Elysion

In total realism its your gunners who would be aiming the guns, you would just tell the ship what direction to point in and who they should try to shoot at. I would like to look down from the quarterdeck and manually nod to initiate a flogging.

I would like to see armament ultimately become much more flexible than it currently is. If the game is going to have ships within a larger time span that would never have actually seen each other, it makes sense to me that limiting things to historical armament is not the way to go about things, the historical armament was obviously the best choice at the time with the options they had. Options is the important word here. What kind of gun and how many a ship can use should be based on things like this: 1. The weight of the gun (which can be variable for the same size of gun due to different materials/manufacturing techniques - this is a way to make the crafting system important) 2. A maximum weight the ship can equip (can be slightly tweaked for balance purposes since this is a more behind the scenes number and wont feel so strange) 3. A maximum weight per gun deck 4. The number of gun ports the ship has (or reasonably could have. Cutting more if there is room could be part of the customization process of the ship) 5. Ship balance and handling considerations, basically in addition to working with the max weight per ship and max weight per deck, the player also has to try and maintain a favorable weight ratio. There can be a sweet spot for each ships weight ratio, and the more out of line you get with it the worse the ships performance become. The max weight and max weight per deck can also be factored into cargo and provision calculations. The reason im saying max weight per deck as well as a max weight is basically to put a hard cap on just how top heavy someone can make their ship. You could even have it be variable, as you load things onto the lower decks the max weight per higher decks increase. Point is, older ships should be able to 'upgun' themselves to be compettitive with newer ships by using the more modern guns those newer ships used, which will be more powerful as well as lighter due to better material and construction methods. So limiting things to a historical size may be a bad idea if you want ships from 1700 to be side by side with ones from 1800.. But limiting things based purely on weight, which is also not quite as solid and 'present' a stat in most peoples minds will not only allow you to overcome some of the balance issues with old vs new ships, but also let you tweak ship balance some behind the scenes with out it feeling unauthentic. And finally, doing this would naturally allow smaller ships to have bigger guns as well. Perhaps they decide to leave every other gun port empty and upgun the remaining ones, for example. As long as the weight and balance remains ok then anything becomes possible.

If pirates are not allowed to use anything but neutral ports, and ports are capturable by nations, then pirates are gonna run out of places to hang out pretty fast. The 'starting' configuration of the game will to my understanding start with a few main home-ports nation owned and the majority of the world being neutral, so i imagine some neutral places will stay neutral, depending on how they want to work it. They could have totally npc factions slowly try to recover lost area as well, attacking places with npc fleets. The low sec pirates work in eve because the lack of policing, however in this game its already been stated that naval players and privateers will have mechanics which reward them for various methods of 'policing' such as escorting traders and such, so i expect players belonging to a naval profession will actively be rewarded for defeating people seen as 'enemies' of their nation. This means not only enemy nations, but pirates, who are enemies of all nations. So the comparison would be more, imagine it like low sec eve, but where the main money making activity of the combat-oriented players is pretending to be concord. Since factional conflict will probably be fairly constant in some places or another, i dont really see someone whos made their home in the more contested areas (low equivalent of low sec) not hunting down anyone who earns them potential advancement or which they can safely take as a prize with out breaking the rules set out to keep them in good light with their own nation (no attacking allies) So essentially, most/all of the game being like low sec in eve, not high sec, the difference being you can only dock at friendly ports, and to stay friendly with someone you have to pick a nation to affiliate with and can only attack who they say you can else you get kicked out, become a pirate, have no safe ports, and everyone wants to kill you to get promoted.

Im going to pick a nation and then fanatically support it. Dont know which one yet, but rest assured, everyone else is a cretinous villain!

Only if they design the game to allow that sort of thing. See, everyone, except pirates, are affiliated with someone. The ship is registered to some nation or another and flying that flag. Attacking someone you are not at war with would, and should, have repercussions because its essentially acting on behalf of that flag, and if you are off causing trouble or making enemies then you could well get kicked out (and essentially be forced to run off as everyone attempts to hunt you down) I cant see a game in this setting having a system like EVE does, or rather the alliances are the nations, and player associations are individual corporations within them, and the alliances are either on friendly/neutral/enemy terms with each other, but attacking a neutral would be provoking a war and as such will see the attacker punished for it by their own faction. Because thats all that makes sense in the setting.

One thing ill mention is that theres no reason to restrict people to only joining one organized group of players. It could be more like the linkshell system in ff11, where you can join as many as you want. This would move it to more of an organizational tool as well. Some groups would function more like traditional guilds, whereas others may be faction-wide useful societies such as a general trade association. People who make their 'home base' in a certain area may temporarily join some groups who focus on that area as an example, there could be multiple such groups for different purposes. One could be for people interested in the economics of the area, another for people whove 'signed up' to defend the area and want to keep abreast of any martial goings on. If you are a member of some sort of exploration guild or something, your main 'job' in the game being that sort of activity, i dont see a reason why you cant also be a member of a society with interest in improving the general well being of a specific port or town you happen to like, as an example. And maybe you are also a member of a very exclusive and secretive group on top of that with nebulous and far reaching goals.

Well the entire nation should be working together towards mutual benefit. Clans should only be an organized force within that. For example, i fully expect to be sailing around somewhere, and whether i dont belong to anything, belong to a small group, or am in one of the largest clans in the game, if i come upon some sort of thing another group within my nation is trying to do for the sake of bettering it such as expanding its territory or fighting off some kind of incursion, i expect to be able to just pull up and start helping, and in fact expect to be expected to do that if im in a ship thats capable of it, because overall your nation should be your primary faction, and what concerns it has should be the concern of all. Same with any allied nations. I do hope that each nation is not just perpetually and statically at war with each other. Im not sure how these sorts of things will be decided. Maybe in a style some games have adopted where the most influential members of each nation are able to take up a sort of leadship position and have the ability to make war/peace/treaties with others for a set period of time.

No because you are capturing it for your nation, taking it from another one, and then holding it. By holding it for your nation you get the right to collect some tax or some other benifit to your clan by holding it or something, that can all be worked out. Just imagine all the more martial clans belonging to a nation are either smaller organized factions within that nations navy, or a group of privateers or something. Its my understanding that the devs have said almost everything will be neutral when the game starts, so the boundaries of what a nations territory is will need to be defined by efforts of players taking all those neutral areas and bringing them under their nations control. It can be player organizations which manage the actual ports. In the same way that in an rvr game like daoc it was individual guilds which 'owned' castles, but of course they were the factions castle, the guild in question, being part of that faction, was simply the more immediate owner who both was the primary party responsible for defending it, as well as the people who were able to benefit from it beyond simply having that territory be safe and useable for other members of that faction.

Yeah I like one as well. I never liked how alts let people meta things. Honestly id like it to go even further with some attempt to restrict people to a single account. I understand some people have bought multiple keys, some sort of compensation could be worked out (converting it into the equivalent in the games currency or something) I know a lot of people like multiple characters and stuff, but it can really be damaging to a game that tries to be serious about factions and competition between them in an environment like this. I also know its impossible to fully stop it even if you put in extra steps, but at least the official stance of it being discouraged and against the rules would go a long way in mitigating it. Do we really want massive NBSI domination everywhere because 'omg spies' when we could comfortably be living in a cozy world where (respectable) people only attack their confirmed enemies? - that is of course more realistic as well

Well id certainly hope that the main faction you are a member of is the nation you join. Thats your protection. Id like to see guilds/clans as organizations within that nation with smaller importance but the ability to coordinate and focus their efforts, such as capturing and holding a port.

Is it really going to bother you if you inspect another players profile or something and they have a portrait with boobs? Alright fine whatever, no boobs. But i still want to be able to wear a pretty dress ~_^

There are already games for that. They made it clear they were targeting a niche market and going for long term growth and stability rather than a short term profit surge and 'broad appeal' The question really isn't should it be 'simulatory', its what can we streamline to make the game less of a drag with out detracting from the experience of realism.

I put second to last, but with a strong leaning towards the full blown simulator. Logistics and planning should be very important to the outcome, and maneuvering properly should be critical to success, but i dont think the logistics and preparation should be modeled in a totally realistic way. Id like to say that the actual engagements should be as realistic as it can possibly be made, but the preparation should be streamlined a little bit, not to the point that it throws you into battle at a highly accelerated frequency, but more that you dont have to calculate every single logistical detail, but can pay more attention to the overall picture instead.

Well, as i said in my earlier post, its best to give people the benefit of the doubt. There is no reason to assume malice. The main issue is that in judging the intention of someone over the internet you are arriving at conclusions about them you really cant substantiate and just dont have the actual right to be thinking. People then are all too willing to get upset over it and start attacking in response, and thats when the real problems start to arise. So this is why id say the primary rule is that you should not try to offend people and you should not become offended yourself. These are tied together. Both require an appreciation and an empathy towards other people, and both the genuine desire not to upset someone and not to be upset yourself come from the same source: the desire for amiability. I would call being amiable a high virtue. Its for these reasons that to me seeing anyone encouraging others to feel offended either by direct instruction or by rewarding the expression of those things, i see the exact same thing as if i were to look at a group of people intentionally set out to be offensive. When i myself feel upset over something or start to get angry, which does happen occasionally, the most immediate reaction i have is disappointment that i let it get to me. In the end people trying to stay on a leash and contain things will let some slip out. They will as i mentioned before just encounter bad days, or maybe be drunk, who knows. Most people dont take the same care I do when typing things on the internet, i would estimate half of everything ive ever typed ive deleted. Its far better to teach that the mitigation of such incidents is the responsibility of all involved, by simply not having such things start a huge upset than to have an environment where everyone is constantly at risk of causing one. I guess then that we will partially agree on things. I will like to however emphasize in closing, that i do view articles like that one from wired above as a direct threat the the future survival of our species, and i am in no way employing hyperbole here. If that path reaches its potential end we will destroy ourselves because people will simply not be able to stand any sort of disagreement at all. I have already seen many issues go from the realm of friendly debate to absolute polarized fanaticism. This happens, largely, because as an opinion grows fewer people are willing to interject and say its a bad idea. The cause is the numerous vectors with which one may twist the opposition into some form of grave insult or bigotry - the mere accusation of being enough to silence anyone. So the two sides just isolate each other, work each other up into a frenzy with out any reason to reign them in, and when they finally meet again its already too late to ever hope for any kind of reconciliation, they are alien to each other.

Oh i certainly agree, which is why in a previous post i have already supported this company in enforcing whatever policy is decides to. Im not against having rules for this sort of thing, what im against is the reasoning for having them that some people have. Its good to prevent chaos, definitely. Its good to have certain areas able to provide certain atmospheres. The issue is not so much the actions people take but again, the justifications for it. The incorrect justifications simply create a cycle which helps perpetuate the alleged problem they are trying to solve. I find that in the end its usually the people against the philosophy of encouraging the populace to simply toughen up who are the ones who are the most hateful. Ive, for example, never directly insulted anyone on this forum. A person who sets out to offend another intentionally is a jerk, however in the end the offense only exists if the target is cooperative in feeling it. Because of this the bulk of the effort should be simply fostering this defense in people, rather than teaching them that they should feel offended by writing articles such as that very one above from wired.