JJWolf
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by JJWolf
-
-
2 hours ago, rediii said:
If devs would comment and discuss every suggestion they wouldn't be able to code.
In your suggestion you mostly write about NPC consume prices etc. right?
Why not sell to players as it's thought to happen?
Then why have a suggestions forum if not to receive and review feedback?
As for your suggestion on why not just sell to players, I would question if I did not articulate it clear enough of the concepts in the original thread. -
I'm curious if any Devs have even read this thread or any of the other economy suggestions? I've noticed many threads with little to no activity in them, some of which are very good suggestions. It seems when someone makes a serious attempt to provide substantial feedback on major issues in the game, the place turns into a ghost town. I can't see myself providing this much effort in future with constructive criticism for this game, I'll stick to the apparent tried and true method of taking snipes and making snide remarks on issues and save the effort for other EA games.
-
50 minutes ago, Landomatic said:
Please don't digest this comment as being a troll as it's not my intention to suggest people leave their friends and clanmates, but,If you want to PVE Mission & trade you could just play on the PVE server. You need to incent people to have open world engagements. If you're a PVEer on a PVP server and support PVPers in your clan, have them provide PVP acquired resources to the PVEers that support them. Given the low server pop, ridiculous amount of alts in the game, and time it takes to deploy forces to PVP you should absolutely make PVP marks more valuable as they're tremendously more challenging to come by. Additionally, rewards for those 2 aspects for the game should be kept separate. If you're not a PVP player, or can't PVP every night, you can also trade your PVE marks to people who do have time, or are more acclimated to those types of engagements. Everything seems tradable.
Before it gets to that point, I don't believe anyone is saying one aspect of the game is better than the other. Just one seems more scarce and requires greater effort to come by.
This reads near identical to the OP and I see a major flaw in this logic.
This attitude of "PvP must be special" is a bunch of male cow manure. If one is only intent on combat then Legends sounds like the game. The current setup of marks allows PvP players and to a lesser extent PvE to earn rewards through respective ways of playing. Without the PvE players on the PvP servers (i.e: Traders, Crafters, and Shipwrights) your entire server economy will collapse with it's current implementation. Instead of a free market, the mid/late game will become exclusively for clan play only and discourage new combat orientated players from getting beyond their starting cutter. As it stands it's already in trouble. When playing as a nation, the part people forget is that as a nation you are a team of teams.
In actual fact, I despise the current restriction of needing 'Conquest/Combat Marks' for BPs, Permits, and Books (crafters/shipwright items). It should be purchasable with gold. Why? Because the player-base who is most likely to craft the majority of the upgrades and ships are the same players who prefer to spend the endless hours it takes for large scale trading and crafting, not PvPing. Forcing those players out to PvPing or mission grinding is the same as forcing all PvPers from promoting each rank until they have made the X number of millions of gold in profit from trade runs and crafted Y number of ships as a prerequisite.
-
2
-
-
This thread is to discuss my suggestion to get one of the core game mechanics fixed for those interested in other parts of the game outside of combat. This will provide alternative options of gameplay and to supplement non-trade/crafting orientated gameplay (Missions, PvP, PvE, Conquest, Exploring).
The biggest issue with the economy revolves around supply/demand supplemented by a player run economy model and low population numbers.
To address this we need to break down the economy into the different parts and address each part and how it ties together. First I will cover off on common terms used throughout, then I will identify the key areas with suggestions to fix each if needed, and finally I will provide a conclusion.
Terms
Common terms used:
- Store inventory - The quantity available within the shop of a port
- Raw resources - Goods produced through 'harvesting' in the craft menu - i.e: Logs, Ore, Hemp, etc.
- Manufactured materials - Parts made from raw resources and other manufactured materials but are not usable themselves - i.e: Frame Parts, Planking, Rigging Parts, etc.
- Manufactured goods - Finished products usable as consumables, upgrades, and cannons - i.e: Hull Patches, Turning Trim, 6pd Medium Cannons, etc.
- Trade goods - All the products not usable in crafting but consumables for ports - i.e: Sussex Oak, Fine Leathers, Parisian Furniture, etc.
- Goods - Encompasses all the previously mentioned goods - Trade goods, Raw resources, Manufactured materials, and Manufactured goods
Currently in game:
Supply
The supply of goods can come in three different forms:
-
Acquisition
- Appears in the shop for sale
- Acquisition is a static figure with a % chance of occurring to add stock to a port.
-
Production
- Produced by players
- Production is goods produced through raw resource harvesting buildings
-
Trade
- Populates the port inventory through the sale of goods to the store
- Trade occurs when players sell goods to a store or when NPC trade ships arrive at a port (unconfirmed the effect).
Consumption
The consumption of goods in a port are static transactions that reduce the port stock by a set amount every hour.
Biggest Issues:
-
Population
- Player numbers are FAR too low to support the existing model!
-
Acquisition
- Quantity of acquired goods are purely added by a static figure that does not adjust based on nation population/activity
- Acquired goods are mostly only shippable from region capital to region capital, other ports are not interested in the goods
-
Production
- Raw resources produced by players are more expensive than NPC port prices, it is actually more affordable to source from NPC shop inventory then from player contracts
- Some goods are ignored by players and therefore create massive shortages when NPC shops are not populating regularly as an alternative
- No profit in shipping goods from raw resource ports to the manufacturing hubs
- Some raw resources are not available through production
-
Trade
- Goods moved from an acquiring port to a consumption port are being consumed at a static rate similar to acquisition of goods, there is no adjustment for player population/activity to increase/decrease in proportion
-
Dock space
- Limited to a small number of slots globally
- Limited in number of upgrades available
- Upgrade costs to increase number of slots are astronomically high
-
Building Slots
- Global limit of 5 buildings
- Upgrading buildings is costly for minimal gains
-
Production ports
- Minimal variations of raw resources of ports in proximity to one another meaning ports further from a hub will rarely see any activity
Proposed changes:
Ports
Dock space:
- Needs to be port dependant, not global.
- Each player with an outpost in a port should be granted 1 slot in a production port or 3 slots in a regional capital.
- A player will then need to purchase the upgrades currently available at the current prices to increase their slots available that is applied globally (to make it easy to store a players data).
- The UI also needs to indicate slots currently used vs total available so a player can visually see how many they have total in a port, currently there is nothing.
Outposts should remain the current model of purchasing additional spots however, the increasing pricing without a hard limit needs to be slightly more reasonable.
Building slots: (I will cover buildings in more detail later)
- Limits need to be port specific, not global.
- In a raw resource port the limit should be 3 and regional capitals 5.
- 'Upgrading' of buildings needs to change.
Buildings
Speaking of buildings, it needs a different approach:
- When you purchase an 'upgrade' to an existing building it should use up an additional slot within that port - A capital cannot have a level 3 shipyard, a workshop, AND a level 3 oak lumber camp.
- Raw goods ports will require more careful planning, one should choose to either a single level 3 resource building OR 3 separate level 1 resource harvesting buildings if multiple resources are available within a port. This means that for someone to have level three harvesting buildings across multiple ports it will quickly become time consuming and more investment capital required in outpost permits. This will limit massive conglomerates but reward the hard working and smart investors while remaining viable for players entering the resource or manufacturing market.
- Workshops should be upgradable - Level 1 to class 6, level 2 to class 3, level 3 all cannons/carronades. Again, this will force players into considering investing in a level 3 shipyard OR level 3 workshop unless they invest in another regional capital and split their manufacturing across multiple hubs.
Port Population
There currently is no difference between major hubs and smaller ports while consumption/acquisition is static. This needs to change to provide the dynamic and evolving world for players to interact with. I am proposing that population be based on two key figures - Production activity and Trade activity.
-
Production Activity
- As players construct outposts and production/manufacturing buildings within a port, it will 'grow' the population figure of the port with better figures from 'active' ports (players harvesting resources)
- Port population increases the 'consumption' figures to reflect more people settling in the port for work at the production buildings.
-
Trade Activity
- Key component as a flourishing port where raw goods are purchased from NPC producers which in turn promotes increasing NPC stock availability of that good to be supplied to the port store at a price above player production costs but not cost prohibitive to purchase nor restrict player profits in port either (~50% markup?)
- Sale of consumption goods to port encourages the growth through supplying the needs of a port.
At any point that players demolish their buildings and outposts or when consumption goods go unfulfilled for long periods then the population would decrease.
The supply of goods should remain with the three primary methods mentioned earlier however to address shortages and supply:
-
Acquisition
- Expensive Trade goods should be exclusive to regions, not necessarily nation but will promote smuggling activity when another nation in a far port has a valuable trade good where massive profits could be made.
- Lower cost nation specific trade goods appear in all regional capitals and are in demand in all non-capital ports based on population.
- Raw resources specific to ports can be treated as 'acquired' as an interim measure to replicate NPC producers.
- Needs to scale based on port activity as mentioned above in trade activity
- Manufactured materials should appear in small dynamic quantities to replicate NPC crafters, needs to be expensive (2-3x player crafting) to provide space for player sellers without blowing the market out of proportion.
-
Production
- As per buildings section above, players will be the primary producers of goods
- Raw resources in the shop will be populated under the acquisition section until NPC producers could be implemented in a better form.
-
Trade
- Ports need to have far more consumption items including commonsense items such as whole fish, fish meat, and food supplies.
- Ports need to have consumption of all trade goods with better prices the further they are away from regional capitals or when they are becoming larger/wealthier from player activity/trade.
Goods Pricing
This has been partially covered previously but prices are currently very confusing. There is no commonsense approach to this, when production cost for Oak Logs currently is 73 gold and I can purchase them for 42 from an NPC shop, it defies logic. This is where prices need to be adjusted and as developers you can influence the economy to ensure it doesn't stagnate while promoting shipment of goods.
-
Raw resources
- Purchase prices at raw resources ports should be low but not lower than production costs with a little margin thrown in (50% markup?)
- Purchase prices at manufacturing hubs should be punishing but not insane (~300% markup from craft cost?)
- Sale prices of raw resources in production ports should punish stuipidity (half production cost)
- Sale prices of raw resources in manufacturing hubs should be profitable enough to encourage movement of goods to restock but not out do player purchase orders (50% markup?)
-
Manufacturing materials
- Purchase prices for manufacturing materials in hubs should be expensive but not entirely cost prohibitive for basic ship/upgrade construction (2-3x crafting cost) (Oak frames but not Teak frame, etc)
- Sale prices of manufacturing materials in hubs should be above the cost of materials if harvested and crafted to offer the option to supply the port when no one else is interested
- Sale/Purchase prices of manufactured materials at raw resource ports should be very low to encourage moving goods from non-hub ports where a player has chosen to manufacture
-
Manufactured goods
- Sale prices on finished products should be above crafting costs as a last resort but not enough to exploit
- Purchase prices should be punishing but not insane (~500% markup from craft cost?)
-
Trade goods
- All lower priced goods should be low buy prices in region capitals and high sell prices in resource ports linking in with population
- All high end trade goods should be regionally priced, moving goods from one regional capital to another should be good but not insane profit with modest profits if sold to resource ports within a region, again feeding the population/consumption.
Ship Production
I haven't found any major flaws to the current crafting system, it's been mostly the economy that has been the flaw that is breaking the ship building industry. The one change that needs to happen is that player crafted ships NEED to have at least 2 or 3 durability to actually ENCOURAGE purchasing player ships over NPC ships. The PvP servers are dying for a few more durability or ships while the PvE server is flooded with overpriced capped ships with no effort to craft better.
Secondly, selling/breaking up ships. What is the go here? You want players to craft ships to increase craft rank, ok. But what do they do with the unwanted masses they need to make in order to progress? Selling them at 3% of the production cost to the NPC store is cost prohibitive. Swamping the market with cheap boats destroys the 'player led' model economy. And breaking up ships for a meger few pieces of scrap is an insult.
What needs to happen is breaking up a ship should yield between 25-50% of the craft materials.
NPC sale prices need to be at a minimum a slight profit from the cost of crafting the ship (~20%) to encourage people to pursue ship crafting.
*edit:
Admiralty StoreOne thing I didn't mention is the admiralty store, everything that is available that is not merely aesthetics SHOULD be purchasable with gold. This prevents pricing small clans/solo traders out of business and also prevents the current turn towards a P2W style. As it stands to obtain the correct marks one must either play PvE server or participate in the majority of PBs to earn enough to provide ships for the players focused on PBs and PvP.
It just doesn't make sense to force the people who choose to supply the market instead of battling with engaging in a part of the game they aren't interested in and if they never did indulge in it wouldn't make a difference to the greater scheme of it. Asking a crafter to harvest 25 conquest marks simply to produce a single SOL for other players will hugely inflate prices due to the grind cost associated with it. On the contrary asking a PvPer / PvE mission grinder to have to trade goods and craft goods as a prerequisite to sail the next ship up would infuriate the player base. This needs a serious rethink, it needs options for both sides. Combat orientated players SHOULD earn less gold but SHOULD have an avenue to BPs / Permits / Upgrades etc. the same as Crafting / Econ orientated players SHOULD be earning the most gold but also SHOULD be able to purchase everything at a premium (i.e: Victory BP for 5 mil, Permit for 200k, Crafted ships will thus sell around 1-1.5 mil on the market or less internally).
/edit*Conclusion
These suggestions to fix the economy are based on my experience having played many 'economy simulation' games from as early as the original Sid Myer's Pirates!, Port Royale series, PotBS, to name a few more relevant games, and many more.
These suggestions are by no means to completely resolve the economy issues but at a minimum revolve around tidying up the markets, providing a 'player led' economy model while using NPCs as a way to moderate prices and prevent abuse of the markets. It will encourage players to branch out beyond the starting regions, encourage supplying the ports they use to harvest resources, provide a more dynamic and immersive economy that can bring about more player interaction in the wider regions of the map.
I'm not looking to hear how PvP needs this or that, they have had their time, take that to your own suggestion threads, please keep criticism constructive. If you don't agree with me on trying to fix this mess before the game is completely abandoned then please, by all means spend half your own evening devising an alternative, I long to hear more people offering solutions to the problems.
-
5
-
I'm sorry but it is seriously a big FU to crafters/producers with this 5 building slots across the server! What happened to the supposed ability to produce all the required resources to craft a 1st rate in 7 days???
It is impossible to produce one's own resources for ship construction so I'm still left with placing buy orders at ports to suck up NPC resources on stuff I don't produce. This building slot issue needs to be rectified! Either change it to be 3 slots per outpost or increase the max slots to 10...
-
-
The bonus is you don;t loose anything for getting crew dmg until all extra crew are dead. Technically all ships are crewed to the maximum efficiency, adding more would only means one guy is sittign on the canon because there is no more room to help, same thing as adding more guy on a job is sometimes counter productive (look agt most City workers) as only one plumber can fit in the hole, all the other are leening on their shovels pretending to watch, etc.
The problem is that the AI still get these 'bonuses' of more crew than players and that they don't suffer crew penalties until a greater number of their crew is killed ergo AI is accused of cheating. On top of this, the performance of AI is extreme as was mentioned before, we have to be on our game the entire time against any AI as their manual sailing technique never messes up because they don't have to.
The game is automatically calculating best turn and best speed for AI regardless of sail position, they aim with only small margin of error that quickly gets onto target within 3 shots, and their fire rate is perfect. In a sense this appears to be laziness in developing a more in-depth AI and thus fighting AI becomes a matter of getting a bigger or more ships, maul them harder, then ram and board or continue until sunk. I for one am tired of AI regardless of skill level, using ships 100% of the time at the maximum a normal player could possibly hope for. They are certainly not undefeatable as they make stupid mistakes and it's easy to cause it but their usage of ships at 100% efficiency is unquestionable.
-
When the patch does drop (its starting to feel like a surprise Christmas now that could happen any day) Will there be an extended maintenance or will it just pop after a usual daily maintenance?
It's almost always displayed 'Updating' IIRC, only really hotfixes have just dropped without warning.
-
1
-
-
I'll throw my hat in the ring for PvE since I frequent it more than others and many on the Brits at least have seen me in game if not been buying my ships.
Server: PvE
Timezone: +10 GMT (AEST)
Reqs:
Insightful and helpful posts on forums across all sections- Look at my content for a large number of threads for suggestions and ideas, assistance to others, ask aroundPositive attitude in everything- I'll be the first to admit I don't always have the most positive attitude but it's usually directed at the tards that ruin the game or people who are giving undeserved greif to others.Thick skin- I've been online gaming for around 18 years, been around a wee while dealing with all sorts of people with their online personas.Excellent knowledge of the game- Been playing since January, spent an ungodly amount of time learning the ins and outs of most aspects of the game.English language- I'm AustralianAnother language is a huge plus- Yo entiendo y hablo un poco de español- I also speak Australian, bad english, Pommie, Kiwi, and American english
Activity levels
- Been offline the last week or so but usually online most nights during Aussie prime timeEDIT: Should probably point out for experience that I'm an active retired leader of AEF (look under High Command group) - http://www.aef-hq.com.au
-
Ping is 120 for me in northern Germany which is really no trouble at all.
Also further separating the small PvE community would not be a good idea.
If anyone has problems with their ping, well: ask Aussies or Kiwis.
Very true, we will happily point out to those who complain about their 'ping' that our ping to the USA server is approximately 250-300, 350-400 for EU servers. Want to play an online game on hard mode? Come live down this way...
-
1
-
-
Have you tried the PVE server?
Grinding XP on the PvE server? I didn't know it was 1st of April already!
-
What do you even do on a PvE server? Is there even port battles?
You do everything except gank players and port captures. It's perfect for when the wee ones are still running about and you can walk away from the PC for a few minutes if need be.
-
1
-
-
I wish they'd just get rid of the PvE all together, and bring back in the Neutral faction for players who want to PvE and trade. There would still be a measure of safety, as only pirates could attack them, and they'd be dedicated to economy. Of course, I'm an advocate for merging all the servers and expanding the map (Canada? South America? EUROPE?). Long term goals, I know, but I can dream.
Also, I'd like to see contracts only available in Free Towns - "The government has more control over their own ports, but in free towns..." And Then have AI traders actually move product from producers to consumers within their own nation, for predictable - and raidable - trade routes worth hunting.
As for mission rewards, making 20k plus per battle was a bit ridiculous, but so is this in the other direction. Maybe more of a system like 3000 for Midshipman, then add 1000 - 1500 for each rank over that. They shouldn't be the only viable cash/hour option, they shouldn't inflate the market, but they should be worth doing, and certainly should be profitable after repairs on even the worst fight. And it scales with growth too. 3k is a good profit while you have a free to repair cutter. 9k is worth searching for those crossed swords when you've got a Surprise to fight with and repair, but not so much that you get rich in an hour and buy up half the store.
Spoken like a true PvP player who can't grasp why people play PvE, the point to PvE is so there is no attacks from players, no highly random behavioural factors to deal with. I'm likely speaking for most of the parents on here when I say I would prefer we keep it this way because right now I have a choice and I can swap between them depending on many variables including whether kids are awake or not.
If I'm to be forced to a PvP server then I will do exactly what I have done with all other games that are PvP only, uninstall it or only play it late at night on weekends where I don't have to worry about getting up every 5 seconds and leaving it for 20 minutes at a stretch. The reason this game has such a great appeal for so many people is because of the options on how a person likes to play their games.
I'm still at a loss as to what the big deal with having a PvE server is in the first place, there's already 3 PvP servers with one that's always at max capacity and the other 2 at moderate levels of activity, who gives a rat's arse if 500-1000 players are chilling on a PvE only server!!!
-
6
-
-
Disconnect all Xp/Labour, one should not be able to nation hop and retain their rank let alone server. When one is hopping servers, they should be starting from scratch so there is no exploiting.
As a shipwright, the nerf to gold reward is for the better IMHO, it means people value a good ship more. It might mean less profit but meh, better than a massive surplus of gold.
Now that the Dev's seem relatively happy with where they are at on rewards and combat, can we PLEASE get back to fixing and finalising this economy and BP problem? Right now it is a shambles with production unable to support larger populations and drop rates of BPs that is based solely on luck, not crafting 40 of one ship type trying to get the next. Ship building is expensive as it stands.
-
XP for travel will promote botting.
There are basically two routes in this matter
1) we provide comfortable and exciting motivations by giving xp for various activities for everyone - making the game better for a normal user - but this will allow bots or xp farmers/exploiters to gain advantage
2) or we limit the botting potential also affecting a normal player.
If everyone agrees to ignore farmers/exploiters then we can go wild with many exciting features for a normal player. But experience shown that for some reason average player does not ignore farmers and fills the tribunal with cases of someone getting more XP or better ships faster.
I could write a script to 'auto-craft' ships by simply using AutoIT v3 that is installed on my PC if I really felt motivated to make something slightly less painful that is relatively slow paced and repetitive, I don't see how botting is an issue in a game like this, there is simply no real advantage aside from me having a bit more time to make coffee and scratch an itch. A simple fix to limit this bot/farming problem - XP is awarded for going between ports, the further apart they are, the more XP is awarded. This will give at least a basic start to rewarding explorers AND traders in one fell swoop...
EDIT: Added extra wording
-
They need to remove the link to player rank XP across servers, the only thing that should be linked is Steam with one character slot. These arguments are null and void if people didn't have linked characters across multiple servers. This also allows players to have a unique character per server and allow players to try a different nationality/pirate experience.
-
I may get some hate for saying it but get rid of crafting hours and use timers and cost in gold to craft.
-
I build about 30 trader cutter and i dont have trader brig bp... At least I got ~5 crafting notes
This sums up my crafting experience with Snows... :/
-
I have no qualms about having AI fleets in anything except a player's initiated PvP battle. Starting a battle against a player or joining a battle against a player should prevent the agressors AI ships from spawning in the battle instance, but if a player is attacked or attacks an NPC then fleets should be allowed. I have even proposed a new avenue for managing fleet captains (link in sig block) and how to implement managing their progression so people can't just hire the best all the time.
This might not be a single player game, but as an MMO you still can get hirelings.
EDIT: Spelling
-
1
-
-
The drop in NPC trader speed for those that are new to the game and / or have Cutter or similar class is a welcome and considerate change.
The difficulty to fight damage, board and capture remains the same and will not ruin the game for player tradesmen.
People who are new to the game should be focusing on grinding missions, definitely not capturing trade ships. Second, if you are struggling to capture traders in a Cutter then you have yet to reach a sufficient skill level regardless of ship class you sail. The Cutter is fundamentally the easiest vessel to catch trade ships in due to the simplistic nature of control, the limitation of it is it's crew capacity, not speed or armament. Nerfing trade vessels is simply a slap in the face for all non-combat orientated players.
EDIT: Spelling
-
We seriously just need SOME diplomacy in this game first, the idea of port control / taxes etc are great ideas and definitely worth pursuing but as it stands there is NO diplomacy, it's just complete war.
-
Why should a loaded trader carrying up to 4000 tons be faster than a combat ship? Please explain in detail. Perhaps we are missing something about cargo effects on speed. (no sarcasm intended).
ps. trader lynx is still faster than anyone and cant be caught. Trader snow and brig could be caught anyway with the previous speed if tagged properly on the open world.
How is a Trader vessel that much heavier? The Manila Galleons weren't above 2000 ton vessels, East Indiamen didn't exceed 1400 ton bm, so I fail to understand the logic of where 4000 ton merchant ships come from?
Using a Snow class vessel as example, a combat vessel has a much larger compliment of crew (120 crew x 180 lb per person), cannons (26 x 1,500 lb), and all it's munitions (6 lb per cannon ball, powder charges, etc). More than likely a combat vessel is going to be weighed down more often than a Trade vessel of the era.
-
2
-
-
I see a patch but where has all the rum gone?... err I mean where are all the patch notes?
-
1
-
-
hearing to the community destroyed most games.
I quitted warframe because the devs always changed anything after some one opened a forum thread about some concern.
No one (near no one) plays flight simulators anymore because they got too! realistic. (136 keyboard shortcuts ? no thanks ^^)
Why they got too realistic ? because a small community wanted it. They got it. They ruined the complete subgenre for the huge rest.
Better said : the devs have a vision. They build a game. The people play the game and love it too. Then some people join and try to make the game an other game (Potbs maybe)
The devs will hear on them. (they posted in the forum, they must stand for all players). then the game turns into something different. people leave.
the changers stay. until they are alone and the game is closed.
The problem is : people who are fine with the state of the game are quiet. They just play it. (90% ?)
But some people make forum threads.
The devs asume those handfull people represent the whole community.
But thats (often) not true.
Then they change things to please the forum guys. But guess what happnes : now all the quiet people are annoyed.
So how to stop them you may ask ?
No idea. (remove forum
)Post yourself in the forum.is not a solution for everyone. (time effort)
I do this only because they removed AI fleets for higher ranks.
I fail to understand your logic on flight simulators, it's exactly what it should be, simulating realism. You shouldn't be bothering with trying to play simulators if you think it's a chore to map 136 keyboard shortcuts, those of us who actually enjoy the realism (I'm guilty for it) are expected to map out a HOTAS set up. My joystick has 18 buttons and 4 axis. The throttle has 5 buttons, 12 toggles, and 9 axis. My pedals have 3 axis. My TrackIR has 6 axis. That's 98 key mappings sorted, DCS Devs are gamers themselves so they have mostly been kind enough to offer most mapping for me across nearly all of the modules as a drop down selection, War Thunder even went and did the same.
If it wasn't for the community, many games would be far worse than they are and some would have died a very quick death years ago.
This is an Alpha so it is expected that issues are raised in the forums so they can be debated and solutions found that work for most. It is the responsibility of all players to voice their opinions to ensure they get their say and that the vocal minority don't dictate the game's development.
EDIT: I agree that yes, when a game has matured, changing things at the drop of a hat (or whinge of a player) is extreme and should be avoided, but the state of a game's development is an important factor in listening to the gripes.
PVP/PVE or Combat Marks currency done properly
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
In traditional maritime history, if a number of enemy vessels were hanging around raiding trade ships and small patrols they would have been chased off pretty quickly by a nation's protection fleets, larger patrols would be conducted to ensure safer passage and hunting fleets would have been sent out after the pirates/privateers. In traditional maritime history the world wasn't burning with eternal war like it is in this game.
Marks are a P2W currency that rewards one style of play only.