On Premium Ships and "Pay to Win"

[LeinTrolaS]

I already payed this game. I don't want subscription fee and I dont want pay to win elements. I don't want the game to be free to play either cause free to play games are a cancer.

I prefer it it had little optional purchasable things in game after buying the game. I prefer it to be a "buy to play" game.

and release objects and such that don't give unfair advantages to anyone and then release some dlc.

I think there are probably more free to play games that have failed than buy to play games for the simple fact that free to play games are more likely to make a mistake somewhere in time with ingame elements that players could conplain about.

With a buy to play game, if people like it, they are going to buy it and then pay for dlc ore extra ingame content if they want to.

I honestly don't want the game to be like POTBS.

[Oliver H. Perry]

Your statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

Form what I have read the benefit of buying a premium ship is it has unlimited durability plus lower repair costs.    That being the case, it should never be more expensive than buying a new ship.

 

For example:

 

Normal Ship:

 

New ship with 5 durability = 10,000 gold.

 

Ship sinks and now you have 4 durability + 2,000 gold repair cost.

 

Ship sinks 4 more times and you now have no ship plus your have spent 20,000 gold on up keep.  Now you have to spend 10,000 gold to buy a new one and start over.

 

 

Premium Ship:

 

New ship with unlimited durability = $50.00 CASH.  (You save 10,000 gold initial investment)

 

Ship sinks, you still have unlimited durability + 1,500 gold repair cost.

 

Ships sinks 5 times but still has unlimited durability and total repair at this point is only 7,500 gold.

 

 

Then lets look long term.  Ship sinks 20 times.  

 

Normal ship = 80,000 gold invested.

Premium ship = 30,000 gold invested.

 

Longer term.  Ship sinks 40 times.

 

Normal ship = 160,000 gold invested.

Premium ship = 60,000 gold invested.

 

Basically as long as you use the premium ship, your operation cost is going to be significantly cheaper which is what your $50 real world investment is buying you.... faster progression (due to progression really being tied to wealth) and convenience (easier to replace your ship, less wealth grind involved.)

 

However, as I mentioned earlier.  95% of the people who buy one or more premiums will still use non-premium ships 80% or greater of the time because they will want a 1st rate or several of the non-premium frigates will be better than the premium ones or because they like the looks of a particular non-premium ship or because they need a trader and cannot afford to by a premium version because they already by a premium frigate or whatever reason.  That being the case, the overall impact of premium ships will be rather small with most people using a premium at least eventually as fall back ships for when replacing their non-premium losses becomes too expensive.

 

That's an incredible amount of made up data to try and prove a point.

[Austrum]

That's an incredible amount of made up data to try and prove a point.

 

Ever heard of something called a "Theoretical example".    They are used to get a point across without having hard data to back it up, hence the theoretical part.

 

As far as where I came up with the concept, it was a dev post about how the expected premium ships to work.  Not sure what thread it was in but it was mentioned that premium ships would have unlimited durability and reduced repair cost, subject to change of course but still that is what was outlined.

 

My made up data was to try to illustrate the concept of how it would likely work in theory when comparing the cost of using a non-premium ship to the cost of using a premium ship and to illustrate an example of the potential benefit of buying a premium ship based on what information we have at hand.  

[Brigand]

As far as where I came up with the concept, it was a dev post about how the expected premium ships to work.  Not sure what thread it was in but it was mentioned that premium ships would have unlimited durability and reduced repair cost, subject to change of course but still that is what was outlined.

 

On the previous page, admin says:

 

Wrong info. We have never guaranteed that it will have lower repair costs.

~Brigand

[Austrum]

I already payed this game. I don't want subscription fee and I dont want pay to win elements. I don't want the game to be free to play either cause free to play games are a cancer.

I prefer it it had little optional purchasable things in game after buying the game. I prefer it to be a "buy to play" game.

and release objects and such that don't give unfair advantages to anyone and then release some dlc.

I think there are probably more free to play games that have failed than buy to play games for the simple fact that free to play games are more likely to make a mistake somewhere in time with ingame elements that players could conplain about.

With a buy to play game, if people like it, they are going to buy it and then pay for dlc ore extra ingame content if they want to.

I honestly don't want the game to be like POTBS.

 

You know some people seem to get caught up on this but fail to understand that a MMO is not like a traditional game.  A traditional game, you have one flat price because you get one flat game.  Basically whatever content you buy a the time of purchase is what content you have at the end of the purchase.  Most of these games also do not have a persistent element to them either.  This is why a one time flat fee works for those games.  Now there are some exceptions like Guild Wars 2, but those exceptions are few.

 

A persistent MMO however, requires near constant investment from the developer.  You have server upkeep and maintenance, bandwidth, customer support, transaction processing, 24/7 backend technical support, new content development, ongoing marketing costs, etc, etc, etc.  Since these costs are ongoing, going with a "Pay Once, Play Forever" model isn't really sustainable. Eventually the revenue generated for the box sales will run out and when that happens, the game ends.  Additionally as this revenue is used up over time, less and less becomes available for support and customer service since they have to try to make it last for as a long as possible.  Also since there is no additional reward to be had from investing anything into the game, the game generally gets neglected by the developers are they move on to other, new endeavors, that will generate a profit.

 

This is why except in very rare cases, expecting to be able to "Buy Once, Play Forever" is completely unrealistic.  The devs have to have income and that income has to come from more than just the initial box sales.  They either have to have subscriptions or they have to sell products that people will actually buy and for people to buy things, there has to be value and benefit.  I know I am not going to spend more than a dollar or two on anything cosmetic.  That offers no value to me.  However I have spent $120 at a time buying mechs in MWO because they confer income bonuses that allow me to acquire things in game 30% faster than without them.  That is valuable because it reduces the time I have to invest to get to the things I enjoy in game.  However, this value is what some claim gives "unfair advantage" because to them it is unfair I can earn wealth faster than someone not investing a dime of their money.

 

Anyway my points are, that a persistent MMO has to have a source of reoccurring income.  Sources for that are a reoccurring subscription or by selling things of value in game.  Value in game is relative but whatever is sold in game needs to be valuable enough that it covers the income requires of the developer to keep the game running and improving.  If those expenses can be covered by just selling cosmetic items, then fine but don't begrudge the devs if they have to sell something more than cosmetics, something like a premium ship that offers distinct advantages, in order to keep the game moving forward and improving.  

[Oliver H. Perry]

Ever heard of something called a "Theoretical example".    They are used to get a point across without having hard data to back it up, hence the theoretical part.

 

As far as where I came up with the concept, it was a dev post about how the expected premium ships to work.  Not sure what thread it was in but it was mentioned that premium ships would have unlimited durability and reduced repair cost, subject to change of course but still that is what was outlined.

 

My made up data was to try to illustrate the concept of how it would likely work in theory when comparing the cost of using a non-premium ship to the cost of using a premium ship and to illustrate an example of the potential benefit of buying a premium ship based on what information we have at hand.  

 

I have.  I have not, however, had the misfortune of seeing one where the person creating the theory simply made up the facts.  No one has announced how much ships will cost, how much repairs will cost, etc.  Ascribing random values to events and then trying to back up a factual argument with the results isn't correct in any way.  I can make up numbers to support the opposite side just as easily.

 

My entire point is that you can't just pull numbers out of the air, mistakenly assume that there will be lower repair costs on Premiums, and then claim that your results are valid.  Absolutely nothing about that post advances your assertion sir.

 

In fact, Admin has stated that repair costs can equal the cost of the entire ship (based on a statement that you might be better off breaking up the ship, it's reasonable to assume that the repair cost may in fact exceed the hull value).  In that situation, the spread between Premium and non-Premium narrows significantly, since if you still want to sail your Premium Ship, you'll be paying the replacement value for the hull anyhow.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter anyways.  You're saving having to grind to get the ship in the first place, and spending real money to keep the Devs paid, the servers running, and the features/bug fixes flowing.  I'd say that deserves a little bit of a leg up on those who are not continuing to help out with the cost of running the game.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Thomas Hardy

[Magnum]

snip....

 

In the end, it doesn't matter anyways.  You're saving having to grind to get the ship in the first place, and spending real money to keep the Devs paid, the servers running, and the features/bug fixes flowing.  I'd say that deserves a little bit of a leg up on those who are not continuing to help out with the cost of running the game.

 

Here, here Sir!

[Austrum]

 

On the previous page, admin says:

 

~Brigand

 

Nothing is guaranteed, that is just what was said at one point.

 

However, I will go as far as saying that there needs to be some value associated with premium ship or at least some value directly related to cost.  

 

For example, I would not likely buy a premium ship that wasn't persistent, ie unlimited durability through I guess if I could pick up a ship with only 5 durability for around a $1.00 I might consider it on rare occasions.  Further, I wouldn't buy even a persistent ship if it actually cost more to repair it than a non-premium ship because then I would be spending hard earned real money to generally put myself at a disadvantage economically in the game.  Also I wouldn't buy a ship just based on cosmetics without some sort of additional attached value.

 

On the other hand, I would buy a very cool looking premium ship that had the same repair costs and general performance of another, non-premium ship as long as it had unlimited durability and would probably be willing to pay maybe $15-$20 for something the size of a nice Frigate.  Of course the value here is still the unlimited durability which reduces to acquisition and replacement cost as compared to a non-premium ship.  Basically there has to be some advantageous value if they are going to want me to part with my hard earned money. 

[Austrum]

I have.  I have not, however, had the misfortune of seeing one where the person creating the theory simply made up the facts.  No one has announced how much ships will cost, how much repairs will cost, etc.  Ascribing random values to events and then trying to back up a factual argument with the results isn't correct in any way.  I can make up numbers to support the opposite side just as easily.

 

My entire point is that you can't just pull numbers out of the air, mistakenly assume that there will be lower repair costs on Premiums, and then claim that your results are valid.  Absolutely nothing about that post advances your assertion sir.

 

In fact, Admin has stated that repair costs can equal the cost of the entire ship (based on a statement that you might be better off breaking up the ship, it's reasonable to assume that the repair cost may in fact exceed the hull value).  In that situation, the spread between Premium and non-Premium narrows significantly, since if you still want to sail your Premium Ship, you'll be paying the replacement value for the hull anyhow.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter anyways.  You're saving having to grind to get the ship in the first place, and spending real money to keep the Devs paid, the servers running, and the features/bug fixes flowing.  I'd say that deserves a little bit of a leg up on those who are not continuing to help out with the cost of running the game.

 

Ok first we know nothing is set in stone.  However I read that they were thinking that they might make it so premiums had unlimited durability and might have a lower repair cost.  After researching it more, perhaps I misread the part about the reduced repair cost because I can't find the post now.  Still my point was very valid even if you remove the repair cost difference from the equation. 

 

 

Again, some theories that I hope you don't bash be about.

 

We know it is going to cost "X" amount to build a ship.  We also know that once this ship is built it will have 5 durability correct.  Now from an economic standpoint, the value of the new, pristine 5 durability ship has to exceed the repair costs of the ship.  Why? because if it does not, then there is absolutely no point to having 5 durability in the first place as it will just be cheaper to by a brand new ship every time you get sunk.  Make sense?  Further I think it reasonable to assume that the sale value of a brand new, 5 durability ship should likely exceed the cost of losing the ship and repairing it 5 times. Why?  Because again, if this is not the case, then there is no value to having 5 durability levels and the devs might as well just remove durability from the game.

 

So unless it is just super easy to build ships on your own (lets hope not) shipbuilders are likely going to be charging at least 5.5 to 6 times the average costs to repair a ship 5 times.  I mean it just makes sense economically for these builders to charge at least this much more for a new ship to insure it has an appropriate value.

 

So lets work with this assumption.

 

Again lets say that a new ship will cost 10,000 gold to purchase with 5 durability.  This value will be set at 10,000 gold due to the fact that it costs, on average 2,000 gold to repair.  (note it is possible that the resource cost to build a new ship might only be 2,000 gold, but builders will want to make a profit that makes sense based on the fact that the ship can be repaired 5 times).  Again lets hope that not everyone can own a ship yard and build their own ships so we can actually have a working economy.

 

Ok lets move forward.

 

Non-premium:

 

10,000 gold purchase price, 2,000 gold average repair cost, total investment of 20,000 gold for 5 lives, 30,000 gold if you count the cost of a replacement ship.

 

Premium:

 

Cash purchase, zero gold.  2,000 gold average repair cost, total investment of 10,000 gold for 5 lives, zero gold replacement cost.

 

There is still a significant value to owning and using a premium ship but only if the player is always using the premium ship.  As soon as the buy and use any non-premium that value goes away and most people will not being using premium ships all the time.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Austrum

[SueMyChin]

For example, I would not likely buy a premium ship that wasn't persistent, ie unlimited durability through I guess if I could pick up a ship with only 5 durability for around a $1.00 I might consider it on rare occasions. 

 

What if it took you a week to craft or save up to buy the equivalent ship with 5 durabilities, would you spend the $1?

 

[StaleMemes]

The devs need to have a sustainable income and in a somewhat niche game such as Naval Action. I don't think new purchases of the base game will be enough, and even if it could technically keep the servers up and the game alive we want these amazing developers to never need to worry about cash. Compromise is called for, and I think the first thing we can do to achieve it is stop calling each other 'welfare' and 'wallet' warriors. Taunts about the Affordable Combat Act are, while funny, not going to get this argument anywhere.

 

We want premium ships to have advantages, but not in battle performance wise. We also don't want them to have advantages that can be exploited in the long term by clans. In my opinion we should not have premium vessels of the line or superfrigates because being able to have fleet-capable ships that are more expendable and easily replaced/impossible to lose can very seriously impact clan combat and skew long term wars heavily to the side who can purchase more of these rapid recovery vessels. Draw the enemy into a large heavily damaging battle of attrition, critically damage most of their fleet, then quickly resuscitate your easily recovered 3rd rate fleet and storm their territory while they are repairing and rebuilding. On the other hand smaller frigates, corvettes, and little ships can be purchasable so long as they are not the best in the game and their economic mechanics are at least similar to those of normal ships. I mean really, good luck swinging a clan war using HMS surprises. Not in this universe.

 

If we learn to compromise we can come up with a solution both sides can agree to, that provides the devs with income while not sacrificing gameplay.

 

My two cents.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Capt Aerobane

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

....

 

Well stated sir.  I especially liked the "Affordable Combat Act".  

[admin]

There is one thing set in stone: Game is not going to be F2P, never ever.  It will always be old school buy to play. 

Boats are expensive you know

[Tief N Tote]

reading this thread i wondering about x-teaming and if we will find allot of people with 2 accounts and find, pirates in preamium ships on one account and low lvl nats in crappy ships tracking nats in well crafted ships. then what we end up with is pirate parties farming the good ships from nats.

[Austrum]

The devs need to have a sustainable income and in a somewhat niche game such as Naval Action. I don't think new purchases of the base game will be enough, and even if it could technically keep the servers up and the game alive we want these amazing developers to never need to worry about cash. Compromise is called for, and I think the first thing we can do to achieve it is stop calling each other 'welfare' and 'wallet' warriors. Taunts about the Affordable Combat Act are, while funny, not going to get this argument anywhere.

 

We want premium ships to have advantages, but not in battle performance wise. We also don't want them to have advantages that can be exploited in the long term by clans. In my opinion we should not have premium vessels of the line or superfrigates because being able to have fleet-capable ships that are more expendable and easily replaced/impossible to lose can very seriously impact clan combat and skew long term wars heavily to the side who can purchase more of these rapid recovery vessels. Draw the enemy into a large heavily damaging battle of attrition, critically damage most of their fleet, then quickly resuscitate your easily recovered 3rd rate fleet and storm their territory while they are repairing and rebuilding. On the other hand smaller frigates, corvettes, and little ships can be purchasable so long as they are not the best in the game and their economic mechanics are at least similar to those of normal ships. I mean really, good luck swinging a clan war using HMS surprises. Not in this universe.

 

If we learn to compromise we can come up with a solution both sides can agree to, that provides the devs with income while not sacrificing gameplay.

 

My two cents.

 

Overall this is kind of the direction I figure they might go in though I would like to see perhaps up 4th and 3rd rates (excluding super frigates for other reasons) because ships 3rd rate and lower will be the workhorses in the game.  

 

As for the case for 3rd and 4th rates being available.  Well it is kind of like the case for Tier 8 premium tanks in WoTs. They aren't large enough to dominate a large scale clan based battles but are at least big enough to participate.   The large scale battles will still need mostly 1st and 2nd rate ships to carry the battle but smaller clans and/or individuals without grand scale levels of resources could still look to a premium 3rd rate as a way to be competitive.  Also keep in mind, premiums are far from free.  They will still cost significant resources to repair especially something the size of a 3rd rate so losing a premium 3rd rate in battle is still going to pinch the finances of these smaller clans or individuals significantly.

 

As far as Super Frigates, honestly I view them as Top Tier ships in their own right.  Sure they could never face a first rate in the line of battle but as escorts, raiders, privateers, pirates, hunting packs and virtually every other open sea general use aside from major fleet engagements, these are going to be at the top of the food chain.

 

In fact for premiums, I think each general size of ship should be tiered.

 

Line Ships - 3rd and 4th rate only

Frigates - up to 12lb gun armed only

Small ships - ???

Traders - only up to XXX tonnage cargo capacity.

 

Something like this.

[SueMyChin]

As for the case for 3rd and 4th rates being available.  Well it is kind of like the case for Tier 8 premium tanks in WoTs. They aren't large enough to dominate a large scale clan based battles but are at least big enough to participate.

 

You can't compare an arena style game with matchmaking to an open world where any ship can fight any other.

 

 

The large scale battles will still need mostly 1st and 2nd rate ships to carry the battle but smaller clans and/or individuals without grand scale levels of resources could still look to a premium 3rd rate as a way to be competitive.

 

There is a consensus that 1st and 2nd rate ships should be few and far between as they were far from common historically. 'The equivalent to titans in EVE' if I was to paraphrase.

You can almost count on one hand how often large numbers of these ships squared off against each other in over 200 years. There is no reason it shouldn't be the same in game either.

[Purple]

You can't compare an arena style game with matchmaking to an open world where any ship can fight any other.

 

 

 

There is a consensus that 1st and 2nd rate ships should be few and far between as they were far from common historically. 'The equivalent to titans in EVE' if I was to paraphrase.

You can almost count on one hand how often large numbers of these ships squared off against each other in over 200 years. There is no reason it shouldn't be the same in game either.

i havent seen any sort of consensus on that topic. first and second rate ships are a blast to fight with and against in the game and it would be a shame if they were so rare that no one ever used them in day to day stuff. it may not be "Historically accurate" but it sure adds to the fun of the game. when something comes down to being fun vs historically accurate fun should win so long as its not adding something like the ability to add laser cannons to ships.

[Austrum]

You can't compare an arena style game with matchmaking to an open world where any ship can fight any other.

 

 

 

There is a consensus that 1st and 2nd rate ships should be few and far between as they were far from common historically. 'The equivalent to titans in EVE' if I was to paraphrase.

You can almost count on one hand how often large numbers of these ships squared off against each other in over 200 years. There is no reason it shouldn't be the same in game either.

 

 

We are talking large scale battles here backed by large Clans with lots of resources.  You can pretty much guarantee they will be using 1st and 2nd rates in their lines of battles WHEN they are planning to go head-to-head with other large Clans.  Will they be common for daily use?  No, not hardly but big clan battles?  Yes.  Also Titans aren't that uncommon any more.  I read all the time where two of the big player corps end up going at it and both sides end up losing a dozen titans each despite the efforts and resources involved with constructing even a single Titan.  Still Battleships are by and large the most common ship used even in these large battles in EVE and I envision 3rd rates to fall into this category....expensive enough to hit the wallet but not so expensive that an average player, even a solo player couldn't recover from a loss with a few hard weeks of game play. 

 

 

i havent seen any sort of consensus on that topic. first and second rate ships are a blast to fight with and against in the game and it would be a shame if they were so rare that no one ever used them in day to day stuff. it may not be "Historically accurate" but it sure adds to the fun of the game. when something comes down to being fun vs historically accurate fun should win so long as its not adding something like the ability to add laser cannons to ships.

 

 

I disagree.  If they are easy to acquire, everyone will be using 1st rates and when that is the case, the whole game goes to hell.  1st rates should need the resources of several hundred members working together to acquire and build and losing one in battle should be painful even for these large guilds/clans/player associations or whatever they will be called.  Largest ship a solo or small clan should be able to manage is maybe a 3rd rate.  Honestly they really need to look to EVE Online in this game because it is a workable and sustainable model that fits what this game is trying to do. 

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

There is one thing set in stone: Game is not going to be F2P, never ever.  It will always be old school buy to play. 

Boats are expensive you know

 

 

Of course. The last thing we need is all the f2p gamers running rampant across the high seas. Many times I've seen the chaos caused by Steam "free to play weekends," let alone f2p games. 

 

As for a source of income, we need to wait and see how things play out. I personally do not think subscriptions will be necessary, but we will see. I foresee premium ships being much more popular than many expect. Of course, the Steam release will provide realistic hard data as to how the payment model will work. Until then, it's all speculation.

[SueMyChin]

i havent seen any sort of consensus on that topic. first and second rate ships are a blast to fight with and against in the game and it would be a shame if they were so rare that no one ever used them in day to day stuff. it may not be "Historically accurate" but it sure adds to the fun of the game. when something comes down to being fun vs historically accurate fun should win so long as its not adding something like the ability to add laser cannons to ships.

 

You might want to spend some time looking through the threads concerning the subject then, as a quick search brings up dozens ( http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1 ) of examples.

It would appear your idea of fun and everyone else's are completely different.

[SueMyChin]

We are talking large scale battles here backed by large Clans with lots of resources.  You can pretty much guarantee they will be using 1st and 2nd rates in their lines of battles WHEN they are planning to go head-to-head with other large Clans.  Will they be common for daily use?  No, not hardly but big clan battles?  Yes.  Also Titans aren't that uncommon any more.  I read all the time where two of the big player corps end up going at it and both sides end up losing a dozen titans each despite the efforts and resources involved with constructing even a single Titan.  Still Battleships are by and large the most common ship used even in these large battles in EVE and I envision 3rd rates to fall into this category....expensive enough to hit the wallet but not so expensive that an average player, even a solo player couldn't recover from a loss with a few hard weeks of game play.

 

...and I was talking about national navies backed by empires which spanned the globe. They were still uncommon. 

If we're discussing clans of players then the closest comparison we could make is the East India Company. The facts about the East India Company and it's revenue are staggering, even compared to the giants of today's global economy and yet they hardly commanded half a dozen 1st, 2nd & 3rd rates at any given time. Why should clans of players be able to in game?

Eve was released in 2003, if it takes the same amount of time for 1st rates to saturate the NA open world, I'll be quite content.

[Johny Reb]

If we're discussing clans of players then the closest comparison we could make is the East India Company. The facts about the East India Company and it's revenue are staggering, even compared to the giants of today's global economy and yet they hardly commanded half a dozen 1st, 2nd & 3rd rates at any given time. Why should clans of players be able to in game?

Ill try an answer the question.

 

First the ideas of clans is in itself not historical. You are greatly bending historical reality when implementing a large scale clan mechanic. Games though are games and ultimately these types of games are about the community. Loose the community and the game will die. So we have clans. The easiest way to put a clan into an historical perspective is to call them companies but even if you do this members of these clans will range from merchants, to privateers to Naval men and even a pirate or two so the clan in name may be called a company but in reality will be a fighting machine in most cases. So, calling them companies would only serve to address the sensitivities of realism junkies.

 

Next, ships were assigned by a national gov't in reality but most likely that won't be the case in NA. The devs could, I imagine design the game in a way that makes the economy revolve around upkeep, repair, and properly stocking the ship instead of on purchases but everything I have read seems to point to them not implementing this mechanic, except for the repairs of course. I gather this from statements about the number of ships we can own for instance. Being able to have more than one ship does not argue for a mechanic of Admiralty assigned ships. Therefore, it will most likely be built by the player community and sold at auction. This is a completely unhistorical mechanic as far as Rates go.

 

So, my point with these two paragraphs is that we have already broken the bounds of realism so using "realism" arguments are not quite as strong as when the game was less philosophically developed. The question then remains, from a game point of view, how do you make the clans an integral part of the game and not just social entanglements. I think the answer is in giving them value to the game itself. NA has, to some degree, agreed with this perspective in that they have announced clan controlled ports and have discussed the idea of nation charters.

 

The historical companies you have referred to were obviously rich enough to run run a small fleet of powerful warships but they had no need to for the most part. First, they were companies which means they were about making money. Warships would rob money from their profit margins. Second, they had the Royal Navy to protect them. So the argument that they didn't have many rated ships fails in two ways. First, they didn't need to have many and second that they had some anyway. So, clans having rated ships aren't so unhistorical as you would make it seem. But, ultimately the argument fails because it is a poor analogy to what the game has in clans. Clans which will contain merchants with merchant ships, privateers in their smaller faster ships, and Naval Officers with, yes, their rated ships under Admiralty orders. At best, clans are a conglomeration of companies, privateer contracts and Naval squadrons.

 

We must remember that this type of game is not a reenactment but a game of "what if" scenarios. So, its safe to argue that if a company like the East India Company could historically afford to build and maintain a small fleet of rated ships then a clan should be able to play out a "what if", acting out a scenario as an "East India" type company that chooses to outfit a fleet of rated ships and go at it alone.

[SueMyChin]

OK, I'll tell you why you just wasted your time typing that up.

 

Firstly, just because there are some aspects of the game that aren't historically correct (for game play purposes) is no reason to add any more, just because. "we have already broken the bounds of realism so using "realism" arguments are not quite as strong as when the game was less philosophically developed" - oh, well I want yellow ships, laser beams and hovercraft then... You know that reasoning is nonsense, you're well aware of the desire from the community and the developers to keep the game as realistic as possible without concessions to gameplay. I even linked to countless posts where players specifically asked for first rates to be "like titans in EVE".

I'm sure one or two will want full clan, PVP encounters with everyone is 1st and 2nd rates but they're few and far between, we cant exactly argue for this on grounds 'game play'.

 

On the companies/clans stuff, you're arguing a point I didn't make.... all I said was that the companies were the "closest comparison we could make". I didn't say it was a particularity close one or anything like that they're exactly the same or should be.

The East India Company was a massive amalgamation of traders, merchants, fighting captains, political leaders etc.(sounds a little like a clan to me)  they certainly had need for protection at sea and on land because they weren't always protected by the RN. (something your post over looks is that clans and navies may well be working together, or one under the other in game, so they may have the navies protection). They had full armies to protect their sphere of interest and yet they only seen it fit to build a handful of rated ships. This was my point.

 

Unless clans are going to be bigger than the EIC and will be on par with and challenging navies, which would be absurd, then I'm left to repeat the question that you attempted to answer, "Why should clans of players be able to build fleets of 1st rates in game?"

Edited April 9, 2015 by SueMyChin

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

So far 7000 players took part in sea trials. I highly doubt that many clans number over 100 people, and at the moment there are only several "big" clans. That being said, it is highly improbable that any clan will even come close to rivaling a smaller nation like Sweden. Clans are simply a way of connecting with other players. They should certainly be able to have a significant presence within their nation, but they shouldn't become massive "navies" unto their own. This is why I am very wary of the ability of players to start new nations.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Let's circle back to the subject of Premium Ships and Pay to Win please.