Search the Community

OK before everyone will start that I am crying on the forum because we dont jave a victory mark this week and i am salty, I absolutly dont care if I get a victory mark or not. I dont use them and they are just stockpiled in my captains chest. Now that we have this out of the way let me start my post. I have participated in numerous port battles over the last years sailing from here to there, moving ships, towing ships, making sure the resources are where they are needed, and in the process of doing all this having a lot of fun both in the offensive and defensive port battles. However sometimes the result is a bit frustrating. You will win a battle on points but loose half your fleet and vice versa. Also some battles inconclusivly and no one wins. I think it should be reworked in some way like in a football (soccer for the americans) where you get 3 points for a won battle, 1 point when there is a draw and 0 points when you loose a battle. This way when a defender wins a port battle they are also getting points and not like it is now where it is only based on the amount of ports you own. The issue i see with this is the multi flipping of ports. I play GB and often in the weekend we get 3 port battles at the same time so we need to concentrate on 1 port to effectively defend it and if we loose that battle that means -3 points for us. The fights are usually fun but boy it does get tiring. The system with the win and loss would also mean that people dont just flip ports for flipping ports. Not to blame you guys or point a finger but Sweden flippped Harbour Island on saturday. Spanish were there to defend the port, Russians were there to screen for the Spanish, GB was there to screen for the Swedes, Pirates and Prussians were there to get PVP marks and kill the stragglers. The only ones that were missing were the Swedes. The spanish didnt get anything for getting their captains organised and defending the port. This would change if they got 3 points for doing this. Multi flipping is also terribly annoying for the defender. You need to make a choice and sometimes it works other times it doesnt. The russians lost ports due to it, we lost ports due to it and if some nations decide to multiflip a small nation like Denmark, Prussia or Poland they can get 1 ported or even annihalated in no time. For the attacker it is easy to multi flip. Just coordinate a bit and you will flip 3 ports, preferably not to close to eachother so the defender has to guess what the target is. The defender needs to spread their forces as to see what port is really going to be attacked and if they loose the real target well they are at -1 on the conquest board. In the system i propose the defender would get 6 points for 2 defended port and the attacker would get only 3 points for the one they won. I am personally not in favour of a system where if 1 port is flipped the next port battle can only start 2 hours after the start of the first one. That would negate the tactical decision of multi flipping. We are all looking for content in the game and Port Battles are an important factor. There needs to be more but those are diffent subjects. Keep it decent when replying. Thank you

I want to suggest we reintroduce the PvP marks. Not because I want more idiotic permits for ships (that make zero sense) but because I want an alternative to PvE grinding for books. The dropchance for books in PvE missions should not be affected - I believe in giving players choices in strategies for the game and if some wants to PvE - fine by me. But at the moment there really is no incentive to go PvP'ing. You get more gold from trading (as in millions more gold!), you get more xp from PvE'ing (because of the reduced sail-times) and you get more rewards from PvE'ing (as in books). So basically when I kill someone it's because I like to hear them scream. Not to say mind you that it isn't an incentive. Chances are though that the fewest numbers are going hunting for that reason alone. So my suggestion: Reintroduce PvP marks and make a shop where all books are available for PvP marks. Make it worth it to hear ppl scream! And just for all the carebears that wanna kill their alts to get books - it's a bannable offence and should be auto-forfeiting the account if found guilty of farming.

Currently Conquest Marks are a hotly debated topic. If we go and change it to a system where it awards CM to all the players in that nation based on the number of regions controlled and the importance of those regions. For example each player in a nation will get 1 CM for ever 3 regions they control, Capitals will give 2pts instead of automatically. So no nation can ever drop below 2CM per day. Some regions will award 2pts based on value, like New Orleans would be one, Nassau another. Lastly Trade Manifests should make a return but as Trader Marks, they are awarded to players who deliver war supplies to regions to either raise or lower the hostility in that region, you will get 1 TM per 5% hostility you gain from war supplies. You will most likely have to make these war supplies instead of buying them on the Admiralty/Den, as it wouldnt be cost effective, but you could if you wanted to blow 200PVE marks just to get 5 PVP marks. (it is 50 war supplies for 200PVE marks right? and they will only raise the hostility up 25% with 50 supplies correct?) This way the players who want to be traders, or gun runners or even smugglers can feel like they are involved in the RVR of their nation without getting into fights. This is just a suggestion and I think it would be a good addition to the game without rewriting the entire RVR system. You have a good baseline for the system but it needs tweeking and I feel this would be the best fit for all.

Conquest Marks, PVP marks, PVE Marks, Gold... There are so many currencies in this game that it is impossible to balance them all. Get rid of them all except Gold. Combat earns XP and Gold. Crafting earns XP (and profits in gold if you sell your wares). All items in admiralty are priced in gold. Adjust the amount of rewards and prices as you will based on difficulty and desired scarcity. It seems to me that a) this system would be easier to get the economy right and b)would allow players to pursue their own paths to "success".

Думаю , тут будет заметнее.

Part of a balanced MMO is more than just PvP. Other forms of Player-to-player interaction are also required, including cooperation. One of the professed purposes of the upcoming wipe is to bring about a new economy, putting behind us - hopefully - the utterly broken one that we’ve been living with for a year, which allowed us to test every other aspect of the game. Creating this new and working MMO-economy is surely no small task. I am not a trader in this game. I trade and craft mainly to support other activities, and to sustain my clan. Yet I see that for PvP and the open world to have a sustainable environment as well as a proper balance, trading gameplay needs to be developed, and those players who choose to focus on it need to be encouraged. The old economy we have on the live server drove traders away a long time ago. There was no challenge, no unique gameplay, and no supply and demand - only endless supply. The new economy that we are testing on the testbed forces a "division of labour» so to say. Everyone cannot do everything anymore. With new production levels, travel times, and the partial removal of teleports, you can no longer collect every resource, and craft every ship yourself. PvP-players in each nation will depend on the traders and crafters of their respective nation or clan. If well balanced, this looks very promising, yet there are a few issues presumably yet to be solved about this part of the game. Like how do we prevent people from each sitting on a heap of their particular valuable, looking enviously on the heap of somebody else, yet not willing to trade away any of their own production? How do we unite the players who are lacking a resource, with a supplier? And how do we prevent clans from organising an economy internally, while leaving the rest of the nation, and solo-players to their own meagre devices? On the latter issue, you could dismiss it entirely, and say that if the clans are not contributing to the national economy, then that is a national problem of having selfish clans. However on the former issue, I believe we need more trade tools, and some mechanisms that encourage player-to-player interaction, even out of OW in port. -We should be able to put up buy contracts for ships. You request wood type, trim and refit, and the crafter fulfills the order. -If not already implemented, we need to be able to put buy contracts for the refit items. -There should be ways to acquire Marks outside of PvP and RvR. Crafters, haulers and traders should be able to gain marks from these activities. Interactions with players from your own nation, besides PvP or PvE, should have the potential to generate marks. Being a dedicated crafter/trader, who does PvP only secondarily, will be unsustainable once all ships in high demand will require copious amounts of marks for crafters to make them. They need to be able to take payment that includes coverage of the Marks used in crafting. To make this simpler, Marks could be an item that you can buy from NPCs for gold. The Marks are an infinite resource anyway - its production limited only by how many NPCs we can find and kill. And if the economy is properly balanced so as not to flood the market with gold, then having Marks be an item that you can purchase from NPCs for a steep price would not be a problem. In fact it could help the economy, by taking gold out (giving it to NPC) and putting only a quantity of an infinitely regenerating resource into the economy. Secondly it would be worth exploring to encourage trade between players and nudging players to put their surpluses on the market for others to get access to, by rewarding trading with Marks. As an example, when you put a quantity of an item on the market with a contract, once that contract is emptied, you are rewarded with a relative number of Marks. And when you sell someone a ship that you crafted, or fulfull someone elses’ contracts, you likewise get marks. Without some mechanics to ensure its integrity, this system would be very exploitable of course, by players trading back and forth between each other. However, you could put limits on it or other measures to prevent abuse, as well as increase the tax on contracts - to then accept that some marks may be generated by players, but in exchange for a money sink. Thirdly, crafters could get derivative marks, in addition to XP, for kills done with ships that they crafted. So if the player who purchased your ship kills a connie and get 3 marks, then you, as the crafter, are rewarded with maybe 1 Mark.