Dev Team - Flagships

[Banger]

I will also vote -1 on any flagship idea that doesn't involve purely open sea perks. The idea with flagship in my mind is to encourage and create more PvP and as such I see no reason for flagships to support plantations. I'm also a bit discouraged to see that certain people are trying to cram that idea in here. It's almost like they want to only build around and support certain ideas that caters to a certain segment of the player base.

[Dmanwuzhere]

-Partially Removed, you may not discuss a moderation action : it is off topic. Contact the mod directly instead. At this case, me.
No warning, Cpt Jack

The persistance of trying to add a buff that only helps certain members of the trader class is i am just pointing it out

[Dmanwuzhere]

REMOVED - Do not discuss moderation action in topic.-
Cpt Jack

[Captain Jack]

I will say again, that it is more helpful to detect exactly what you do not like and point at it.

Banger for example, your post is a monument of negative and non-constructive feedback. You take a general position without giving any solutions and you reject anything else. That's a fairly bad display of the voting power you have been given.

Dman, from what I get, you do not like the plantation buff. I am sure that Skyhawk has noted it. Which is the point of beating this further? How about the rest? All the rest are fine? There is a specific proposal on the table that includes a lot of other things.

Try to help Skyhawk by pointing out which point you do like, which points you do not like and for which you are indifferent.

[Dejanira]

How do I imagine Flagships. Hope to be constructive enough.

1) Realistic.
No Howkers used as Flagships. We had in history a few examples of nutshells, that's true. Francis Drake and his Golden Hind, Christopher Columbus and his three little caravels. But these were single isolated cases. Would you imagine Nelson issuing orders not from the Victory but from a rowboat? Karl Donitz commanding the Kriegsmarine from a transport shuttle? MacArthur on a paddle boat?
Frigates, could be. Historically, sometimes faster ships were preferred to bigger ones. But nothing smaller than Frigates, for sure.

2) Powerful.
Costly, yes, and powerful. Not so much expensive that one would prefer not to risk her in battles, and powerful for the same reason. Yes, Man-o-wars should be eligible as Flagship as well. Moreover this could help seeing more MoW sailing.
Of course this should be linked to realistic. No voodoo presents from Flagships, as a ship would unlikely give voodoo. Positive for crew or workers higher moral, positive for a combat bonus for the same reason, or a defence bonus, or both, positive to more fame gained, etc.

3) Extremely useful. For any style you play.
This says all. Of course useful should as well be combined with realistic. No extra acres, as I could hardly believe a ship may interact with land. At the same time no restriction to pirates only, nor to bullies only.

[Hawk]

I will also vote -1 on any flagship idea that doesn't involve purely open sea perks. The idea with flagship in my mind is to encourage and create more PvP and as such I see no reason for flagships to support plantations. I'm also a bit discouraged to see that certain people are trying to cram that idea in here. It's almost like they want to only build around and support certain ideas that caters to a certain segment of the player base.

A flagship will not solely ramp PvP to your desired heights. It can encourage it with a combat based leveling system, but the root reasons and motives for PVP'ing need to be addressed, flagships are just a small piece of the puzzle. You have to look deeper to see that if you provide a flagship that has something to offer everyone, and connect that to PVP, that is the only way for flagships to encourage PVP for them. A pure PVP flagship will only "cater to a certain segment of the playerbase". Which is interestingly what YOU are arguing for, not me.

[Noffin]

I will say again, that it is more helpful to detect exactly what you do not like and point at it.

Dman, from what I get, you do not like the plantation buff. I am sure that Skyhawk has noted it. Which is the point of beating this further? How about the rest? All the rest are fine? There is a specific proposal on the table that includes a lot of other things.

Try to help Skyhawk by pointing out which point you do like, which points you do not like and for which you are indifferent.

The plantation buff has been given more negative responses than positive since this started yet it still shows up. I think this is the point the players are trying to make.

[Dmanwuzhere]

i dont care about the rest of the flagships perks what i think about them matters little as they help the classes they represent as a whole and whether i find them good or bad means nothing

there are plenty of things i may not like within the game but overall they are designed for everyone so everyone has to deal with them or like them
and so for me they are acceptable

the second you add a buff or perk that does not help a whole class as it should then i will object and loudly

i dont care what the trader class gets as a perk as long as every trader gets the perk
there are plenty of people who trade but do not use plantations they should be included in whatever the added perks are and that does not mean they should get a perk and then plantations get one

if plantations need perks then you have all kinds of features you can add for them in many other places but to say a ship sitting in port will get them to produce eventually double what they normally do well thats silly if they slow down are you going to shoot cannons at them and ruin your plantation and kill other workers who are working... i think not


why are you and hawk so adamant that this remains when clearly most are against it
why is it so important to ignore the input given about that perk and stretch this out into a plantation booster
this is what concerns me in addition to the nonsensical idea of this flagship boosting plantations

jessicaas flagship which i didnt like was better than this
feniks idea was way better as it could boost all classes and added nation play while introducing a new class which was brilliant
but both of those were dismissed and this insistance for plantation boosts is what remains..... why


the four bounties just added proves someone with cash already is to benefit and does not like my thoughts which makes it even more laughable

[Hawk]

The plantation buff has been given more negative responses than positive since this started yet it still shows up. I think this is the point the players are trying to make.

These reasons have been given.

Flagships should only have pirate perks - We have established that Flagships should be for everyone

Illogical - The concept is understandable, certainly well past the point needed for a game

Plantations needs an upgrade (techs, buildings, or more) - This is not really a reason. The perk and this are not contradictory. Now if you are saying that plantations need to be addressed first (which nobody has). Then that would be potentially be a good argument.

For now I will put a note on the ability that it will be revisited at the time Plantations is looked at, similar to the Fame aspect.

[sXs]

The plantation buff has been given more negative responses than positive since this started yet it still shows up. I think this is the point the players are trying to make.

These reasons have been given.

Flagships should only have pirate perks - We have established that Flagships should be for everyone

Illogical - The concept is understandable, certainly well past the point needed for a game

Plantations needs an upgrade (techs, buildings, or more) - This is not really a reason. The perk and this are not contradictory. Now if you are saying that plantations need to be addressed first (which not body has). Then that would be potentially be a good argument.

For now I will put a note on the ability that it will be revisited at the time Plantations is looked at, similar to the Fame aspect.

Actually “plantations should be addressed first” has been brought up a few times. I think Stan commented on this.