Plans for Reputation and Sailing changes

[Despe]

15 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Just like neutrals will be able to craft in any port when they introduce the mechanics, why complain about it, the Devs say that is what they want to do.

There are no neutrals in PvP server. There are beligerant players and the alts of beligerant players. And well, probably a 2 per cent of real neutral players.

If finally this patch allows neutrals to craft with port bonuses, i propose destroy all port investementes in VC and start crafting in Truxillo with our neutral alts. Because we are neutrals and paceful merchants. Or maybe not, who knows...

Edited August 3, 2020 by Despe

[van Veen]

51 minutes ago, Archaos said:

There is currently no motivation to attack the strongest nation in the game partly because as some of them have admitted if you read their posts that they use the ability to give access to certain alts to crafting in VC as a means of coercing nations. So it is very relevant and not derailing as you suggest. The removal of those avenues of coercion means other nations may turn on the strongest nation and we may get a serious challenge to the dominant power.

You are right on describing the situation, but you make wrong assumptions. There is no coercion. All your subsequent assumptions which are based on this fiction are just wrong. 

I get the impression that you are on a personal crusade and this is in fact derailing the discussion. 

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

There have been many mechanics introduced to the game to try and give people a reason to conquer ports, but few of them have worked. How many times has Cartegena changed hands since game launched? Even upgraded ports has not given enough incentive to capture ports as the loss of a major crafting port is such a blow to a nation that it chases a lot of people from the game.

How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I mean, why would making port bonuses available to all neutral foreigners help with that? Tell me, please. 

You complain about the situation as is. Fair enough. RVR is currently quite bleak. You are right on this one. 

But how does this specific change make the game better? Unless you provide a clear answer, I am not convinced. You write a lot of text, but there is no logic argument why this change makes anything better. The poor state of affairs is not per se an argument to change whatever. 

 

[van Veen]

44 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Just like neutrals will be able to craft in any port when they introduce the mechanics, why complain about it, the Devs say that is what they want to do.

Read what I wrote above and try to understand. I have given quite a few arguments why this is a bad change. But I haven't read any argument why it should be good. Convince me. 

[Despe]

8 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Read what I wrote above and try to understand.

Dont waste your time, it is easy to understand... He only want craft with 100% port bonuses and make 0% effort for gain that. If you think about that, it is a logical behavior, I also want 100% of my salary working 0% of daily hours ... who wouldn't want that? It is excellent!!!

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, van Veen said:

You are right on describing the situation, but you make wrong assumptions. There is no coercion. All your subsequent assumptions which are based on this fiction are just wrong. 

I get the impression that you are on a personal crusade and this is in fact derailing the discussion. 

How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I mean, why would making port bonuses available to all neutral foreigners help with that? Tell me, please. 

You complain about the situation as is. Fair enough. RVR is currently quite bleak. You are right on this one. 

But how does this specific change make the game better? Unless you provide a clear answer, I am not convinced. You write a lot of text, but there is no logic argument why this change makes anything better. The poor state of affairs is not per se an argument to change whatever. 

 

It has been admitted in this thread by one of the posters from the clan that own VC that they use the allowing of certain other nation alts to use VC for crafting to influence that nation during diplomacy talks, how else do you understand that other than do as we say or we will restrict your access to it. That is coercion in my book and if you cannot see it you are kidding yourself.

You keep saying I am derailing the discussion, but the discussion is about the proposed changes and the ability of neutrals to craft in any port is part of that discussion. So what you are saying is that I should only put my point of view across if I disagree with what the Devs are proposing, otherwise it is derailing. If you read back at my first post in response to Redmans post you will see that although I agreed with what he said I pointed out the facts as I saw them with regard to how people were already circumventing the system and allowing alts from other nations craft in their port and how it was a form of control and how this change would remove that control from some of these clans. 

I have been quite clear in my point of view and it has been relevant to the discussion, others have tried to derail it by trying to make out that they have triggered me, by making silly comments and keep trying to make references to real world stuff. 

I have also stated several times that I do not think that this change is anywhere near a cure all, but one step in removing some of that unbalanced power. I have offered suggestions as to ways they can be compensated for their hard work, but for some reason they never seem to like that and prefer to maintain that people are stealing from them and it should not be allowed.

You agree with my assessment of the current state of RvR but yet you want things to remain the same, how is that good for the game? At least if this makes a small change for good it is a step in the right direction. 

My position has remained consistent from the start, its people who want to maintain the status quo who have changed tack and tried different sometimes conflicting tacks to justify things remaining the same.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

Edit: BTW you do not provide several arguments, you start by dismissing my assumptions even though they have been confirmed by one of the owning clans players. You then state that I am on a personal crusade, you then ask me to explain why it will make a difference and follow that by agreeing with my assessment of the current state of RvR and end by saying unless I am clear then you are not convinced. Hmm I do not see any arguments there, that seems to be more of I am right so you must be wrong type thinking.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Archaos

[Despe]

37 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I have offered suggestions as to ways they can be compensated for their hard work,

we dont need suggestions and we dont want compensations. We just want to decide who can benefit from our hard work, it is so difficult understand that? But for you this means coertion. We only try to explain you that the idea of an army of face alts using our hard work for crafting dislike us, and we dont want money, medals or victory marks. We only want to decide what we do with our work, and this is not cohertion, is the normal behavoir that you can expect when i waste tons of hours working in port investements. And i think that this is the same opinion of the 90 per cent of players in all factions that waste his time farming for increase the port bonuses.

I said the same that i said several lines up: if that patch will functional allowing all alts crafting in VC i propose destroy all port invetements... you wanna port bouses? work hard on it and when you finish that work i can craft in your port with my neutral alt: 100 per cent benefit, 0 per cent effort, IT IS EXCELLENT!!! Or maybe i will use my neutral alts for crafting in Oranjestead or Bridgetwon. I hope sweedes or french dont destroying that ports, im a neutral alt player and a paceful alt merchant that wanna free bonuses...

Edited August 4, 2020 by Despe

[TPS Report]

Lots of people are already using alts to make things that aren’t ships.  Hell, I’m already making ships in VC and exporting them back to less populous factions.  Once you build a road, expect people to drive on it.

[GhostOfDorian]

9 hours ago, Archaos said:

Please do not derail, take that nonsense to the Meme thread.

You're derailing all the time, by complaining how strong Russia is. I gave you so many arguments you could have countered. But instead of telling us why Swedes or other strong portbattle fleets should not be able to go for VC again, after they can teleport to PB, you are repeating again and again that Russia is too strong. That has nothing to do with the proposed change of game mechanic. A game mechanic has to improve the game under all circumstances. It has also to work after all Russian players have left the game and the nation has collapsed.

But it will not. And you know that very well. There is no other reason for denying me an answer, if port bonuses should be wiped with introducing general access to those bonuses. You know that there will be nobody who invests in port bonuses again, if he knows that also his enemies support from that work, without doing a shit for it.

You only complain that I compared your arguments with real world events, because you realized that your virtual ideas have zero cogenzy. We are all real world players and no AI you can program your weard ideas of socialist behaviour. Thats why we react as real world humans when you propose to steal the fruits of our work.

Edited August 4, 2020 by GhostOfDorian

[GhostOfDorian]

24 minutes ago, Riot stick said:

The way I see this...

This mechanic, if implemented, aims to help the small clan players or even solo players I see no downside. Instead of asking/begging for a way to craft good ship's, they only need to behave nice towards a certain nation.

This is common sense not socialism. But what do I know, I should keep quiet and mind my own business...

Small clan players will never be able to enter main ports like VC. If they come with their national accounts they will be tagged outside by everybody. If they use Russian alts they will be tagged by Russian hunters under false flag. Only big enemy clans can organize strong convois to exploit other nations port upgrades successfully.

And you know very well that small clans have no issues to get on friendlists of the major clans. Have a look on the friendlist of REDS. It is full of small clans mostly with PvE players. They all contributed their little stake of wooden chests and helped upgrading our port. Without friendlist none of them would have had the idea to help us. And it would have been you and me doing ten times as much homefleet missions to replace what they contributed.

There is a difference between teamwork and socialism. In a team all members contribute and all members benefit from the fruits of their work. In socialism some are doing the work and the rest exploits them.

Edited August 4, 2020 by GhostOfDorian

[van Veen]

30 minutes ago, Riot stick said:

The way I see this...

This mechanic, if implemented, aims to help the small clan players or even solo players I see no downside. Instead of asking/begging for a way to craft good ship's, they only need to behave nice towards a certain nation.

This is common sense not socialism. But what do I know, I should keep quiet and mind my own business...

If port upgrades and port investments were removed from the game, I could agree with that. 

But since this is not on the horizon, I see many downsides. First of all: no more motivation to upgrade ports and make port investments. 

Second, effect on RVR will be very strange to say the least. No foreign neutral will have any desire to capture the port, as this would actually reduce the bonus and require re-investments from the owning clan, while the port owner becomes more and more unhappy with owning port. This is really weird and could lead to very strange behaviour. Like Despe said, it is not unlikely that clans destroy all upgrades just to piss off everyone.

I am convinced that this is not the way to go. 

 

[GhostOfDorian]

10 minutes ago, Riot stick said:

I can see now why the server think we are the enemy....

We became "rediii"! Do as we say or else...

Everybody is free being the Salvation Army. But you have to collect first what you want to distribute. Charitable posts feed nobody.

Edited August 4, 2020 by GhostOfDorian

[Red Dragon 13]

On 7/23/2020 at 2:48 PM, Hethwill said:

Time told that people only read what they want. Half the text becomes void when it doesn't suit purpose.

I applaud ANY and ALL game designs that block certain activities.

GJ DEVS

Now give me more age of sail mechanics. That's what i'm here for. High winds and low winds next

what about real wind patterns? Like in Sailaway, for instance

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, GhostOfDorian said:

You're derailing all the time, by complaining how strong Russia is. I gave you so many arguments you could have countered. But instead of telling us why Swedes or other strong portbattle fleets should not be able to go for VC again, after they can teleport to PB, you are repeating again and again that Russia is too strong. That has nothing to do with the proposed change of game mechanic. A game mechanic has to improve the game under all circumstances. It has also to work after all Russian players have left the game and the nation has collapsed.

But it will not. And you know that very well. There is no other reason for denying me an answer, if port bonuses should be wiped with introducing general access to those bonuses. You know that there will be nobody who invests in port bonuses again, if he knows that also his enemies support from that work, without doing a shit for it.

You only complain that I compared your arguments with real world events, because you realized that your virtual ideas have zero cogenzy. We are all real world players and no AI you can program your weard ideas of socialist behaviour. Thats why we react as real world humans when you propose to steal the fruits of our work.

Yet again you keep saying that I am complaining about Russia when I have constantly said that Russia is not the issue. The issue would remain the same if GB or Poland or any other nation was the dominant nation on the server. I have explained why Sweden or any other strong nation cannot go for VC but you refuse to accept it even though you can see it in the current situation in the game. After Russia wore Sweden down with constant port battles and caused them to give up and some of them to leave the game, they eventually come back after a break and start to do RvR again but decide to attack other nations rather than go for Russia. Why do you think that is? It is because if they do attack Russia then they will be back in the same position as before facing multiple attacks from not only Russia but its allies. This sort of situation may be how things are in the real world, but it is not how things should be in a game unless the game is one which has total victory conditions followed by a wipe and start again.

You readily admit that Russia if necessary will kill any neutrals that attempt to get into VC and that any alts in Russian nation trying to enter will also be stopped by Russian alts in other nations, so if you are so confident of that then what is the problem? You will get plenty of PvP kills and more PvP for the game with this mechanic. You also admit that you use access for other nations alts to the crafting as a bargaining chip in negotiations, yet you cannot see how this is detrimental to the game. 

You and your friends are the ones that keep derailing it to make this about Russia, in all my earlier posts I only mentioned dominant nation which would be the same situation no matter which nation was dominant. So if tomorrow Russia collapsed and all Russian players left the game then another nation would be the dominant one and the situation would be the same. As I said in a previous post we have had similar before but it was always possible to counter it, but not now as new game mechanics have and the mindset of the players have made it impossible to challenge the dominant nation, and that is killing the game. Just look at how many Russian clans have alt clans in other nations and tell me that that is good for the game?

I have no control over whether port bonuses are wiped or not and it would not bother me if they were wiped and all investments returned to the people who had contributed them. If that would lead to no investment in ports then so what, many people have said port bonuses were a mistake the way they were implemented so it might actually be good for the game.

Yes some of my points may refer to a greater issue within the game regarding a single nation dominance, but it is relevant as I have said because the change may go a small way to countering that dominance by removing the ability of the port owning clan to use alt crafting as a bargaining chip in diplomacy and allowing everybody compete with the same level of ships. It would also remove the need for people to have alts in different nations as most alts can remain neutral and get access to trade and craft in any port, so if I wanted I could go to Cartagena and place a contract for some Tar, or to the Swedish port that drops Swedish carpenters without having alts in that nation. 

[Despe]

3 hours ago, Riot stick said:

This mechanic, if implemented, aims to help the small clan players or even solo players I see no downside.

it helps nobody. If that mechanic is implemented we destroy all ports and we start crafting in french ports with our neutral pacific alts merchants.

[Tac]

7 minutes ago, Despe said:

it helps nobody. If that mechanic is implemented we destroy all ports and we start crafting in french ports with our neutral pacific alts merchants.

Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

[Despe]

15 minutes ago, Tac said:

Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

it is not my face if you can use it when you want without my permision. Like the port bonuses. And why not do it? It is an allowed mechanic... Veracruz and New orleans with zero investements is funny. You can invest in this ports if you want. And when you finish that let me know for crafting in that ports with my army of pacefuls and neutral alts, please.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Despe

[van Veen]

11 minutes ago, Tac said:

Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

Over dramatic? Perhaps. 

Unrealistic? Perhaps not. 

[Botq]

10 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Over dramatic? Perhaps. 

Unrealistic? Perhaps not. 

Sure, throw away all your work. Perhaps you can unzerg then ?

[Redman29]

57 minutes ago, Tac said:

Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

Yeah he’s being over dramatic. It’s Depse, but he brings up a point

St Johns is a 4 4 4 4 Port. Only difference is mast and rig which yeah is great but no where near the bonuses the other 4 give. 

With this proposed mechanic I can craft there also without being in a clan which I am not. Actually it will come in handy as I need to level my crafting hour in my Swedish alt and St John’s port wise is one of only four 4 4 4 4 Ports, so I can actually use the ships rather than having ones with no port bonuses. 

Doesnt mean we’re deleting what we have, but it does remove the incentive to continue the grind. 

[amosblanco]

Well well well... before the discusion delves into another unproductive debate of whether Russia is a zerg...

First of all, the Russian Empire is a zerg right now and it need to be dezerged. I think this is a concensus.  That's even acknoledged among a vast of Russian players active in this forum. For those who still want to dispute that,  just go to check Inagua's statistics: over 30 percent of ships with bonuses are crafted in Veracruz, New Orleans, Campeche alone in last month. Does that fact alone convince you? The problem of a majority of Russian players who are reasonable, from what I understand,  is not with the de-zergification of the the empire they help build in exchange for a more healthier environ of Naval Action, but a fair way that does minimum to compromise their efforts, labors , and investments (such as their "Crown Jewel" -- Veracruz). Their arguments and objections are fair and natural. 

Then, let's get back to the topic. First I give my conclusion: the current mechanism and the post-Karma one both have serious incentive problems. 

In the current mechanism, the strongest nation (Russia) takes the best crafting port, takes almost all capturable ports that produce rare resources for shipbuilding (such as Cataghena and Guacata), and, because of above and their pure manpower (newbies, like many who play Britain and  who are too new to think crafting ships in Kingston is a bad idea, are not counted XD), they have the most resources to invest ports... That is problematic due to the accrued snowball effects which ultimately led to the "winner takes all" economy.-- the Zerg nation becomes more zerg every day because its players have better and better ships made in Veracurz and easier access to resources for building upgrades. Hence the task to challenge them will be more and more challenging every other day until one day it becomes impossible unless Russians dezerg themselves... Thus, there is an incentive problem--- no one is motivated to, and no one could take Veracruz. It's capturable in all but name, and that is unacceptable. 

The post Karma patch will at least alleviate the problem addressed above by allowing neutral traders to craft ship in Veracruz and to make contracts in Guacata and Cataghena. However, as @Despe has perfectly pointed out, it will invite new incentive problems--- since, we, Russians,  have to share every resource that is previously  exclusively reserved for us and our friendly clan members, what's benefit of owning those ports and putting so many wooden chests to upgrade Veracruz? Monetary compesations through reals or even many doubloons, as @Archaos suggested, are simply not enough. Do you know how much money BF and Reds own? They are almost three times richer than the richest Swedish clan if I remember correctly and  they can't afford a hundred golden Santisima Trinidads simply because they are not available in the market... Money is a issue for clans in small factions but it's never an issue for them, and hence they don't need money. In sum, the new Karma patch will certainly create a new incentive problem for Russians to invest their ports as well as another incentive problem for other factions to take ports from Russians (Heck! since we can now make contracts in Cataghena, why do we bother to take it from Russians... it's obviously better to keep kowtowing to them)... In essence, it will seal the death penalty for RvRs and port battles. 

There is also another incentive problem i can forsee following the proposed karma patch. everyone will flock to Veracruz to craft the best ship, and hence money and taxes will flow to the Mexican Gulf and to be given to their clan owners who, as I have explained, are too rich to need more money. On the other hand, we will see fewer and fewer ships being made in Bridgetown, Remedios, Santiago de Cuba, and Barracoa and hence fewer and fewer Indiamans around those ports to be hunted. Also, owners of those ports and ports surrounding them will slowly find that their ports stop generating profits (because everyone has gone to Veracruz) and might even struggle to financially maintain those ports they own. In essence, the new patch might  create a "winnner takes all" shipbuilding industry that is certainly not healthy. 

Conclusion: Yes, the current mechanism sucks, but I am far from convinced the new Karma patch will help bring a more vibrant Naval Action community. 

Here are some directions I would suggest to improve the proposed karma system and to at least partially solve those aforementioned flaws.

1. A rework of port bonus. the current mechanism of port bonuses and point investments to further buff those bonuses is far from satisfactory, and is definitely needed to be reworked prior to this karma patch. A simple solution, I think some others have already suggested, is to limit the number of port bonus category for each port.  For example, Veracruz could only have bonus in two categories-- hull and gunneries. Therefore, ships built from different ports will at least have some different qualities ... Still, I wish for a complete overall of the entire system the way admins overhauled the woods (of course, I refer to the final result which is great in my opinion, not the process XD). The goal is to bring more choices and thus ships built in Bridgetown, Barracoa, Belize and other crafting ports have distinctive ship qualities and could compete with ships built in Veracruz in certain circumstances. 

2. Owners of the  ports should be able to decide whether foreign crafters and traders are welcomed in their ports. 

3. However, the aboved option should come with a heavy cost, forcing big clans to at least open a portion of their crafting ports or resource rich ports (or a portion of their port bonuses or resources) to players of other factions. An incorporation of that option into the corruption system suggested by Redii sometime in the past might be an appropriate way to go. 

For example, everyday Cataghena produces 500 tars. Its clan owners could either enact a “laissez faire” policy or a “mercantilist” one regarding the distribution of those 500 tars. In the former case, those tars go to the highest bidder from any nationality, and there is no penalty for the  said port owner. In the later case, the clan who owns Cataghena  could opt for setting X percentage of tars being reserved for Russian players only. The higher the X, the higher the penalty for that clan. Similarly, the port owner of Veracruz could deny certain port bonus to foreign crafters. More bonus they are denying to foreign crafters, the higher penalty they will receive. Everyday, the accrued penalities from those combined “mercantilist” decisions will be converted into a certain amount of corruption values, which is clan based.  That said corruption value will give malus of various sorts to that said clan and clan members (like reduced tax revenues,  reduced labor hours per hour for each clan member, reduced resource output in ports the clan possesses, increased chance of NPC attack of their ports...etc). That accrued corruption value could be reduced like karma reputation, but that cost should be high and painful. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by amosblanco

[Tac]

57 minutes ago, Despe said:

it is not my face if you can use it when you want without my permision. Like the port bonuses. And why not do it? It is an allowed mechanic... Veracruz and New orleans with zero investements is funny. You can invest in this ports if you want. And when you finish that let me know for crafting in that ports with my army of pacefuls and neutral alts, please.

Just to be clear, I have no plans to use your face or your port, I just believe destroying your own port if this is implemented is well potatoe .

Also a self harming empty threat. 
Please carry on though, it would be hilarious to watch.

[Tac]

6 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

Yeah he’s being over dramatic. It’s Depse, but he brings up a point

St Johns is a 4 4 4 4 Port. Only difference is mast and rig which yeah is great but no where near the bonuses the other 4 give. 

With this proposed mechanic I can craft there also without being in a clan which I am not. Actually it will come in handy as I need to level my crafting hour in my Swedish alt and St John’s port wise is one of only four 4 4 4 4 Ports, so I can actually use the ships rather than having ones with no port bonuses. 

Doesnt mean we’re deleting what we have, but it does remove the incentive to continue the grind. 

Yes fair point, i guess at this point the only difference is that in Sweden nobody cares that much.

In the past I would of felt your pain though.

[sam121252]

tac remember they still care about this game we dont we play for as long as its like decent enough, these guys have put their life into this compared to us

[GhostOfDorian]

1 hour ago, Tac said:

Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

St. Johns is much closer to all ports where rare logs sporn. No need anymore to sail the stuff into the Gulf.

[admin]

Update

Test bed will be set up soon for testing

• Wind shadow experiment
• New penetration and gun rebalance
• New more realistic wind power mechanics
• All other things with the exception of reputation

The "Missing Link" patch announcement will be provided later today or tomorrow.

Reputation systems delayed in full and might only appear in a cut form after the patch, after deeper consideration of their effect on the game.