care about 10 rookies who get upset because some assholes ruined their day by blocking or "accidental" chain, under false flag.

 

join polish