@slashsgt said in Ship Flags:
@dlchief58 said in Ship Flags:
That would be fine and dandy IF it was only a flag. But the two in question also have tracking abilities and the crew makes the decision on whether they want to be tracked by flying those flags - not opposing crews. Another is the loot sharing in alliances - why should changing the alliance flag on a ship suddenly allow you to share loot with someone you never consented to do so in the first place? So no, the flag is not the determiner but the symbol of the alliance or Reaper.
And I'm arguing that if you can't appropriately prevent someone getting to your crow's nest, then you have failed in defending your ship and just like the boarder could keg, or drop anchor, or steal loot, or steal supplies, they should be able to throw your offer alliance flag up (meaning their ship has to be within combat range to take advantage of the offer anyway) or throw your Reaper's Mark up (and if you can't notice that change, you wouldn't be holding onto your loot long anyway).
Additionally, Alliances don't split the loot like that anyway, its essentially free money for any Allies, not less money for your crew.
For one I never said or implied their was less money for the crew in an alliance, you misunderstood that point. All members get money BY AGREEMENT for entering into an alliance - a person changing the flag was not part of that agreement thus has no right or ability to change that by either ending an established alliance or entering the player into one he never agreed upon (and thus allowing himself to be tracked without consent). Furthermore the loot payout for alliances has never changed, it has always had the current model.
I'm arguing that the flag is only a symbol of the alliance and activates it only because of game mechanics. The act of accepting an alliance is the agreement between players, the raising of the flag only confirms it. What you suggests makes no logical sense, no matter how you try to spin it. The flag was not meant to be a magical item to make alliances between non-consenting parties, it is to signify one exists and identify one as being in one.
While you never suggested altering Emissary flags, I put it out there as a counter and to show how absurd this suggestion us. Why is this a step too far yet changing someone else's flags isn't? In fact in your initial post you tout this as a way to follow them and attack once the "loot is piled", how is their time investment less valuable than that of a Reaper Emissary? Then as pointed out, you have a few quests/commendations that require you to do certain tasks while in alliances or flying the Reaper's Mark - are you also saying your time investment is more valuable than theirs? Hogwash!
That is a step too far, and not even an option since there's no mechanic on ships to lower emissary status, because earning Levels in any Emissary takes time commitment and effort: raising a flag does not.
As for the strawman being presented at the end there, I'm just going to ignore that, I've made clear in my above response that that is clearly not the case.
You can try to dismiss out of hand my VALID comparison, doesn't change the validity of it - just shows you have no good rebuttal. Nothing strawman about it (ad absurdum maybe), you just don't like how easily your idea can be shredded with but one example. You are right in that changing a flag takes no effort....so why should YOU get a reward for merely changing someone's flag (as in an ability to track them unbeknownst to the crew)? Again I ask (since you purposely avoided the topic) - why is anyone doing a Reaper's Bones Emissary (or any Emissary for the matter) time more valuable than someone else doing their own thing and stacking loot?
If anything, my counter has more merit than yours since the Emissary flags carry value. It is more feasible for say a couple of crew members working to remove an Emissary flag on a ship than for a person to raise a flag and change an alliance without consent of others in the alliance. But I also would not endorse such a feature, I just think it is more fitting than yours in terms of the game world.
And there is no correlation between your suggestion and how you are justifying it by "flying under a false flag". In flying a false flag, the attacker changes THEIR flag not the other way around. Don't ever recall any history supporting pirates boarding ships and changing the flag to get an advantage. They only did such things AFTER they captured and claimed the ship for themselves. They most certainly did not stealthily board and change a flag on a ship they wished to capture, then let them sail away.
Disagree, there is a correlation, just not a one-to-one translation. IRL pirates would do as you said, yes, but since we don't have a way to "spoof" an alliance flag to pretend we're a part (like would be done historically) then the only option is to allow you to actually sneak into the alliance.
Should you get the free bonus loot if you swindle your way into an alliance? Maybe, maybe not, that's up for debate, I'm just saying you should be able to trick other crews into thinking you're an ally.
Now, for the sake of discussion, I'd say that if you could fly on your ship a false alliance flag (maybe taken after sinking an alliance ship) and it would make your crew appear as allied (but not get the loot bonus) that I feel would be a happy middle ground for the Alliance question.
To begin with, this game is primarily a social game first. What you propose sidesteps the social part of the game even undermines it. You can already "trick" your way into an alliance and betray them, or gather your share of their haul (again I know the main crew's portion does not diminish, I have been playing since day 1 after all). You want to infiltrate an alliance, do the legwork and earn it. So in this sense your suggestion is redundant as you can already infiltrate an alliance - you just want an easy way to do it without actually having to deal with the alliance to have an unearned advantage.
Not a fan of your compromise either. I'd only go along with such a thing if the flag was different enough to distinguish from a true alliance flag (perhaps a bit tattered) and it had none of the advantages of an alliance - primarily the ability to track others in the alliance (as well as be tracked, so would be a dead giveaway if someone pays attention to the map). Since this crew was not part of the agreed alliance, why should they get any of the benefits? There has to be enough difference so that an attentive crew can tell the difference and no unearned advantages imparted.
An alliance is an agreement to cooperate between crews, the flag is simply a symbol of that. Just changing a flag by someone not party to that agreement is not enough to change or break alliances - that is only determined by the crews involved. Same can be said of the Reaper's Mark to an extent. A player should never be marked on the map without their consent - flying an emissary flag, flying the Reaper's Mark, or joining an alliance are all choices made by the crew of a ship that marks this consent (though some people still don't get that in terms of Emissaries). But this being a game, the mechanics involved make it so you have to use the flag to signal these things since there are no pacts or treaties to sign (so it makes it seem as if the raising of the flag is the determining factor since none of this other things are present, nor translate well into game mechanics that are fun) - and making the box untouchable to those outside the crew protects that.
I disagree, and so does the game: I can already take a Reaper's Chest and dump it on an enemy's ship and use it to track them. I have. People leave Reaper's Chest in the open specifically to do this since some crews will take the bait.
Talk about straw man! There is a difference between a chest and a flag. That was an intended feature of the Reaper's Chest...just as putting a Chest of Sorrows (or Rage) on a ship to sink it. Flags are different, they are just like other livery items that only the crew has control over.
One last thought. Your rationalization of why you think this needs to be implemented is all out of whack. Do you honestly think such a mechanic would lead to less toxic behavior? Oh my, that is rich! If anything it will INCREASE toxic behavior, or at very least the perception of toxic behavior. This will not spice up PvP, it will add a crutch to PvP players that lack the skills to track their own prey effectively.
I never claimed that was my only reasoning behind the idea, but you also offer no solutions nor explanations as to why you think toxic behavior would increase as a result.
If you can't see how this type of gameplay would contribute to toxic gameplay or at least the perception of it (there would be a LOT more of this, I guarantee it) then I don't know what to tell you. It should be rather obvious. But as a counter, I never saw how YOU think something like this would make less toxic gameplay - I'd love to hear this rationale as it should be good for a laugh. I don't know where you got the idea that "toxic gameplay" has increased either, if anything I'd say it was worse 2-3 years ago than it is now.
