Clan and Guild Content

[Kiefer Cain]

 A couple of ways to answer this...

 

...I hope this explains some of the motives for advocating for a more society centered economy.

 

I think you misunderstand what I am implying.  

 

I am not a 35 account operator in PotBS.  I operate one account and have become something of an econ baron on Antigua's server (not bragging, only making a point).  I have amassed my fortune not by isolating myself from other players, but by doing quite the opposite.  I engage more players than society-run crafting operations do.  Nothing about my economic operation is done in-house (except for the brain-work of gauging supply and demand), other than what I can produce with the original 10 slots allotted to my account.  I have built my economic power by reaching out to every single crafter/econ player/hauler in Potbs.  My ingredients for my recipes are produced by independent real players, none of which are told what to do by me.  I pay a handsome profit for the items I need and in return I never run out of the supplies I need to make products for the marketplace.  There is nothing insular about my economic operation.  I have the capability of making any ship(s) in the PotBS game within an hour of order because of my engagement with the rest of the player-base on the server.  

 

The market economy that this game will hopefully have, will have to make room for players like Remus, Maibec Scylla, myself, Ulot, and others (former and current econ barons of PotBS for those not acquainted with that game).  

 

If it is the multi-account do-it-all-yourself player you are targeting, that looks to sidestep the spirit of the game and interaction with other players, than I can agree with your motive.  I can tell you, though, that forcing society membership to obtain economic power in this game will not create an economy worth partaking in.  

 

It seems to me that the society mandate will help the 35 account player more than it hinders.  He can create a society with the 35 accounts and be all set to make what ships he wants, too.  I want to be able to own the shipyard (not saying I would want to), and have the option to contract out work or material purchases from other players as individuals.  The society isn't necessary for this function nor should it be.  Perhaps I won't obtain the capital immediately to purchase a shipyard, as quickly as a cooperative would.

 

Not all individuals or "loners" are independent of the world economy.  They are immersed in it.

[Johny Reb]

I figured this was you Bain. This is Tommy O'Cianan from tiggy.

 

Before addressing your statements I want to add one more reason to my list above that I thought of on the way to work.

 

6. It provides a way for a society to make money. Potbs provides no means for this other than donations. Even if a society shipbuilder gives all profit to the society it is still a donation and it drys up quickly when the player takes a break. The other side to this is that there isn't much of a reason in Potbs for a society to spend money either. So you get get it through donations but have nothing to spend it on. With the introduction of society warehouses, soc money can now be used to buy BSNs so they can purchase one which gives some meaning to soc wallet but other than that there is only spending on influence which has little meaning to a society other than prestige.(and not much of it). They could use the money to buy ships for their membership but its still dependent on donations.

 

Society owned shipyards with individual player control over dry docks is a happy medium IMO between the self-starter and complete society control and it allows a society to have a true income with purpose. The society that has been proposed by me and others would not only see the society owning shipyards but also building the infrastructure and defences of their home port. This will take money to accomplish, therefore the society needs a more stable income then donations. Money would also be used for, as suggested in threads by others: society owned ships, financing of privateers, protection for econ convoys, etc.

 

Your point:

I respect your postion and I hear it. Tenaka brought the same response to my attention a couple of months ago. I would say that a societies control over shipyards should not be determined by the number of members the society has within its ranks. It should be decided by the success of its economy because each piece of infrastructure will require upkeep and if you can't support 5 dry docks financially then the society will be forced to close one down until it can.

You have just wrote about how you have managed your economy successfully without running 35 toons and I applaud you. In my soc setup, you could still do the same thing. You could start a society with you as the only member, and have access to all the possibilities and benefits that the society structure has to offer as long as your self management of your finances could support your infrastructure. For most people that will prove to be to difficult or to time consuming and will be forced to have supporting economies instead. But you seem to be very good at what you do because you are able to build your economic "alliances" that provide you the ability to succeed without having 35 toons.

 

I would also be in favor of the individual being the one that learns the plans for the different ships available to be built, not the society which would give the individual a little more importance. We've suggested that certain ships be specific to each nation and the only way for a foreign shipbuilder to learn how to build one would be for them to get a hold of one. So, a privateer that captures a Constitution has the choice to hold on to his ship, sell it to the AI, or to donate it to a shipbuilder. In the past, I have said that it would be donated to the society but after our discussion here I think it would be better to be donated to the shipbuilder instead giving the individual more influence within his society as well as setting up a nice dynamic of society management over its dry docks. If only one member has the knowledge to build a Constitution then that persons "individuality" becomes more important to the society.

 

I think either way allows for the 35 toon player to take advantage of the system. Only limiting accounts could possibly get past this.

 

Also, if NA incorporates my suggestions then there will be an added benefit for you to form your society. The societies will be able to offically form alliances and keep track of them. It will provide an alliance chat channel for easier communication and alliances will help you find protection for your haulers if NA has wider spread pvp zones or mechanics then Potbs.

 

I hope I addressed your entire post. Im at work and gotta go in a minute so I'm kinda rushing through this.

[Saintduiex]

Digging up an old thread that I want to add my 2 cents to. Some of it echo's what has already been said.

 

In my opinion Naval Action should not be looked at like a PotBS version 2.0 on steroids. While some concepts from PotBS seem to be "best in class" and transfer nicely, many can be rethought and envisioned in a whole new way.

 

The suggestions and concepts below are meant to stimulate discussion and are not the only way to do things. They are not intended to counter others suggestions nor say they were wrong and are not exhaustive and do not include many areas like in-game features for clans.

 

 

Guilds

1. Members can only be a member of one guild
2. Guilds must declare to what Nation (host country) their Guild is allied to when they form
   1. Different countries should provide different benefits to guilds (faster ship building, more satisfied sailors, increased income from trade, etc.)
   2. Game-labs should adjust benefits during the course of the game to encourage guilds to be spread across all nations rather than bunched into 2 or 3 nations and then a smattering of guilds in each of the other 20-30 nations.
3. As with Star Trek Online you only need 2 members to start a guild.
   1. Other than annoyance of 1,000 two person guilds there is ZERO harm in unlimited 2 member guilds
   2. a "low entry level" to start a guild provides an avenue that anyone can aspire to start their own guild. This will address a certain niche and be of no account to the rest
4. Guilds can change allegiance to another nation but that carries costs
   1. All alliances and trade with guilds from the original host country are severed (you hurt their national pride)
   2. The Guild that leaves lose all port privileges at the original host country (and their Guilds) ports for a period of time
   3. Privileges / benefits of now being with a new host country are opened up over a period of time and not all at once.  
5. Guilds can borrow and lend currency. Can advertise their rates in a common game forum but should not be taken lightly
   1. Payments are automatically taken from players/guilds buy taking a percentage of all income transactions. This eliminates complexity.
   2. Payments will be taken from any active toon that a player may be using at any time (eliminates deadbeats) 
   3. Loans can be paid off early with no penalty
   4. Loans can only be given to players who have achieved a certain in-game level.
   5. Loan amount limits are in alignment with a toon or Guilds level.

 

1. Allies: - Some concepts below (like independent or Merc Guilds) could possibly conflict with other stated concepts and would need to be more defined. Again just meant to stimulate discussion on possibilities
   1. Guilds can have an unlimited # of allies, but only with guilds from same or neutral country
   2. Allies from same country can go in as partners and can share costs of port building (see Guilds and port ownership below)
   3. Guilds can only be an allies with guilds whose country is not at war with yours.
   4. If a guilds "host country" goes to war with another country then alliances with guilds of the at-war country are severed. Period.
   5. Guilds can only attack other guilds whose country is at war with their host guild.
   6. There may be that occasional one off and so a guild member attacking a member from another guild allied to the same country should have a cost/ramification/penalty. So you can do it, but it will cost you. 
   7. Excessive(?) attacks upon guilds and guild members of you own country or of neutral countries will get your guild extensively penalized (reduced/eliminated nation benefits received)
   8. Guilds not allied with a country will not get any benefits offered by being part of a country.
   9. Guilds may end up as not allied with a country. Doing so does not make them pirates, their only actions will (ie attacked Dutch Spice Fleet makes them a pirate to the Dutch. )
      1. Possible Option: This could(?) also make them a “Privateer” for a country that the Dutch are at war with. ie A Merc Guild available for hire by other guilds. So if you wanted to attack a guild that is also allied to your nation, hire a Merc guild 
      2. While not officially part of a nation, privateers can enjoy some limited benefits from a nation or guild that they are a privateer for (reduce costs for refit and supplies at that guilds ports). This would drive even independent guilds to want to be allies with at least one other guild that is large enough to benefit them ie  That owns ports, trade, etc.

 

1. Guilds and Port Ownership - Guilds can build/own a port:
   1. Ports /forts/mines/etc. are expensive and take time to build
   2. For ease of game development Ports can only be built at predetermined locations which may be increased with later game updates
   3. There would be several different port types with different capabilities, advantages and disadvantages for each type like local resources for trade and development (mines and farms) that can be traded, Depth and size of the port limiting size of ships that can access it, quantity or quality of skills or products available, temperament of locals, etc.
   4. Each port is a predetermined port type and will use a predetermined template build tree  
   5. Upgrades can be purchased or earned (x tons of trade or x number of ships have docked/ moored – Docks, warehouses, taverns (crew moral), land defenses, etc.
   6. Ports can only be attacked based upon the rules stated above. ie by guilds from nations at war with the owning guilds nation.
   7. Ports can only be attacked after they reach as certain development level otherwise constant attacks on new and lightly defended ports would discourage port building
   8. Total Loss of a battle = loss of control of the port to the clan/nation that won the battle
   9. Ports can provide a profit to the owners based upon :
      1. Ships that dock pay a tiny port fee
      2. Ships that trade pay a tiny dock fee.
         1. With a dock they can trade
         2. take on supplies
         3.  repair ship
         4. press gang some crew
         5. provide shore leave
      3. Ships can be moored and not pay a dock fee but can only
         1. Take on supplies
         2. Provide shore leave
      4. Guilds can lease some or all of their docks to any other guild for a 1 time (or recurring?) fee.
         1. Going forward the leasing guild receives the tiny % of monies/goods received from all trade done at their leased docks
         2. The guild that is leasing pays no port fee or dock trade fees for their own ships
         3. The guild that owns the port still receives all tine port fees
         4. If the nation of the guild that leases dock goes to war the lease is terminated for the duration of the war. Can be renegotiated upon the conclusion of hostilities
   10. Another potential option is that a guild can sell portions of its ownership to other guilds of the same nation. This would help spread the cost and risk across multiple Guilds.
       1. The port has a total of 100 shares. Ownership = 51% or more
       2. The owning guild can sell as much of their stock as they wish
       3. Owning guild can set whatever price it wants to per share
       4. Profits from port and trade fees are paid to the owners in proportion to the percentage of ownership
2. War
   1. This will be a huge driver and influence over guilds
   2. Game-labs sets which countries are at war with each other
      1. Allows them to help balance the overall game
      2. Provides the element of unknown to the game
   3. Wars are not started and stopped after a day or two
   4. Wars between major countries should be long enough to effect the game ie ports change hands etc.
   5. Wars between Major and Minor countries or between Minor and Minor countries can be shorter period.
   6. National AI fleets are generated by Game-Labs based upon criteria that will help to keep the game balanced. ie excessive pirating in a particular area may cause an AI National fleet to arrive there to help 'clean it up"

NOTE: IMO keeping the game balanced to some degree is essential. The balancing does NOT penalize very successful guilds but as success grows so should difficulty in continued growth and provide for larger challenges to larger guilds. Failure to keep the game from growing increasingly lopsided will reduce the challenge to the very successful and large guilds and add frustration and resignation to those less successful or starting out

[Mirones]

nice stuff but i see no reason why a friendly fleet should have disadvantage using the port of another guild. atleast not to much.

smaller guilds can basicly take care of the forts around the port of an biger guild so that both benefit frome ach other.

but yes i suport all from above but we can still discuss details

[Saintduiex]

My suggestion was that friendly or neutral fleets can use the port of any other friendly or neutral fleet for a small port fee to the owners so I don't see a disadvantage there unless I overlooked something...?

 

And whatever we do with a port (warehouses, forts, docks, taverns, etc.) has to provide a benefit. I'm not quite sure how a smaller fleet would benefit from running a fort unless there was something in it for them. I would think that the profits would come in trade, warehouse, taverns (and the like), ship building and repair, and selling supplies for a ship to restock.

[SirAdmiralBark]

This seems interesting.. Though I wish I was more active in the forums... SIGN ME UP!

[Hanser von Richthofen]

I think will be better if the society have control of the economy in that way societies will be more productive to the game and the nation.

[SirAdmiralBark]

I think will be better if the society have control of the economy in that way societies will be more productive to the game and the nation.

Yes it would be interesting but you will end up having people abusing a monopoly type system and flooding of certian items

[OTMatt]

Yes it would be interesting but you will end up having people abusing a monopoly type system and flooding of certian items

 

Well we shouldnt base the games around possible issues. Otherwise no game will ever again have player based economies. I'm sure they can come up with solutions to fix monopolies and other related stuff.

[Destraex]

I don't really care about guilds. 

As long as they do not affect my enjoyment of the game with a few casual mates I am ok with what ever you do for guilds.

 

I would though like properly fleshed out nations and national events. Like nations changing allies and you hearing the news form either a port or a neutral/national ship you encounter.

 

I am more interested in nation dynamics with regard to groups than guild dynamics\mechanics.

 

Worst case scenario for me is a guild that basically becomes it's own nation with a fully fledged war fleet the size of Englands.

 

I prefer if guilds are in that they become something more akin to "east india company" organisations. Lots of merchantmen that are well armed and kitted out. But still want the protection of 

the nations navy when they are in or near home waters.

 

Then again the map does not cover the med and english channel like I had hoped. But instead the far side of the world where tiny settlements and backwaters predominate somehow supporting massive European sized warships permanently.

[Hanser von Richthofen]

i mean the society have the control, not only one person! is the entire society. to take big decisions the majority of the members need to agree in this way you will make the members feel important inside the society because they will not be members only they will be part of the society,their opinions will matter and we all will take our decisions as a society we all fight together and die together!

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Well we shouldnt base the games around possible issues. Otherwise no game will ever again have player based economies. I'm sure they can come up with solutions to fix monopolies and other related stuff.

 

Not thinking ideas through leads to games that nobody wants to play.  A properly vetted feature requires both white-hat and black-hat thinking.  "I'm sure they can come up with" statements are well and good, but fully exploring defects in an idea is what allows that idea to mature fully into a useful feature, or be discarded as unworkable.  A few dozen forumers are a useful way to review an idea to prevent an exploit in a potential feature.

 

 

i mean the society have the control, not only one person! is the entire society. to take big decisions the majority of the members need to agree in this way you will make the members feel important inside the society because they will not be members only they will be part of the society,their opinions will matter and we all will take our decisions as a society we all fight together and die together!

 

 

How would you do this?  I'm still not even sure how a majority of members would make a decision that controls the "economy".  Can you please take a moment to fully think through and explain what you're asking for so that we can get a good grasp of your thought?

[Saintduiex]

Worst case scenario for me is a guild that basically becomes it's own nation with a fully fledged war fleet the size of Englands.

I prefer if guilds are in that they become something more akin to "east india company" organisations. Lots of merchantmen that are well armed and kitted out. But still want the protection of

the nations navy when they are in or near home waters.

I am in violent agreement with that statement.

Without a doubt all of the major ports and most of the 2nd tier ports should be owned by nations, not guilds. Guild ports should mainly be in distant locations to facilitate trade or exploytation of a nearby local resource. The Carribean might have some of these but I would think that the nations would own the vast majority.

I see a guild having the largest opportunities in South America, Africa, Australia. In following the posts of the admins I think the bottom line would be that Exploration will equal exploitation which will facilitate the need for new ports.

Then again the map does not cover the med and english channel like I had hoped. But instead the far side of the world where tiny settlements and backwaters predominate somehow supporting massive European sized warships permanently.

this first map is just the sandbox. I believe the admins have posted a picture of the English coast. The Carribean will be the backwaters and the European coast and mediteranian should be the center of the world.

[Johny Reb]

I am in violent agreement with that statement.

Without a doubt all of the major ports and most of the 2nd tier ports should be owned by nations, not guilds. Guild ports should mainly be in distant locations to facilitate trade or exploytation of a nearby local resource. The Carribean might have some of these but I would think that the nations would own the vast majority.

I see a guild having the largest opportunities in South America, Africa, Australia. In following the posts of the admins I think the bottom line would be that Exploration will equal exploitation which will facilitate the need for new ports.

 

I think the devs are going in the wrong direction with guild owned ports but maybe if its done right it will be a good dynamic. I'd rather the city system be like Potbs with some controlled by npc and unconquerable and most others controlled by societies or people but I'd rather see the ownership and protection of a port be more dynamic and allow multiple societies to set up in a city and contribute to the defenses and infrastructure of the port. Each port would have its own politics and alliances which could make for interesting meta game social structures.

 

I think your idea about port tiers is reasonable.

[Saintduiex]

I think the devs are going in the wrong direction with guild owned ports but maybe if its done right it will be a good dynamic. I'd rather the city system be like Potbs with some controlled by npc and unconquerable and most others controlled by societies or people but I'd rather see the ownership and protection of a port be more dynamic and allow multiple societies to set up in a city and contribute to the defenses and infrastructure of the port. Each port would have its own politics and alliances which could make for interesting meta game social structures.

 

I don't know that the Dev's have ever explicitly stated that there will be guild owned ports. I am just offering concepts and ideas, not having more than directional information to speculate from.

 

I think each port basically being its own country is very limiting and small world thinking and is one of the things that should not be carried into NA. While some individuals (Governor's and the uber wealthy) and some companies may have exerted a great amount of influence at any particular port, it was still the demands of the nation that they were allied to that drove the politics and alliances.

 

Having said that, I agree with your concept of creating interesting meta games and social structures. So if you took the PotBS example that you note and put a national agenda above that that drove those politics and alliances then I think we are saying the same thing. Any particular port could be the "center of the universe" for any guild or individual but would be under the confines of a national allegiance, which extends the interest and possibilities far beyond the Caribbean. Conflicts and alliances across Europe would drive the conflicts and alliances across the Caribbean. So each port could develop the alliances and intrigues within those bounds.

 

Just my opinion

[Hanser von Richthofen]

first of all we need to know if societies will can make money by themselves i hope that will be like that!

[Edward Vernon]

I have never played POTBS but for the best example of a thriving and effective player driven economy, look no further than Eve for me. 

 

I think a distillation of most of the posts so far here when you boil down the detail, does seem to reflect something not unlike the Eve economic system, so maybe that would be a good starting point? 

 

 I do not particularly like the idea of a 35 toon player, I did have 3 toons in Eve on 2 accounts and quite frankly whilst it seemed a good idea at the time, it gave me a headache....So I would suggest and this may be a bit Off Topic, that we have some mechanism to limit the number of accounts/toons a player can have. not suggesting it should be just one, but maybe a maximum of 3 or 4?

[Johny Reb]

I don't know that the Dev's have ever explicitly stated that there will be guild owned ports. I am just offering concepts and ideas, not having more than directional information to speculate from.

 

I'm two lazy to look it up but a post by the admin within the last couple weeks stated that societies will be able to own ports. I think it was in their post about the exploring aspect of he game but I can't be sure.

[Bart Smith]

Not sure that societies should be able own main strategic ports but for sure medium, small towns/ports and fishermans villages can be owned by guilds maybe depending of society size or influence or reputation points gained like in PotBS? I wonder about great economy system because trading was main source of income those days and large variety of materials/goods in many ports/villages its what i want to see in full version of NA.

Society features should be: society ranks and privileges, society building (maybe paid weekly to maintain), society shipyard allow certain society members to build ships, recruit office for new players and most important society warehouses for economy purposes with reasonable stack limit.

[Kiefer Cain]

Digging up an old thread that I want to add my 2 cents to. Some of it echo's what has already been said.

 

In my opinion Naval Action should not be looked at like a PotBS version 2.0 on steroids. While some concepts from PotBS seem to be "best in class" and transfer nicely, many can be rethought and envisioned in a whole new way...

 

Agreed.

Frame this and tack it to the bulletin board.

[Garrett2]

I would definately want

-friends system with search player feature

-clan owned ports

-clan owned, buildable, infastructure

-forts possibly

-some type of resources that give certain ports advantages like surrounding hardwood forests allow for better ships etc.

-cargo for vessles to transport goods and sell for profit

-some way to tax members to make clan money

-ranks within the clan

-other ways for clans to get benifits and gains in the world

[Prok]

i think

 

Guild owned wharf/warehouses in main citys (for trade,storage etc)

 

guild owned plantations/towns to produce goods for sale also have drydocks witch are limeted to depth of sea and level to what ships the can make

 

the abilaty to go to war with each other

 

the abilaty to trade with each other threw warehouse and goods market

 

a small guild flag for ships

 

clan tags

 

ranking system with permissions dont want  a new member able to sell all guild goods

[Johny Reb]

I would just add, Prok, that the ability to goto war with another clan should be limited to opposing nations.

[Johny Reb]

My post #23 is a long post i made sometime ago covering many areas of society structure. It incorporates alot of these more recent postings. Please like it if you do as it sums up what many are asking for. I edited it today and included Prok's ideas about guild pennants and being able to trade out of our own wharehouses through stores or society owned auction houses.

[Destraex]

i think guilds should have to be permanently tied to a nation. I also think they perhaps should be specifically for trade and people who want navy specific ships should have to join the nations navy.