Buildings not magic

[Gregory Rainsborough]

One of the main problems for many problems on the server is limited access to certain goods but for the sake of this argument I'm going to use white oak as the example I roll with.

Limitations are not that bad you might say, it will encourage people to organise and go and take white oak ports. Now, back in reality. What is the likelihood of that happening? It's happened before when GB went out of its way and did it and we all know how that ended up. It's not very likely with the exception of a couple of incidents like this. What's more likely to happen is that a person is more likely to just go buy an alt and buy it as a member of the nation that controls the port. Now it's not the sole reason to own an alt but it's a fairly decent one. It's what I and many others as it is a lot easier to spend 15 quid on a game than to train and organise a port battle fleet capable of taking these ports and more importantly, holding them.

Now you know the reasoning behind why I am going to make this suggestion.

Remove the current "drop" of white oak and replace it with a building like ordinary oak. Let people build white oak forests in ports where you can grow normal oak (but only those ports that produce oak outside the reinforcement zone) but make it significantly more expensive in comparison to those ports which currently drop the material. Cite fertile land or whatever to justify it in-game.

Let's say a "white oak forest" at Sabina would therefore generate 500 white oak logs per day (at level 3) to players who built it there as this port currently drops it. Those players who opt to build a white oak forest in another part of the map (where it does not drop) would only be able to generate 50-100 (at level 3) per day. It's a tiny amount in comparison I know but that's kind of the point.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I'm talking about tweaking the current system, not overhauling it.

[Vernon Merrill]

I still have hope that the OW gets some attention after the mechanics are settled.  The scale of the map is something that can certainly be turned into an asset as opposed to a liability.

It really comes down to simple, creative stuff like @Wraith mentioned.  The world can be so much more dynamic than changing colored dots...

We shall see..  I know its MORE than they promised.  But one can dream.

[Batman]

I would rather have farms that produce iomportant stuff, but at a much slower pace compared to oak or fir farms.

Of course people with alts would have an advantage here. The more, the merrier ...

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Aye, alts will always have the advantage but I'm thinking of it in terms of content as well. There will still be a limited supply, a small amount in comparison to those who own the actual decent ports that provide bonuses. Small players could create this luxury resource to sell but would be required to move it to the marketplace with obviously means, it can be intercepted.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a white oak trader once in a while?

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Plus think of the poor Dutch, they might actually start to get some decent ships.

[John Jacob Astor]

41 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Remove the current "drop" of white oak and replace it with a building like ordinary oak. Let people build white oak forests in ports where you can grow normal oak (but only those ports that produce oak outside the reinforcement zone) but make it significantly more expensive in comparison to those ports which currently drop the material. Cite fertile land or whatever to justify it in-game.

Let's say a "white oak forest" at Sabina would therefore generate 500 white oak logs per day (at level 3) to players who built it there as this port currently drops it. Those players who opt to build a white oak forest in another part of the map (where it does not drop) would only be able to generate 50-100 (at level 3) per day. It's a tiny amount in comparison I know but that's kind of the point.

This is real economy and real trader fodder.  Which allows real markets to sort out real prices.  Supply constraints can come from either restricted production or be regional.

I am all for this.

[John Jacob Astor]

24 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Aye, alts will always have the advantage but I'm thinking of it in terms of content as well. There will still be a limited supply, a small amount in comparison to those who own the actual decent ports that provide bonuses. Small players could create this luxury resource to sell but would be required to move it to the marketplace with obviously means, it can be intercepted.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a white oak trader once in a while?

Do this and you will have them.  The building limit will force specialization.

I am ALREADY doing this in cotton.

And not the least bit worried about competition from alts.  THAT kind of Econ is for lightweights.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Marcus Corvus

[Teutonic]

26 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

I'm talking about tweaking the current system, not overhauling it.

if we only can tweak the system, I like your option. I just wish we had what Wraith suggests

20 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Aye, alts will always have the advantage but I'm thinking of it in terms of content as well. There will still be a limited supply, a small amount in comparison to those who own the actual decent ports that provide bonuses. Small players could create this luxury resource to sell but would be required to move it to the marketplace with obviously means, it can be intercepted.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a white oak trader once in a while?

I come with the thought that Alts will always be there and they will always have anadvantage so instead of trying to limit what alts can do or trying to find complicated ways to limit certain activities, we should INSTEAD enhance and make it easier for players to do "this or that."

A mechanic or game design should enhance a players ability to both enjoy the game and progress, whether through ranks or gaining wealth. I am sure we can come up with ways to further enhance a players enjoyment and wealth by limiting the ability for alts to do so, but we should never limit a game design to fight against alts IF it negatively affects a players (single account) experience.

OW consists of 2 general things. battles and sailing. I would love to add a third, exploring. You explore the OW to find hidden rare resource drops near the coast.

[John Jacob Astor]

3 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

if we only can tweak the consists of 2 general things. battles and sailing. I would love to add a third, exploring. You explore the OW to find hidden rare resource drops near the coast.

If you want a third the building suggestion WILL drive real trade activity.

[Angus MacDuff]

This thread should be called "mitigate the Alts".  By allowing singleton players to participate more in production, you reduce the value of Alts in the economy game.  Allow us to gather more of our own resources (yes, we should travel for it and be hunted).  Allow us to produce more with more buildings (but not in the green zone, so we have to travel and be hunted). The value of an Alt(s) is that he can gather/produce at a level that singletons cannot.  If a singleton player could gather/produce 3-5 times more, these Alts would not have such a large advantage.  What do we care if someone gets rich?  Its about getting ships out to sea.

[John Jacob Astor]

2 minutes ago, Oberon74 said:

This thread should be called "mitigate the Alts".  By allowing singleton players to participate more in production, you reduce the value of Alts in the economy game.  Allow us to gather more of our own resources (yes, we should travel for it and be hunted).  Allow us to produce more with more buildings (but not in the green zone, so we have to travel and be hunted). The value of an Alt(s) is that he can gather/produce at a level that singletons cannot.  If a singleton player could gather/produce 3-5 times more, these Alts would not have such a large advantage.  What do we care if someone gets rich?  Its about getting ships out to sea.

I don't view alts as any more than a short-term problem.  A player that needs an alt to do Econ doesn't have the patience needed to do it for very long.

I've outcompeted them before.  Bring it on.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

2 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

One of the main problems for many problems on the server is limited access to certain goods but for the sake of this argument I'm going to use white oak as the example I roll with.

Limitations are not that bad you might say, it will encourage people to organise and go and take white oak ports. Now, back in reality. What is the likelihood of that happening? It's happened before when GB went out of its way and did it and we all know how that ended up. It's not very likely with the exception of a couple of incidents like this. What's more likely to happen is that a person is more likely to just go buy an alt and buy it as a member of the nation that controls the port. Now it's not the sole reason to own an alt but it's a fairly decent one. It's what I and many others as it is a lot easier to spend 15 quid on a game than to train and organise a port battle fleet capable of taking these ports and more importantly, holding them.

Now you know the reasoning behind why I am going to make this suggestion.

Remove the current "drop" of white oak and replace it with a building like ordinary oak. Let people build white oak forests in ports where you can grow normal oak (but only those ports that produce oak outside the reinforcement zone) but make it significantly more expensive in comparison to those ports which currently drop the material. Cite fertile land or whatever to justify it in-game.

Let's say a "white oak forest" at Sabina would therefore generate 500 white oak logs per day (at level 3) to players who built it there as this port currently drops it. Those players who opt to build a white oak forest in another part of the map (where it does not drop) would only be able to generate 50-100 (at level 3) per day. It's a tiny amount in comparison I know but that's kind of the point.

So your issue with the current system is that alts can abuse it but, your solution does nothing towards solving that issue.

Alts can still set up these buildings and produce white oak as well. Now every alt can produce some amount of white oak without competition.

 

Scarcity of resources creates conflict in the game and conflict creates content. I would rather see the clans who own the ports have more control over the resources produced by said port. I agree that the contract system is flawed and leads to hyper inflation of goods. But I don't think the answer to the issue is to let everyone be able to produce it.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

1 hour ago, Oberon74 said:

This thread should be called "mitigate the Alts".  By allowing singleton players to participate more in production, you reduce the value of Alts in the economy game.  Allow us to gather more of our own resources (yes, we should travel for it and be hunted).  Allow us to produce more with more buildings (but not in the green zone, so we have to travel and be hunted). The value of an Alt(s) is that he can gather/produce at a level that singletons cannot.  If a singleton player could gather/produce 3-5 times more, these Alts would not have such a large advantage.  What do we care if someone gets rich?  Its about getting ships out to sea.

By allowing one player to have more affect you make those alts more valuable. The key to mitigating alts is to put the power of port production in the clans hands. Or at least a fair percentage of it. Allow the port owners to set the price of goods and control how much is for sale.

If you flood the market with these valuable resources like WO logs and such then they will lose their value. Why would a nation/clan go attack a white oak port when they can produce it from the relative safety of their own ports?

[Gregory Rainsborough]

6 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

Scarcity of resources creates conflict in the game and conflict creates content.

In theory yes, in practice no. Opening the port to all undermines this very statement.

 

6 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

So your issue with the current system is that alts can abuse it but, your solution does nothing towards solving that issue.

Alts will be able to abuse any system while the devs permit their existence, I cannot change the devs attitude towards alts but I can suggest means by which people who don't have them can compete against them.

 

7 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

Now every alt can produce some amount of white oak without competition.

There would be no need to use alts really because the demand can be fulfilled by the domestic market.

 

3 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

Why would a nation/clan go attack a white oak port when they can produce it from the relative safety of their own ports? 

Why would a nation/clan bother taking a white oak port when it's a lot easier just to go to work, earn a bit of extra cash and buy another account. Hell, GB can't even get its shit together to attack La Nav or Little Cayman despite requiring teak badly. Nor can anyone else. Why bother when I can just use my alt to constantly buy up another nation's resources and the only risk being shipping it back as opposed to losing a 1st rate in a fleet action?

Not everyone thinks in terms of "yey a fight" they think in terms of the time they spend making stuff etc... If you're poor you aren't going to throw away the fancy ships necessary to take a port.

[John Jacob Astor]

4 hours ago, Wraith said:

What I would say is that instead of permanent production buildings we should instead have pop-up resource gathering zones that change from day-to-day and are discoverable only by sailing/exploring along coast lines, coves, inlets, etc.  Once they've been discovered you can sail there, escort a trader, etc. and expend labor hours to harvest resources in this zone in exchange for labor hours and then  you have to sail it/escort it back out.

Content for explorers, traders/crafters, hunters/pyrates and sheepdoggers all in one.

This is prospecting, and as such might be a good thing to add to the game.

But as a trader I won't be doing it.  Time is money.  Distance is money.  Coordinating escorts is money.  But for me this an Easter egg hunt.  If you want actual Econ activity, let's have the buildings.

 

[John Jacob Astor]

5 hours ago, Wraith said:

You already have buildings for most things.  And we need limited resources for RvR purposes. If gatherers also collect resources then place them on the market and boom, you now have something to trade right?  

 

I have buildings for some things.  For that rest of it I have worked out how to get stuff I need without overpaying.  Serious Econ is sustainable activity that generates on-going positive cash flow.  This is not that. 

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be good content.

But not for a hardcore merchant.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Marcus Corvus

[admin]

We want to control the supply of some resources because buildings do not provide this function.
Buildings provide unlimited supply (which we are not sure yet if it is a good thing).  

[King of Crowns]

1 hour ago, admin said:

We want to control the supply of some resources because buildings do not provide this function.
Buildings provide unlimited supply (which we are not sure yet if it is a good thing).  

EU traders supply an unlimited supply.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

On 7/2/2018 at 9:26 AM, admin said:

We want to control the supply of some resources because buildings do not provide this function.
Buildings provide unlimited supply (which we are not sure yet if it is a good thing).  

Respectfully I disagree, buildings only create supply based on time as they require labour hours, which must be gathered by the accumulation of time or grinding through Labour Contracts. Usually purchasing LC's which itself contributes to the player economy as a lot of people just buy the CM's off grinders. I've not had to grind for CM's in months. I just pop up a contract at KPR and people sell them to me. Players benefit as a result of this as they get my gold, I get their "time". The amount of time in the market is limited by the amount of CM's generated by players.

By allowing it to be converted production would be limited by the playerbase, obviously I can't work out the maths, it's not a specialty of mine but I'm sure it is possible to figure out.

 

[John Page]

On 7/2/2018 at 4:26 AM, admin said:

We want to control the supply of some resources because buildings do not provide this function.
Buildings provide unlimited supply (which we are not sure yet if it is a good thing).  

 

10 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Respectfully I disagree, buildings only create supply based on time as they require labour hours, which must be gathered by the accumulation of time or grinding through Labour Contracts. Usually purchasing LC's which itself contributes to the player economy as a lot of people just buy the CM's off grinders. I've not had to grind for CM's in months. I just pop up a contract at KPR and people sell them to me. Players benefit as a result of this as they get my gold, I get their "time". The amount of time in the market is limited by the amount of CM's generated by players.

By allowing it to be converted production would be limited by the playerbase, obviously I can't work out the maths, it's not a specialty of mine but I'm sure it is possible to figure out.

 

@admin Why is the current system better? What is the purpose behind limiting supply? This is what we end up with:

Supply cannot keep up with demand.

For context, I just sailed from KPR to La Navasse (about 20 minutes) and then from La Navasse to Little Cayman (30 minutes) looking for available Teak.

I believe what Gregory suggests here makes more sense than the current system. I am of the opinion that the economy should be free market and player driven, not people waiting in line, for who knows how long, to acquire resources fulfilled by NPCs. I understand that there should be rare resources, but it should be player driven in a free market economy.

The ideas presented here seem like a good compromise to limit resources (by making it extremely expensive, either by gold, or labor hours, or both) but still player produce-able.

[Cmdr RideZ]

Coastline resources is a nice idea as an additional way to get resources. Not sure if can replace the old system as there are nations that are heavily based on small islands.

There could be also specific amount of resources in each one, random amount. When all gathered server spawns randomly a new one.

Traders should not give PvP marks as else everyone comes to this location to sink traders to get more marks. Traders right now should not provide marks as marks are more valuable than goods.

[Greysteak]

Perhaps making the rare-wood building production variable on a daily basis would then allow the devs to better control it.  Like, buildings might produce 50 logs one day but 10 the next and maybe 200 the day after and so on.  In other words, rare-wood buildings have no pre-set amount of daily production, it could vary, along with cost, according to the dev's wishes each day.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Greysteak
grammar

[John Jacob Astor]

On 7/2/2018 at 1:26 AM, admin said:

We want to control the supply of some resources because buildings do not provide this function.
Buildings provide unlimited supply (which we are not sure yet if it is a good thing).  

 

The drop (instead of buildings) mechanic creates sectors in the economy that appear completely inaccessible to single-account players.

I've changed my mind about alts.  I cannot compete head-to-head against the labor hour, outpost, and perk advantage they provide.

If unlimited supply is the concern, get rid of the ET mechanic (an unlimited form of drop) and give buildings a limiter.  They should not be immortal.  Stuff wears out in the real world.  Mines and soils get exhausted.  Facilities break down. 

Give buildings a diminishing return arc where after so many units of production they need to be replaced.  The arc should be fairly long.  But there probably ought to be one.

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by John Jacob Astor

[Licinio Chiavari]

On 4/30/2018 at 4:32 PM, Wraith said:

What I would say is that instead of permanent production buildings we should instead have pop-up resource gathering zones that change from day-to-day and are discoverable only by sailing/exploring along coast lines, coves, inlets, etc.  Once they've been discovered you can sail there, escort a trader, etc. and expend labor hours to harvest resources in this zone in exchange for labor hours and then  you have to sail it/escort it back out.

Content for explorers, traders/crafters, hunters/pyrates and sheepdoggers all in one.

Perfect. Especially for solo explorers.

I would point out how big share of exploration a game like EVE has.

We have and huge map: make it living and worth exploring.