"Top companies" are NOT "Top companies"

[IsilithTehroth 23]

I'd like to have jolly roger flags in clan main bases. You only get 1 jolly roger to place down and each roger that you capture adds to your company score. Keep the spamming of territory sure, but a main capture point would serve a better purpose.

[Kast 96]

I agree that 'number of land claims' doesn't necessarily correspond to "top companies". Granted, from a dev's standpoint, counting claims is the easiest implementation of a ranking system; but it also tends to make those smaller companies (who massacre the "top companies" in PvP regularly) a bit salty.

IMO, it would be better to rank company PvP achievements in multiple categories, each with a unique reward. For example:

- Most claims

- Best player kill to death ratio

- Best ship kill to death ratio

- Most enemies captured

- Most ships captured

etc.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Kast

[Adfax 157]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:50 AM, Kast said:

I agree that 'number of land claims' doesn't necessarily correspond to "top companies". Granted, from a dev's standpoint, counting claims is the easiest implementation of a ranking system; but it also tends to make those smaller companies (who massacre the "top companies" in PvP regularly) a bit salty.

IMO, it would be better to rank company PvP achievements in multiple categories, each with a unique reward. For example:

- Most claims

- Best player kill to death ratio

- Best ship kill to death ratio

- Most enemies captured

- Most ships captured

etc.

The should stay away from words like "best" and "top"; instead option for "most".

"Top" and "best" assume too much; and are essentially opinion.. For example.. Is someone really the "best" if they have someone else build ships for them to sink, and then this equates to them being regarded as "best"?

[Case of the Scurvy 72]

"Top ocean claim companies"

[Chucksteak 279]

On 2/1/2019 at 2:43 AM, Tina Toothpick said:

Could i just ask.. How does having more claimed land make one company better than another?.. By what real metric are they "superior" ?

 

Because math. Before I proceed, know I am a big proponent of a flag limit per person. Id be OK with 1 flag per person, at least at first.

One way: 1 person spamming flags can do X flags per hour. Where a 100 person company can do 100X flags per hour. Its a simplification, but that would be the equation where X can be any task in the game. The 100X will always be > the 1X. 

Another way: Flags can be taken. The ability to KEEP flags and continue to plant more, implies a greater sphere of influence. This is a correlative metric to power.

Why is America the most powerful nation in the world? We are everywhere. Same principal.

[Tina Toothpick 26]

14 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

Because math. Before I proceed, know I am a big proponent of a flag limit per person. Id be OK with 1 flag per person, at least at first.

One way: 1 person spamming flags can do X flags per hour. Where a 100 person company can do 100X flags per hour. Its a simplification, but that would be the equation where X can be any task in the game. The 100X will always be > the 1X. 

Another way: Flags can be taken. The ability to KEEP flags and continue to plant more, implies a greater sphere of influence. This is a correlative metric to power.

Why is America the most powerful nation in the world? We are everywhere. Same principal.

Math does not equal "superior". 

7 is a larger number than 6, that doesn't mean it is a better number.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Tina Toothpick

[KNZVgame 10]

14 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

Америка самая могущественная нация в мире? Мы везде. Тот же принципал.

Only Americans consider America "the most powerful", the rest understand that fluff tail != become the most the most.

And I agree with the rest, Yes.

[Captain Jack Shadow 488]

On 2/1/2019 at 3:47 AM, LSG said:

I would honestly like to see the sea claims removed and only have land claims. 

Sea Claims are good, but they should only be used for port areas, thus they should have to touch land.  Putting them in the middle of the ocean should not be allowed.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

2 hours ago, KNZVgame said:

Only Americans consider America "the most powerful", the rest understand that fluff tail != become the most the most.

And I agree with the rest, Yes.

Really?

America’s military is greater in size and striking power than the next 26 biggest militaries combined. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about military matters across the globe considers the US military the 900 pound gorilla compared to any other.  If you’re going to bash, try to avoid making statements that make you look foolish when doing so.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

22 minutes ago, Captain Jack Shadow said:

Sea Claims are good, but they should only be used for port areas, thus they should have to touch land.  Putting them in the middle of the ocean should not be allowed.

I think we’re going to see a lot more underwater content coming down the pipe but I agree. I wonder how many players even realize that if you kill SOD in someone else’s claim, they get to tax your take from it. No one owns the sea, or should.

Edited February 5, 2019 by boomervoncannon

[Percieval 1,067]

2 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

Really?

America’s military is greater in size and striking power than the next 26 biggest militaries combined. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about military matters across the globe considers the US military the 900 pound gorilla compared to any other.  If you’re going to bash, try to avoid making statements that make you look foolish when doing so.

In some parts, not in numbers on foot. Only because of the airforce. (Which is with these days, the most important.) But then again; If you invest 10 times more than other countries..

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

19 minutes ago, Percieval said:

In some parts, not in numbers on foot. Only because of the airforce. (Which is with these days, the most important.) But then again; If you invest 10 times more than other countries..

Right, raw troop strength matters less these days. Speaking as an american, I would like to see us invest more heavily in things like education and health care, I think our military can slide by with only being able to flatten every third country if need be, but that's just me. I also think that the battlefield of the future might be a cyberwar moreso than guns, and to fight that war we'll need better oh look...education. Or you could just go all crazy and practice foreign policy and and diplomatic strategy that made you less hated. There's always gonna be some gunning for the top dog effect *cough* China *cough*, but we don't have to actively feed into that like we often have been. 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Atlas, so I'll just say I could go on in depth, but shouldn't.

Also, the I'm sure the US Navy would take issue with your overlooking them.

Edited February 5, 2019 by boomervoncannon

[Chucksteak 279]

6 hours ago, KNZVgame said:

Only Americans consider America "the most powerful", the rest understand that fluff tail != become the most the most.

And I agree with the rest, Yes.

Dude, lol. Lets put it this way. Those aren't aliens. Ill stop there becuase you agree with me.

[Teach 79]

On 2/1/2019 at 7:57 AM, Skyroguen said:

One advantage of a gold metric is that companies will be raiding territory more than trying to steal territory. it also provide a reason to send diver down to wrecks to get the booty. not just for salvage.

also more mutiny because of the gold that is no longer available to pay the crews. maybe they could provide a way for a raider to bribe the crews over tho their side.

 

And thus, you discovered why currency in real life is what it is today.

Gold/treasure was a way to appease raiders from sacking and taking your land. It was a way to invoke trade beyond barter, and in the end- maintain land control.

I'm for the top company metric being changed to gold over land ownership.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Teach

[Chucksteak 279]

7 hours ago, Tina Toothpick said:

Math does not equal "superior". 

7 is a larger number than 6, that doesn't mean it is a better number.

In this context, yeah absolutely.

7>6

Say it out loud. Its called the say it out loud test. 

Seven, is greater than, Six.

If we are rolling dice,  id rather have 7 than 6.

If we were fighting id rather have 7 people on my side than 6.

If we were having an orgy, id rather have 7 women than 6.

Its a basic principle, sure you can start adding caveats and conditions, but the basic logic is very sound and really very well tested. They even came up with the easy to read mathematical statement just in case it wasnt clear.

7>6.

[Chucksteak 279]

2 minutes ago, Teach said:

 

And thus, you discovered why currency in real life is what it is today.

Gold/treasure was a way to appease raiders from sacking and taking your land. It was a way to invoke trade beyond barter, and in the end- maintain land control.

I'm for the top company metric being changed to gold over land ownership.

The problem is, there is no limit to the availability of gold. Land is finite. Thus it is scientifically a better measuring tool.

In the real world, nations have a controll on how much currency exist since it is man made. Otherwise it would be useless. 

Its is actually only trivial in Atlas in addition to being limitless as only npcs will accept it by default. 

 

[Teach 79]

5 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

The problem is, there is no limit to the availability of gold. Land is finite. Thus it is scientifically a better measuring tool.

In the real world, nations have a controll on how much currency exist since it is man made. Otherwise it would be useless. 

Its is actually only trivial in Atlas in addition to being limitless as only npcs will accept it by default. 

 

Gold sinks will always be a drain on the infinite amount of gold that can be produced. The incentive to attacking a "fat company" that is laden in gold but can't defend it, in my eyes is a seemingly much better metric.

Where Company A has 1 land claim decked out to the teeth, and 100k gold to their name- should be higher valued than Company B with 100 loosely defended claims and 100 gold to their name.

It may not be now- but gold will become the standard economy and eventually equal if not trump barter. It's all about seeing the big picture of how the Atlas civilization will evolve in parallel to real life. Freeport shops will be the first step in that transition.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Teach

[Chucksteak 279]

4 minutes ago, Teach said:

Gold sinks will always be a drain on the infinite amount of gold that can be produced. The incentive to attacking a "fat company" that is laden in gold but can't defend it, in my eyes is a seemingly much better metric.

Where Company A has 1 land claim decked out to the teeth, and 100k gold to their name- should be higher valued than Company B with 100 loosely defended claims and 100 gold to their name.

It may not be now- but gold will become the standard economy and eventually equal if not trump barter. It's all about seeing the big picture of how the Atlas civilization will evolve in parallel to real life. Freeport shops will be the first step in that transition.

I would prefer an active economy based in Gold. Id love it. If its done correctly the Russians will start selling in on websites. That's how you know it has real value

Logically though, here's the problem with your scenario.

small company with 100k gold, gets hit 1x, 100% gone.

Large company with 100 gold, get hit 1x, its 5% gone maybe?

Who is the stronger clan? The small co. that farmed thousands of treasure maps, or the co. that claimed 3 grids?

[Teach 79]

6 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

I would prefer an active economy based in Gold. Id love it. If its done correctly the Russians will start selling in on websites. That's how you know it has real value

Logically though, here's the problem with your scenario.

small company with 100k gold, gets hit 1x, 100% gone.

Large company with 100 gold, get hit 1x, its 5% gone maybe?

Who is the stronger clan? The small co. that farmed thousands of treasure maps, or the co. that claimed 3 grids?

You're ommitting the variable of concentrated defense vs being spread thinner over 3 grids.

Right now as things stand, there are hundreds of undeveloped claims that are owned by megas trying to rent them out for the tax perks. Just because a mega has put their name on said land, doesn't depict if that land has been developed on.

In this regard, Land Value for undeveloped land is much lower than fully developed, defended territory.

So per my example, Small company with 100k gold, gets hit 1x- there's no guarantee that they sustain 100% loss. Even if they did establish 100% loss, what is the problem? They'd simply no longer be the top company, and the company with the 2nd highest intrinsic value moves to the top (if the company that sacked the #1 doesnt replace them on their own). This would also give incentive for the bounty missions to come (Putting a bounty on the top companies for their gold)

 

TL;DR Claimed land does not always have Land Value beyond the base value that it is land that can be devleoped.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Teach

[Chucksteak 279]

3 hours ago, Teach said:

You're ommitting the variable of concentrated defense vs being spread thinner over 3 grids.

Right now as things stand, there are hundreds of undeveloped claims that are owned by megas trying to rent them out for the tax perks. Just because a mega has put their name on said land, doesn't depict if that land has been developed on.

In this regard, Land Value for undeveloped land is much lower than fully developed, defended territory.

So per my example, Small company with 100k gold, gets hit 1x- there's no guarantee that they sustain 100% loss. Even if they did establish 100% loss, what is the problem? They'd simply no longer be the top company, and the company with the 2nd highest intrinsic value moves to the top (if the company that sacked the #1 doesnt replace them on their own). This would also give incentive for the bounty missions to come (Putting a bounty on the top companies for their gold)

 

TL;DR Claimed land does not always have Land Value beyond the base value that it is land that can be devleoped.

Your doing mental gymnastics to make that work.

In your hypothetical situation, the big company would wipe the small company and take all of its gold, thus becoming the #1 company (Its brutal AF bro. A small company attacks one of our ships, a message is sent, land is open and available in short order). This will absolutely be one of the companies currently on the top 10 list, well when it existed at least. The small company will not have the resources to retrieve that gold, because they are a small company. Also because they are a small company, they don't have the resources to have a mega defense in place. This is all in spite of the fact that there currently ARE NO mega defenses that are worth more than 15 minutes. The small company has to search and beat the team that has 20x more people, land, resources, defenses everything. Every single attribute you give a small team you have to multiply and also give to the bigger team.

Or, lets say the big company wants to carebear it up. How long would it take to get more gold? 25 man vs 100, 25% of the time spent. 25 vs 500, 5% of the time spent? Its simply a numbers game. You can have 25 Rambo's, and would still lose to 500 peewee Herman's.

An actual better metric that could be used, would be # of members logged on in the last 24 hours. As it is, land possession is a damn good measuring stick.

If you are a small company and want to be top 10, go land grab. You will find your limit of what you can maintain and will easily be able to compare it to a larger company.

-CS

[Teach 79]

5 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

Your doing mental gymnastics to make that work.

In your hypothetical situation, the big company would wipe the small company and take all of its gold, thus becoming the #1 company (Its brutal AF bro. A small company attacks one of our ships, a message is sent, land is open and available in short order). This will absolutely be one of the companies currently on the top 10 list, well when it existed at least. The small company will not have the resources to retrieve that gold, because they are a small company. Also because they are a small company, they don't have the resources to have a mega defense in place. This is all in spite of the fact that there currently ARE NO mega defenses that are worth more than 15 minutes. The small company has to search and beat the team that has 20x more people, land, resources, defenses everything. Every single attribute you give a small team you have to multiply and also give to the bigger team.

-CS

And everything you said in this excerpt just proves my point as to why gold should be the determining factor. By your regard, individual and small group wealth should not be accounted for, when in fact it's individual and small group wealth that makes the world go round. In that same instance, where Mega's have the power to flip tiles at their will- how would the chosen metric ever favor a non-mega company?

Land claims are not a balanced metric for the demographic of players the developers are trying to cater to; both small group and mega alike. Especially when the majority of those claims go undeveloped for farming resources & earning taxes.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Teach

[Chucksteak 279]

Look, I know there are several of you that would prefer it to be different. This just is the way it is. At the end of the day, GS invented this game and the conditions to be considered top 10. We don't re-write the rules of games we play with others. The Browns don't get to say that the Superbowl is an ineffective tool to determine the best football team, just because they will never get there.

Land is the ONLY finite resource available. Like it or not, there are no BETTER ways to currently say who is the best company on the Atlas short of the % of the map controlled. Again, if you dispute that as an accurate power ranking, then go start taking land and prove me wrong. I'll cheers you if you do.

 

-CS

[Teach 79]

1 minute ago, Chucksteak said:

Look, I know there are several of you that would prefer it to be different. This just is the way it is. At the end of the day, GS invented this game and the conditions to be considered top 10. We don't re-write the rules of games we play with others. The Browns don't get to say that the Superbowl is an ineffective tool to determine the best football team, just because they will never get there.

Land is the ONLY finite resource available. Like it or not, there are no BETTER ways to currently say who is the best company on the Atlas short of the % of the map controlled. Again, if you dispute that as an accurate power ranking, then go start taking land and prove me wrong. I'll cheers you if you do.

 

-CS

Quite the contrary, an Early Access project is all about re-writing the rules, and the systems, and improving them.

In your way of thinking, the world would never propagate change.

[Chucksteak 279]

4 minutes ago, Teach said:

And everything you said in this excerpt just proves my point as to why gold should be the determining factor. By your regard, individual and small group wealth should not be accounted for, when in fact it's individual and small group wealth that makes the world go round. In that same instance, where Mega's have the power to flip tiles at their will- how would the chosen metric ever favor a non-mega company?

Land claims are not a balanced metric for the demographic of players the developers are trying to cater to; both small group and mega alike. Especially when the majority of those claims go undeveloped for farming resources & earning taxes.

If I have a million grains of sand, am I richer than you? No. You can go get a million grains of sand whenever you want. If I own the world, am I richer than you? Yeah. There's only 1 world we are both on.

It is the only thing in game that when you gain it, someone else loses it.

[Chucksteak 279]

4 minutes ago, Teach said:

Quite the contrary, an Early Access project is all about re-writing the rules, and the systems, and improving them.

In your way of thinking, the world would never propagate change.

Sure, but the topic of this post is

"Top company's" are not "Top company's"

or some stupid shit like that.

Not,

"I disagree with the rules of Atlas, lets make a new ones to favor smaller numbers" 

Change the rules, make gold finite, and defenses nigh impenetrable (an untouchable bank?) and your set to go. Now you can build an economy around gold and make trading the win condition. Else gold can be subbed out for any of the building resources and it would have basically the same value.