Kiefer Cain

11 year PotBS Anniversary and New Owners (Vision Games) https://forums.burningsea.com/discussion/104075/happy-anniversary-pirates-of-the-burning-sea#latest The latest statement from the New Owners https://forums.burningsea.com/discussion/104142/vision-online-games-status-update#latest

Haven't played in a wee while (maybe for the reasons you state above... maybe not, lol...). I can't like your post due to some error message, so I will quote and +1 it that way. Been saying this in one way or another for a long time, too. +1 from lil ole Kiefer.

In order to have more sheep for the wolves to hunt, the sheep need grass that is worth eating and a knowledge that sheepdogs (real players...) are potentially and capable of coming to the rescue. Econ content/interface is a factor in my not wanting to sail or even play the game. I want to see information that gives me reasonable confidence that my trip to another port is going to be worthwhile. That trip should be made knowing I am supplying or demanding from a player economy, not this npc trade goods- single player game concept... There is zero immersion into this world when I supply/transport a trade good to a port. I would like an economy that relies more on player prices and less on artificial npc prices. There just isn't enough of an econ (it isn't pve) mechanic to hook me into playing the game every night. I don't have the time (right now) to enjoy the awesome pvp content, but I want to be a part of the Naval Action world in the few minutes or hour I have to log in. The NA 'world' requires a herd of sheep. That herd needs content, for the rest of the game to be fully lubricated to run better. These sheep don't always munch on grass. Some of them can become wolves in the blink of an eye... Simply providing price histories and server/region/local price averages/trends would be a great interactive tool for this 'sheep' to start munching on. Many many things POTBS did wrong. The econ interface isn't one of them. Perhaps a review of that game's econ interface would be worthwhile.

I understand this. Now that we can instantly tell where the pvp action is via combat news. Than providing updated information for traders to confidently set sail is a small price to pay in realism to get them out on the open sea. We want more ships sailing on the open sea. I would rather that this not be another reason for alt accounts, too. We all want more ships on the sea and traders hauling goods, so we have to give traders/market players some more carrot to get out there, the potential punishment for getting caught is harsh enough (a good thing). They not only risk the open sea in relatively defenseless hauler ships, now they risk hauling to distant (sometimes) ports to find out that the long and dangerous trip was for nothing. To spend the time, to arrive at the port and find out it was a wasted trip will kill the econ/trading game for all but the most dedicated NA players. Refresh the tool more often. Give players a reward (if they make it without being caught) rather than frustration.

Not 100%, but I like the overall intent of your suggestion.

What if 'zergs' (or any nation) had to actively use (craft, buy/trade, missions from, patrolling nearby) their ports to retain their loyalty or else the ports move into a neutral state or a state of unrest. Activity based ownership would keep bigger nations busy keeping their interior and/or boundaries tended to, instead of just steamrolling outward.

Was it Hethewill that proposed a system of diminishing returns per the number of buildings or players harvesting a resource? If this were the case, it would be harder and harder for a nation to obtain the resource as each week would reduce the harvest rate as the environment would be depleted of the resource. It would (should) cost more for less production as the supply dwindles and takes more effort to find and/or transport to the ports. As that was happening there would be an increase in demand for it as the supply decreases and the war continues. Another element to think about with the grand balancing act of resource allocation and availability.

I like the overall nature of it. If real players don't visit, trade, do crafting, or otherwise travel by a port it seems logical that the port's 'people' would begin to wonder if the grass is greener with another nation and start to generate some unrest.

I don't like the suggestion, BUT it could be said that it would be a solid representation of a product designed by lobbyists vs. those that know what they are doing or want. Some modern day military boondoggles as an example... lol.

Nothing quite like a broken window to keep the peasants working (or fighting...) :).

I like it. It would help to keep the population moving, another closer to natural variable for the economy, too.

I don't think there are any perfect solutions. Wesreidau, best threads the needle between the two styles of play. Wesreidau, even affords the ability to hoist national colors. In order for complete immersion into the environment (or earn the national tag), one should assume some responsibility of risk to be a part of that nation. It isn't fair to all the other players that assume the risk of hauling, pvping, trading as a national. True nation membership could be the carrot to draw PvE players into the PvP possibility side of the game, when they are ready for it.

With Wesreidau's continued fine tuning of his suggestion, I find it the most palatable of all the PvE--PvP server suggestions to-date. In particular, the prohibiting of direct trades between neutral and nation players. Though, I would eliminate Neutral player-to-Nation player trades 100%, Freeport or not. Forcing inter-nation trade to be subject to prevailing market prices, made public, and (hopefully with a revamped trading interface) a much more visible trading history in each port/region/server. This nullifies to a great degree the feared Neutral alt/nation main account abuse many (myself included) are aware would happen. A solid solution. IF we are to make room for the non-aggressors among the population, this is the best way.

Since this recent update, I have been having trouble placing and/or tracing routes for the brigades. I can't pick a spot and swivel the facing of the brigade like I did before. Is this something unique to me, or is anyone else experiencing a hesitant mouse to brigade relationship? When I am trying to place units in a hurry this makes it very frustrating to not get the facing correct.

Wesreidau has you covered:

With a sweeping generalization... could it be said that Country/rural brigades were (are ) better soldiers/fighters than their populous urban counterparts? Was it not for the rural troops of the North, would most battles have been decided by the 'country' heavy brigades of the south... haven't been in a Civil War book for the better part of ten years, but I always got that distinct impression? Were Wisconsin/Minnesota/Michigan troops, Vermonters and Mainers the backbone of the Northern army?

If it were a choice between long timers/BR limits and short timers/no BR limits... I would vote the latter. The argument then be what is "in range".

While I agree with almost all of your response. No conclusions should be drawn from this until more than 30 people (as of this post's date) have answered the poll. Many players (my guild included) are not even playing the game at the moment. Many of them, it could be argued, have already voted with their feet and only revisit the game/forums from time to time. It is still interesting to see the poll mature as more votes are added!

This is the best use for BR! Not as a means to dictating what battles can and can't happen on the open sea. Use BR to reward reputation and/or access to higher rank. For those Captains that seek out to do as much damage to enemy shipping in the name of the crown and not personal ego, it won't and that is fine. Different players have different motives.

This is a definite flaw in the assessment process. The other flaw is that post author's are going back to edit and not providing a note as to what they edited. I don't want my 'vote/like' going to a post that has changed from its original writing.

The economy relies on all the players for it to be a successful model. Slamz points out that the game is based around sailing and pvp, which it rightfully should be. The game shouldn't require every player in the game to take on the task of becoming econ magnates/experts to take part in the the economy. It should be easy and intuitive for all players to navigate the economy mechanic and interface. For those just interested in the simple production and sale on the local market, there should be confidence that their product's availability on the market is going to at least be seen by potential buyers, and sold (if they have picked the right price). As it stands now, there is no such confidence. Remote purchases would ensure more hauling further from home port, too (more ships on the sea). If folks are hung up on reality-based econ, one could argue that that the trade runners would have been relaying the port information up and down the trade routes in a pony express way. The other simplification process is to let those inclined for trade and economy to fill the supply/demand void that is naturally going to form in the game. The majority are not interested in taking econ to the next step beyond basic production or hauling (and that is okay). To those who like it and are willing to risk their time and coin on the market, the only thing that should stand in their way should be other players (competition) on the market, NOT the interface/mechanic itself. This means removing the draconian limits on market interaction. Drop the trade limits, 5 sell and 5 buy doesn't do the economy any favors by limiting Econ players ability to fill the supply/demand void left by non-participants. The fear of monopolization is overblown, and the attempts at preventing it are creating something far worse. Increase market data availability, price/volume history, price average (week, 30 day, 90 day, 6 months) per the port/region/nation/map-wide... to be reset upon every new econ patch. In a nutshell, Slamz is correct.

An economy must allow for individuals to explore the different markets available. If we are trying to enable a simple, single player crafting game, than remove the contracts entirely. If we want an actual economy that matches the depth of the ship combat/detail in this game, there must be room for players to explore and utilize the economy. Players can't properly explore the economy if they are limited to 5 total contracts. This is a fake feature. The economy must allow for players to grow. This 5 contract limit stunts econ players ability to interact with the game's economy. There can't be a functioning economy with these types of limits imposed on it.

Hehe, as I was writing this out, I was thinking of 'those' players, lol, that will call in sick/vacation day or play hooky to attend a PB. It is a hard solution to come by. How to include the international player-base in meaningful ways that keeps all players around the clock involved in the nation's direction.

To include all of the time-zones, why not have a series of Port Battles (once it reaches that point in the hostility threshold), like 3 or 5 PBs to cover the main time-zones? The time-zones with the heaviest action (player vs. player) would get the weighted value on the PB. If there is a time zone where only one nation is showing up and doing the hostile actions, that timezone would get reduced PB value compared to the timezone range where there was a greater percentage of fights (human vs human) in a timezone range. The hardest fought (actual player vs actual player) time-frames would be rewarded with the PB with the highest value. The goal here is to ensure all time-zones get to participate in a port's future. The heaviest fighting time-frames get rewarded with the PB that matters the most, but not necessarily the deciding factor. The nation that puts forth the best national effort (across all time-zones) will win the port.

Perhaps, I overlooked something, but what is the speed of hostility points rising or lowering? Are we talking PotBS-type hours (at the most), or a longer-term campaign likeoperation that is longer. Hopefully a slower pace, as it would be more inclusive of all the time-zones playing the game. Setting the PB times... I haven't a good answer, but I sense a bit problems with that one. Maybe a series of PBs? These hot zones will not be actual safe/not safe lines on the open sea, correct? I hope there is no difference. Just a mere indication of where the action is at.