Plans for Reputation and Sailing changes

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

14 hours ago, van Veen said:

Admin said a friendly player cannot initiate a battle. 

  Where !?!?!

This is what I read about it. Nothing is said about "friendly/positive cannot initiate battle"

On 7/23/2020 at 11:37 AM, admin said:

• Positive reputation
  • All players will start with positive reputation.
• Standard
  • If they attack the enemy player of another nation the reputation with that nation will drop to standard
• Negative reputation (false flag karma)
  • If the player joins the battle for ANOTHER nation for example against another nation (under false flag) - his reputation against that nation drops to negative. 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Hethwill

[admin]

20 hours ago, Hullabaloo said:

No you didn't miss anything:

There are no added benefits to being 'Positive' other than being able to enter that nation's port and craft there. (But that's a pretty big benefit imo).

Being Standard is exactly as it is now on the PvP server.

Being Negative excludes you from being able to enter a battle on the side of that nation AND prevents you from entering that nation's Port at all, in ANY ship, even a trader*

(* admin used word 'potentially' here, I am not sure what was meant by that)

please remember that the karma feature is in design and tech implementation phase and some parts of it might come out slightly differently. 
Our goals are

• give some options of neutrality 
• provide choice persistence - if you chose the enemy you will have to face consequences of this choice (no longer will be able to side with them) which will reduce pressure to abuse the system by for example helping the enemies in battles on interfering with your allies in other ways (unlocking BR difference or other means) 

If during internal testing the goals will not be achieved and generate some parts of the feature will be dropped. 

[Archer11]

35 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

  Where !?!?!

This is what I read about it. Nothing is said about "friendly/positive cannot initiate battle"

 

 

I think, he's referring to this:

On 7/27/2020 at 7:00 PM, van Veen said:

Could you clarify this, please?

Can players with positive Karma be attacked? 

Are they targeted by HDFs?

 

22 hours ago, admin said:

yes to both
They are PVP neutral not pve neutral. You can sink them and they can defend themselves. But they cannot initiate attack.

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

4 minutes ago, Archer11 said:

 

I think, he's referring to this:

 

 

Thanks.

Correct, and the answer is correct to the question made. They cannot initiate attack if they don't want change their karma status. Is not a mechanic blocking player from attacking but a player choice of intention and consequence.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Hethwill

[Vibrio Cholerae]

7 minutes ago, admin said:

provide choice persistence - if you chose the enemy you will have to face consequences of this choice (no longer will be able to side with them) which will reduce pressure to abuse the system by for example helping the enemies in battles on interfering with your allies in other ways (unlocking BR difference or other means)

Hi, 

Maybe the question have been answers but in a case like this

I do not see how the karma system will help?

Since the alt will be use to block the same nation as the attacker or defender

[van Veen]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

  Where !?!?!

This is what I read about it. Nothing is said about "friendly/positive cannot initiate battle"

 

here:

23 hours ago, admin said:

yes to both
They are PVP neutral not pve neutral. You can sink them and they can defend themselves. But they cannot initiate attack.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 minute ago, van Veen said:

here:

I responded above. There's no mechanic that stops you from attacking. Only your willingness to change karma, so is a player choice. If they don't want to go Standard they cannot initiate attack. Same with joining a battle will turn Karma to negative.

That's how I read the answer in relation to the opening post.

[van Veen]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

They cannot initiate attack if they don't want change their karma status. Is not a mechanic blocking player from attacking but a player choice of intention and consequence.

Well, this your interpretation and you might be right with it. But to me it's not clear from what admin stated.  

It's a huge difference gameplay wise:

1. If you have positive karma, you cannot attack.

2. If you have positive karma, you could attack, but you'd lose your positive karma. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by van Veen

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

6 minutes ago, van Veen said:

If you have positive karma, you cannot attack.

Makes zero sense as we all will start positive. Then we could never attack.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Hethwill

[Aquillas]

1 hour ago, admin said:

• provide choice persistence - if you chose the enemy you will have to face consequences of this choice (no longer will be able to side with them) which will reduce pressure to abuse the system by for example helping the enemies in battles on interfering with your allies in other ways (unlocking BR difference or other means) 

Thanks for that, which proves that tribunal posts, even not immediately answered because of lack of evidences, do not stay without consequences. Let's test that!

[van Veen]

28 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Makes zero sense as we all will start positive. Then we could never attack.

Exactly. This is why I find admin's statements very confusing. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by van Veen

[Thonys]

On 7/23/2020 at 3:48 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

and i want more bling  bling  :))

if it does not effect speed in a negative way i am all for it 

but mostly it slows everybody down :((

(so therefore i choose bling bling we already have made a lot of concessions on speed [ loss] )

Edited July 31, 2020 by Thonys

[Archer11]

13 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Exactly. This is why I find admin's statements very confusing. 

Guess, you'd wanted admin to post something like: "But they cannot initiate attack, if they want to keep their karma positive with that nation."

[Random Noob]

2 hours ago, admin said:

 

• give some options of neutrality 
• provide choice persistence - if you chose the enemy you will have to face consequences of this choice (no longer will be able to side with them) which will reduce pressure to abuse the system by for example helping the enemies in battles on interfering with your allies in other ways (unlocking BR difference or other means) 

 

What about Pirates? Will you give them some unique mechanics finally? Like unrestricted pvp (no karma system for pirates) but in return they can't use ports of other nations for example?

[Thonys]

56 minutes ago, Archer11 said:

Guess, you'd wanted admin to post something like: "But they cannot initiate attack, if they want to keep their karma positive with that nation."

well we should not put salt on every snail...

(if we did we would have a endangered specie) i myself are also  not a miracle myself  ...

Edited July 31, 2020 by Thonys

[Archer11]

1 hour ago, Thonys said:

well we should not put salt on every snail...

(if we did we would have a endangered specie) i myself are also  not a miracle myself  ...

Was not my intention, really. And I'm quite far away from being a miracle myself.  

Edited July 31, 2020 by Archer11

[Karpfanger]

The way I see it, this patch promotes the alt accounts.
So a player can have PVP with his main Acc and drive his karma into the negative towards a nation, while his alt can trade peacefully with that nation and even build ships in its ports? This is generally called schizophrenia.

Of course, this is already the case today when the alt acc is in the other nation.

I know of one player who has accidentally attacked himself at some point ... i.e. his own alt account.
I do not know if this game is healthy in the long run

Edited July 31, 2020 by Karpfanger

[Redman29]

On 7/30/2020 at 6:11 AM, admin said:

Port bonuses will work for neutrals. We are removing the choice from the clan options. If the city is developed (like Austin is a game dev cluster) and i can work in that city - i can use the development of the city to my advantage. So the bonuses will only work for clan allies and All neutrals. Nobody else.

This is a slap in the face to all of those who have spent ungodly amounts of time to upgrading their crafting ports. 

Take Vera Cruz of New Orleans for example.

924 Million worth of money chest invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans.

2800 Wooden Chests invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans. That's around 140 man hours spent grinding those chests not to mention sailing them. And this isn't just REDS and BF, but all clans that craft in those ports have contributed to the port investment. 

St John's is in the same boat, San Juan, Roseau, Santo Domingo, etc.

We work our asses off to upgrade these ports and now anyone with a crafting alt (which for the most part are never used for combat) can benefit from the fruits of our labor. That's bullshit. 

As I understand this system is there to remove alt abuse and I get that. But this idea promotes alt use even more, removing clan diplomacy, and even removing cooperation within nations. Because why should I be bothered helping to contribute to a clan that is developing the port I craft in when my alt can craft their anyways because it is never used for combat. 

I take this idea as a personal insult. Having spent countless hours grinding HDF's and sailing chest from point A to point B to invest in a port. And with this proposal, now anyone from any nation with an account that never fights can benefit from my hard work. Yeah, I have an issue with that. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Redman29

[Bartas11]

I never said something bad, even if dont like the way you Devs change mechanics i dont like, but as redman said.. it is a insult against all of the active Players how move their Asses to build something up and rewarding all those how just whine all day! I hate this Karma shit, for me, it sounds worse for pvp and even more for Clan activitiy and Nation building!
Bartas11 

[Thonys]

47 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

This is a slap in the face to all of those who have spent ungodly amounts of time to upgrading their crafting ports. 

Take Vera Cruz of New Orleans for example.

924 Million worth of money chest invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans.

2800 Wooden Chests invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans. That's around 140 man hours spent grinding those chests not to mention sailing them. And this isn't just REDS and BF, but all clans that craft in those ports have contributed to the port investment. 

St John's is in the same boat, San Juan, Roseau, Santo Domingo, etc.

We work our asses off to upgrade these ports and now anyone with a crafting alt (which for the most part are never used for combat) can benefit from the fruits of our labor. That's bullshit. 

As I understand this system is there to remove alt abuse and I get that. But this idea promotes alt use even more, removing clan diplomacy, and even removing cooperation within nations. Because why should I be bothered helping to contribute to a clan that is developing the port I craft in when my alt can craft their anyways because it is never used for combat. 

I take this idea as a personal insult. Having spent countless hours grinding HDF's and sailing chest from point A to point B to invest in a port. And with this proposal, now anyone from any nation with an account that never fights can benefit from my hard work. Yeah, I have an issue with that. 

same over here --> not worth the money -->> or the time or the effort to continue-->> especially if a single clan own a single port 

its just WAY way way much to expensive and unreachable...

its a decoy (like here you have it and do it,.... if you want it ...really bad....

 -- >> its a scam  .(on a higher level)

 

[Paulo de Antigua]

On 7/30/2020 at 12:11 PM, admin said:

Port bonuses will work for neutrals. We are removing the choice from the clan options. If the city is developed (like Austin is a game dev cluster) and i can work in that city - i can use the development of the city to my advantage. So the bonuses will only work for clan allies and All neutrals. Nobody else.

@admin Does that mean any players who doesn't have a clan can go up to any of the port that has port bonuses and craft a ship with the port bonuses? And what about nation wise?

Please be more specific when you say port bonuses will work for neutrals. And also if you talk PVP or PVE wise!

For exemple:

Can a British neutral players (no clan) benefit the port bonuses in a french port?  (if this is yes then better off being a neutral player and then rejoining the clan when port defences comes up)
Can a French neutral player (no clan) benefit the port bonuses in the french port? 
Can a French player that has a clan BUT NOT ALLIES with the clan that has a port benefit from the port bonuses from the french port?

Because as far as I'm concern, for now you need to be in a clan + be allies with the clan that has the port (regardless the nation you are in) to profit the port bonuses.
 

Please respond to this post at least because this is important information for a lot of us...


Kind regards,


Paulo de Antigua

Edited July 31, 2020 by Paulo de Antigua

[van Veen]

1 hour ago, Redman29 said:

This is a slap in the face to all of those who have spent ungodly amounts of time to upgrading their crafting ports. 

Take Vera Cruz of New Orleans for example.

924 Million worth of money chest invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans.

2800 Wooden Chests invested in Vera Cruz and New Orleans. That's around 140 man hours spent grinding those chests not to mention sailing them. And this isn't just REDS and BF, but all clans that craft in those ports have contributed to the port investment. 

St John's is in the same boat, San Juan, Roseau, Santo Domingo, etc.

We work our asses off to upgrade these ports and now anyone with a crafting alt (which for the most part are never used for combat) can benefit from the fruits of our labor. That's bullshit. 

As I understand this system is there to remove alt abuse and I get that. But this idea promotes alt use even more, removing clan diplomacy, and even removing cooperation within nations. Because why should I be bothered helping to contribute to a clan that is developing the port I craft in when my alt can craft their anyways because it is never used for combat. 

I take this idea as a personal insult. Having spent countless hours grinding HDF's and sailing chest from point A to point B to invest in a port. And with this proposal, now anyone from any nation with an account that never fights can benefit from my hard work. Yeah, I have an issue with that. 

I totally understand your frustration. 

I have not fully understood if the friendlist is made obsolete completely or if it remains in place for your co-nationals. 

If it remains in place, it's not that bad. Cause it means that your unwanted co-nationals (foreign alts) still can be excluded by cleaning up your friendlist (you have to trust those clans you have on the list).

Foreign neutral players still have to bring their materials to the crafting ports since it is impossible to make everything in one port. And, since they can be attacked, hunting traders in your home waters might be very profitable. So, crafting in foreign ports is possible, but comes with a huge risk. 

However, if the friendlist has no effect on crafting at all, you'll see an army of alts pouring into Vera Cruz and nothing can be done about it. So basically, everyone will join the winning team (at least with one alt account). 

[Malcolm3]

58 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Foreign neutral players still have to bring their materials to the crafting ports since it is impossible to make everything in one port. And, since they can be attacked, hunting traders in your home waters might be very profitable. So, crafting in foreign ports is possible, but comes with a huge risk. 

Basically they don't need to sail. Just set outposts and crafting in Vera Cruz and its vicinity and let your Russian alt do all sailing around.

So to prosper all players will need now 3 accounts - main one for fighting, neutral one for crafting in Russian ports and Russian alt for sailing and trading in Russian waters

Edited July 31, 2020 by Malcolm3

[van stiermarken]

6 minutes ago, Malcolm3 said:

Basically they don't need to sail. Just set outposts and crafting in Vera Cruz and its vicinity and let your Russian alt do all sailing around.

So to prosper all players will need now 3 accounts - main one for fighting, neutral one for crafting in Russian ports and Russian alt for sailing and trading in Russian waters

if so, then the games goes into a wrong direction.

[admin]

7 hours ago, van Veen said:

 

2. If you have positive karma, you could attack, but you'd lose your positive karma. 

this
you can do anything but will lose karma. Once you lost reputation you cant do anything positive (help them in battles) with those who you have negative karma with.