Fellvred

Tester
  • Content count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

218 Excellent

About Fellvred

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

369 profile views
  1. Completely agree - there needs to be a system where an average player can continually pvp in small ships (6th rates?) and cover any losses through gold received in pvp itself. If that players wants to build up gold through trading/pve and use 3/4th/5th rates thats fine as well. Better players may be able to stay in 4th/5th rates etc. Perhaps increase the gold received in pvp but have an upkeep system for the ships. Such as having gunpowder/shot as a usuable resource which is used up when guns are fired. Larger guns will use much more gunpowder so the larger ships will have much higher upkeep to send in to battle? When the gunpowder/shot is used up reload time is increased 100-200%, similar to Ultimate General guns
  2. I think it certainly would if resources were left as they are atm anyway but if there was enough of a push from lack of/cost of resources and the projects weren't too expensive to get started at the lower levels it could work. The Spanish, for example, would still have a central hub in Habana (for the largest shipyard with the most expensive resources/ships) but could also create hubs in ports like Ays, Trinidad, Salamanca etc as front line crafting areas (where resources may be much cheaper to produce) and reduce downtime between pvp battles etc.
  3. After the return of shipyards on the testbed it seems the concentration of the population around the capitals will be even more pronounced than before. These suggestions might hopefully reduce this and create a more organic spread of players on the open world Resources -- At the moment there are no limits on resources coming out of a port so the vast majority of crafting, trading and sailing is done around each nation's capital. This leaves massive areas of the map feeling empty (meaning a lot of conquest battles could be undefended for a while). While I'm against hard limits on the number of buildings etc in a port I think a soft limit of some kind could be useful. For example, after a certain number of mines/farms/buildings have been built in a port (depending on the % of players in a nation/a certain number with buildings there?) the cost in gold/LH will be increased and the amount of resources will be decreased on a sliding scale (depending on the size of the empire/number of ports/buildings present etc etc). This will help create shortages in ports with massive populations and push people towards other regions, as well as creating lots of opportunities for haulers, traders and pirates. If those nations and clans want to continue crafting ships in one central area the resources will have to be hauled from further afield to make it economically viable. Buildings -- While it's nice to see new buildings I don't think it makes good sense ingame to make each player individually create their own dockyard or foundry to progress in their crafting. Most clans will have dedicated crafters so dockyards will just become a nuisance (if you personally don't have one) rather than something which adds to the gameplay - resources will simply be passed over to the crafters creating even more downtime between sailing/pvp. The current shipyards also tie players and clans to one area, if you've spent the last week getting a level 3 shipyard built you're not going to want to move any time soon or use up another building slot for another shipyard somewhere else. Perhaps a shipyard or foundry needs to be a national project? Once a certain number of resources are taken to any port and 'paid in' to the shipyard building project a shipyard will appear in that port and be usable by anyone in that nation. This price could increase exponentially with numbers of shipyards and distance from capital etc. These projects might also need upkeep in the form of resources per week but i'll leave that to another time. This would also help create new trading/crafting hubs in areas away from the capital. Any comments/suggestions/insults welcome
  4. I've always thought a Europa Universalis style system with a warscore would be pretty interesting - with no allies The regular state of all nations would be that any other national ship could be attacked and sunk but ports cannot be attacked (other than raids). Members of a nation would vote on a nation to declare war on (1 a week) and the aim of that war. As that war progressed the attacking side would gain/lose warscore depending on how it went. When the warscore reached 100%, or the week ended, the war would finish and a new round of voting would take place (24hrs) with a cooldown before the same nation could be attacked. Each wargoal could be different depending on the vote with differing ways to gain warscore and rewards while it's taking place - trade wars/wars of control/conquest etc. These wars could also be balanced so that much larger nations would not be able to take as much (or any ports at all) from small nations before the warscore was reached.
  5. which would be reported/auto picked up and you'd be banned if it happened a few times
  6. I have to agree on the ship knowledge - most of it will be gained through pve grinding even on the pvp servers. Still think it's worth tying ship knowledge to just pvp xp to push ppl to fight each other in different ships
  7. I think pve on the testbed already gives a good reward with minimal risk (gold+xp). PvP servers really shouldn't let pve players progress in the same way as pvpers.
  8. Perhaps the barrier to gaining conquest marks could be linked to BR rather than the number of players enemy players - such as the winning side will only receive marks if the losers have at least 50% of the BR of the other side? edit - Personally I think conquest 'marks' (where each single mark is extremely important) is the wrong design. A points system would make much more sense where good play is incentivised rather than having a win only giving marks.
  9. Some interesting stuff in the patch and I like the added flexibility of the crafting, but one thing I was thinking was do we really still need labour hours for crafting? With crafting and outfitting ships being much more expensive (and rightly so) than the live servers it might be worth testing out having the actual gold and materials being the limiting factor on crafting ships rather than hours? If devs are worried about a single player churning out lots of ships of the same type perhaps cooldowns would be better suited?
  10. One (probably unpopular) fix would be to have ships drop differing types of pvp marks depending on the ship destroyed. 6/7th rates drop 'small' pvp marks - used for 5th rate permits 4/5th rates drop 'medium' pvp marks - used for 3rd/4th rate permits 1-3rd rates drop 'large' pvp marks - used for 1st/2nd rate permits but I'm not sure we need even more types of currency atm
  11. If the ships are that expensive then only other rich players will be able to buy them
  12. True but those abusing the system should be banned just as always - or mechanics added to ensure farming of a small number of players/alts can't happen. If we have a situation where there are 100-200+ players pvping in a couple of regions (in 6th/7th rates) there will be no need to farm pvp marks by illegal means, there just needs to be ingame mechanics that push players towards these fights rather than pve farming I'd say getting gold on the testbed is a little too easy once you have a decent nest egg, my idea was just to allow players lower down to cash in on selling rare woods to the richer players. Those veterans playing at the top level of RvR would be incentivised to pay a lot for the small boosts/changes the woods would give.
  13. Any plans to get rid of npc ships in the shop for the live servers, or even to just limit available ships to 6/7th rates? It feels like most older players will try to blast through to the 4th and 5th rates available asap and we'll miss out on a lot of organic pvp testing on the smaller ships. Also any plans to make the new woods types super rare? Would be nice to have them as a gold sink for the veteran players while also spreading this out to the players further down the food chain (and also helping out us poor poor traders :)) If they're too common players may feel they have to have a 'rare' wood ship to be competitive.
  14. Getting rid of the limit of PBs will probably create just as many problems as it solves. One of the main reasons is that there are no real downsides to having a huge empire (especially with defending port battles being much easier than they used to). As we'll soon have an item to switch nations on the servers it seems like a good time to test dynamic buffs and debuffs depending on the size of a nation and the players in it. The aim would be to give players an incentive to move to the lower populated nations but 'taxing' players in the larger nations and help create multi front wars. For example, after a while the new EU PvP server may have 40-50% GB players and control a massive number of ports. All GB players would receive a dynamic debuff (30%?) on all gold, xp, marks and items received. In the same way a smaller nation which may have started with/pushed back to one region would have a dynamic buff of similar size. Obviously you'd have to look at not applying the debuffs to new players etc but it might be worth a try.
  15. If a force attacks a port and loses they should absolutely be attacked and harassed on the way back to friendly waters. I think we're going to see the end of a single 25 man fleet attacking a port, players will have to control the waters around the area and screen properly with their nation. One thing I'm not a fan of is the instant nation teleport from anywhere on the map, especially it's impact on RvR. There are a few ways to limit this which I'd be interested in testing such as only allowing national teleports to neighbouring (or within 2) regions. So a french player would be able to teleport from Saint Nicolas to Les Cayes but wouldn't be able to teleport to New Orleans. This would have the added benefit of helping out the smaller nations and pushing players towards creating home regions where their clan would defend. -edit- hopefully when raids are implemented they will affect any future port battles in that region.