Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

donalddawkins

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About donalddawkins

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. The current system in place has mitigated a large degree of piracy for most players. Many players simply teleport their goods for the day, or alternatively send their goods via delivery. To allow piracy to occur, and enforce a more diverse economy to play out, I propose that: 1)players can no longer teleport goods 2)players then must either manually transport or send goods by delivery then I propose a delivery system that actually affects the world and player economy The following system will then take over 1)the system will monitor the intended port and port of origin of a dlivery 2)the system will then process the number of players sending goods to the intended port from the same port of origin 3) a % of those goods will be sent via ai trade ship to the target port 4)players can attack this ai trade ship, and loot the % resources from that ship 5) the player who was sending the resources by delivery is then informed that a % of his goods was stolen by pirates, while the rest is automatically delivered to him example 1)Donald, tim and blackbeard want to send resources from Concepcion to port royal 2) Donald send 120 gold, Tim 400 hemp and blackbeard 1,000 iron ore 3) the system takes a % of that intended material (lets say 10%) and creates an ai vessel carrying 12 gold, 40 hemp and 100 iron ore 5)after a 15 minute wait period, a ship is dispatched from concepcion carrying those materials 4)the ai ship then goes off to port royale, but is attacked along the way and captured 5)Donald, tim and blackbeard are notified that they have lost some of their goods to pirates, while the rest is delivered to them automatically. now, we all know that the system would crash if a trade ship was sent for EVERY individual delivery, however this system means that the number of trade ships being created carrying player good are reduced. We could, instead have a limit of 25 players per trade ship by this system, sending goods at controlled times to prevent a stress upon the server! Therefore, instead of 25 deliveries= 25 individual trade ships (CRASH) we would have 25 players=1 trade ship carrying 10% of their goods. equally, deliveries would be sent at a fixed time regardless of player limit, so if only 10 people send a delivery, after 15 minutes the trade ship will go regardless! This would firstly make piracy have more an impact on the economy without trashing a player's resource collection for the day. it wold also make patrolling much more important and primarily help bring back the piracy element to the game.
  2. Currently I'm seeing market crashes for nearly every single item within Port Royale's resource store, as non-clan players dump their mined resources into the market. before this crash, gold was being sold for almost 500 coins a unit, it is now hovering just around 290. Before the crash, hemp was being sold for around 400, it is now dropping around 250. These prices continue to drop, and I suspect will continue until they reach minimum profit levels due to sheer oversaturation. This is, of course, the inevitable result of having surplus stock and the ability to teleport and concentrate that stock in a single port (your capital), why bother setting up another trader's port in panama when you can just teleport to port royale, buy all that sweet produce at a fraction of the price, wait for a few hours and teleport back? Equally, clan members will be unlikely to create trader cities, merely because they are sending their own produce to their clan crafters free of charge. In reality, the fear I have is not that ship building will be unprofitable, but the resource market will merely fail to be competitive, and the economy will just revolve around teleports and capitals. I would have liked for traders to move around where supply and demand was needed, changing prices accordingly. instead it's become 1)teleport to your crafting areas 2) collect crafted resources 3) teleport back to port royale after some grinding/attacking ai trader ships 3) rinse and repeat there is no free trade economy, there is no dynamic economy, there isn't even any proper piracy! Simply put, changes need to be made that provide incentives to players to expand their trade elsewhere. Either through AI regulated taxation on surplus goods, player controlled taxation of ports or simply making it impossible to transport goods by teleport. Although I will see so many complaints about removing goods teleportation, the simple fact of the matter is that if a trader cannot teleport his goods to port royale, he will deliver it to another more local port, or make a very long journey stacked with goods to port royale to sell. In one fell swoop you have created a dynamic, localised economy with the opportunity for piracy to occur. Yes, it means that it will take longer to trade goods at far distance ports, however the pay off will be greater if those ports fail to possess the resources you wish to sell there yes, it will mean shortages in certain market, however it will also mean opportunities for traders to make larger profits. Right now the teleporting, and automatic delivery, of goods is killing the economy, not resource production.
  3. Really good points! indeed people can stay almost indefinitely in battle after all the ships have been destroyed right now, so maybe have it so that after all the enemy/ has been destroyed/escaped there is a 30 second timer that afterwards shunts you to the combat results screen, followed by another 30 second timer that shunts you to the real world. I would also have it so that friendly vessels cannot capture other friendly ships
  4. After playing for a few months or so, I believe there are some areas of combat that must be altered to prevent the exploitation of systems within the game that provides an unfair advantages to attackers and defenders. Firstly, the combat results menu has slowly become heavily exploited by larger forces. Many national fleets attack a small vessel assaulting a traders brig, then wait within the combat results menu while a second, smaller decoy/bait fleet waits to be attacked. As soon as that is done so, the larger fleet leaves the combat menu and "ganks" the reaction force. I have seen this used once. Not only this, but players leaving or escaping from battles often wait within the combat screen, preventing the chasing down or destruction of fleeing vessels. It has also led to players and clans logging off in the combat results menu, meaning that what would be a complete ahnilation for them is completely negated by a single action. Firstly, I would like to put a timer on combat results, meaning that players cannot "camp" within it. Second, I would also advise that, if a player chooses to log off within the combat screen, he s first brought into the open map, where he must wait two minutes before he can log off, or more if his invulnerability exceeds the two minute log off timer. The next issue is the ganking of missions. It is the process where a small or large fleet joins a player's mission, and as the player in question is unable to call in reinforcements or allies (they are locked out), he precedes to be destroyed. I too would like to advise and alteration to this system. If a player joins a mission against another player then the mission should go from closed to open, allowing everyone to enter for the designated 5 minutes. This can easily be done, as the computer or system can simply monitor the number of ships that start the battle, and switch the status of the combat to open if the starting number changes after the first few seconds of the battle. The final issue I would like to address is the issue of port battle ratings and public joining. As we have seen, the ships being used in battles are getting steadily larger, and as such smaller vessels that join often waste the slot, and severely hamper their allies ability to fight. My solution to this is to split the ports AGAIN, so that we have shallow ports (cutter-snow) medium ports (Cerberus-frigate) and deep ports (constitution to santisma), with the towers changing from 3, to 5, to finally 7. Please feel free to discuss these adaptations to the current system.
  5. Dear Sir, the purposes of this thread was to discuss the ideas surrounding a potential peace treaty, whether to engage in a peace deal of discussing conditions around a peace deal. You have appeared to mis-interpreted my post as an attempt at forcing British diplomacy or representing the nation. I assure you this is not the case. the draft was a mere collection of articles and ideas in which other British and nations may discuss, as well as providing their own ideas of reaching an amiable settlement, if at all. Perhaps a more constructive approach to the issue could be a tad more helpful, such as explaining why you would not want peace, what is wrong with the set articles, what your own articles (in your own, non clan affiliated opinion) would be, and whether or not you personally would even decide to engage in peace settlements in the first place. I understand clans do settle much of the diplomatic matters for the nation, and this is by no means an attempt at a blanket policy or "playing king". However, it may be a bit more democratic to also listen to the concepts and ideas of other players who they themselves are not representing an official clan policy. As we have previously seen within the british and surrounding nation,s policies and diplomacy made without the consultation of the british players has, will and may continue to result in direct breaches in alliances, agreements and peace deals, which has thus tainted to popularity of the British empire as well as other states. Therefore, it would be wise to feel out the general public opinion through threads such as these, before engaging in policies you yourselves know that you may not be unable to keep. For example, please refer to the DRUNK rebellion in Sweden. EDIT: I have realised why my post has been misconstrued as a random peace deal provided a citizen of the British empire, and as such have rectified my main thread to make it clear that this is a public opinion and ideas thread for British citizens concerning the war. I do apologise for making the thread obtuse, and hopefully it has been made clearer that this thread is a heavily role-play centric discussion of the war and future peace deals.
  6. Dear sir It was not my intentions of being insulting, but to create the basis of negotiations in which all concerned could build upon, or at least create an atmosphere for future talks. Nowhere within the treaty is one nations referred to, discussed, or treated in an unpleasant manner, so unless you find the peace treaty in itself a disgusting concept, I fail to see what could be insulting about it
  7. Yes to be clear, this was not a clan affiliated or clan created post. However, As an independent observer I realise that this war would only lead to a pointless level of attrition and misery if we did not realise an understanding that allows limited wars and creates stable policies for the smaller powers. Therefore, I created a draft of terms might firstly end the hostilities, and secondly prove the benevolent intentions of all the powers involved. As we have seen, blobbing or just mass land grabs have quite simply ruined the game for many Spanish, Swedish and French players due to their now inability to fight or govern in foreign policy. They have merely become horses to get kicked by the larger factions, or puppet states. This drafted treaty was so that we could have a much more stable and equal Caribbean for all nations involved, and so that each power could have a guide line as to whether the other powers were acting inappropriately or illegally in the eyes of the laws of nations. This treaty was so that the greater powers could perhaps assist in allowing the lesser powers some level of independence and allow them some fun within the confines of their size and ability. So wars could be fought on even, fair and limited terms without nations feeling that their very existence was at stake, and creating a much more pleasant and limited discourse of territorial acquisition. Again, I was just floating the idea for a long term peace, where each nation knew their place in the Caribbean and could point out their belligerence/illegality of any other nation that crossed the agreed lines. This draft included concessions by the British of territories they had taken, and also gave the other powers grounds to attack if she sought to once again overextend her might, just as it gave ground for the swedes, French, and Spanish grounds to do so as well in the case of being "ganked.", and effectively allowing nations to realise who were the "bad guys" in foreign affairs. To say in spirit that this draft is biased, unfair or generally cowardly is simply wrong; Britain could continue to fight on several front for an endless amount of time. But it would achieve bvery little but the continued misery and upset of all involved. the treaty would guarantee the safety of the lesser powers at the expense of Britain and the greater powers, it would concede land and create natural national boundaries at the expense of Britain, and would call in the balance of power for the Caribbean, at the expense of Britain. To call this a one sides treaty is correct, as it is only Britain conceding anything, and all the other powers gaining something in return. However, it appears that the other greater powers have no intention of allowing the lesser powers some degree of freedom, integrity or stability, and simply wish to crush all those around them for their own personal aims. It appears that other powers, instead of maintaining an honest balance of power, would rather dominate then co-exist , and that talks of "levelling the British tyrant" are mere propaganda in which they themselves wish to use to propel themselves up into the lofty depthys of despotism. It has proven that the other greater powers do not want a balance of power, but want to replace the British as the dominant tyranny of the seas. When you later go on to write on the forums about Britain as the aggressor, the power monger, the "blobber", I would advise you to remember that some individual British citizens did attempt peace and honest diplomacy among all the powers, and it was other nations, in their desire to blob and crush, that continued the wars, at the expense of all involved.
  8. Dear All It has become apparent that the British empire has overreached itself. In doing so, it has attracted the distaste of the surrounding powers, who in their desire to limit the power of one nation to reach an excessive extent, have decisively beaten British forces in the field. Therefore, as a non clan affiliated servant of her majesty the king, and in respect to the rules of warfare and that of decisive battle, I am endeavoured to create a draft of a potential peace treaty to create peace and prosperity among the fellow powers. In doing so, this treaty should firstly develop a fair and honest balance of power, guarantee the independence of the lesser powers, and recognise the sovereignty of the greater powers within the Caribbean. Greater populated powers: USA, Britain, The Nation of Pirates, The Danes Lesser populated Powers: The United Provinces, France, and Sweden Please see below for the draft. The treaty of Saint Nicholas, aimed at ending the extended conflicts between his majesty the king, the Nation of pirates and her allies, while creating a atmosphere of neutral benevolence and free trade, and maintain the balance of power on favourable terms, will concede to the following terms: 1) Great Britain will recognise the sovereignty and rightful claims of the Nation of pirates within the Bahamas, and concedes the borders of the ports of saint Nicholas and Baracoa as the natural frontiers between Britain and the pirate Nation. Port Nicholas and Barracoa will be conceded to the pirates to consolidate the natural frontiers. Britain will recognise the pirate claims to northern Haiti. 2)The Nation of pirates will recognise Britain's Sovereignty and rightful claims of the territories south of these natural borders (Baracoa and saint Nicholas), as well as her claims to the territories surround IL La vache, southern Cuba and Western Haiti, and Jamaica. 3) Britain will concede to the Nation of Danes the eastern provinces of Haiti, with the natural frontier between Britain and the Danish being the port of barrahona, which will be conceded, along with the rest of the eastern Haitian ports, into Danish hands. 4) The Danes will recognise British claims to Haiti west of barrahona, south-eastern Cuba and Jamaica, as well as the pirate claims to the Bahamas. 5) All of the above nations will recognise the independence of the lesser populated powers, their independent ability to pass laws, wage war and engage in foreign diplomacy without the interference of other powers. The greater populated powers will recognise the independent policies of the lesser populated powers, and will not seek to dominate or interfere with their foreign policies. 6)If any greater populated power challenges, threaten or prevents the independent policies of the lesser populated powers, the greater powers are obligated to assist in maintaining the independence of the said lesser powers 7) if any of the greater populated powers, Namely the USA, British, Danes or nation of pirates, breaks, crosses of interferes with the above proscribed natural frontiers, or overexceeds the balance of powers, all powers are obligated in assisting the defender against the aggressor in the maintenance of the natural frontiers through force of arms, with the aim of maintaining the balance of power. 8)all above powers agree to end pvp within national missions, and will promise to ignore or refuse to assist attacks or defences of ports or players that interfere with the natural frontiers, or the sovereignty of the lesser powers. 9)All nations will be allowed to engage in open pvp, commerce raiding and harassment of any and all nations, so far as it does not include joining player missions, or threatens the independence of the lesser powers. 10)The lesser populated powers, those being the Dutch, Swedish, French or Spanish should be permitted to at least maintain three ports aside from their national port. all nations subject to this treaty must assist against any opponent that threatens to reduce a lesser power's port size to below the proscribed number. 11)The attacking of other national fleets are permitted for the purposes of exp gain and financial measures 12)In remedying the continued distaste, dissatisfaction and disaffection of the greater and lesser powers in concerns to the current balance of power, as well as access to trade opportunities abroad, the greater powers will attempt to facilitate port access in foreign lands to the lesser powers through the process of "port hopping", so far as it does not interfere with the natural frontiers or the balance of power. 13) in regards of the continuance of wars between nations, the greater and lesser populated powers and all within the Caribbean, wars of foreign policy may continue so far as that they do not interfere with the natural frontiers, lead to the dominance of the lesser powers or upset the balance of power within the Caribbean, that leads to one nation being far too dominant. This concludes the rough draft of the treaty of saint Nicholas. Although public players may choose to refuse, ignore or override said rules and articles, the clans will attempt to in the very least maintain the articles of the said treaty, which is in itself the essence of equality, honesty and integrity of the co-signing parties. EDIT: Changed the term lesser power to the less populated powers to reduce perceived insults. EDIT2: I made the horrific mistake as to fail to put in that this was an idea thread for the British as to whether or we could find peace, to continue the war or to find different alternatives to the strategic conditions currently facing us. As such, this has appeared to be a random draft created by myself for all to see. After reading the thread this more thoroughly it becomes clear that this mistake has led to the above problems, and as such I would little to iterate that this thread is a public discussion on whether or not the British public would like a peace deal, what sort of peace deal they would like, and what their opinions on the surrounding nations are at this time. To all that have read this article, I apologise profusely in regards to the misconstrued intent of its perceived contents, and can hopefully be chalked down to over-zealous role play.
  9. Unfortunately our fleets were not in a position to respond to the attacks due to the pirate incursions in saint Nicholas and Baracoa. It would have taken us too many hours to respond to support you and unfortunately it was too late. In the long run once we get our borders solidified and saint Nicholas stable hopefully we can send a British fleet to a nearby free port near your capital and help as an expeditionary force. However as it stands it will take a lot of time to prepare for that campaign. However, I assure you that as long as no other campaigns open up in panama or the US we may see a greater British intervention against the Danes. Right now, see yourself as Vichy France, the unwilling but for now allied partners to Denmark, or the confederation of the rhine against napoleon. However, in time we will be able to liberate you, but for now keep in cordial but unhelpful terms with the Danes. When the time comes, switch to our side to fight against them in a naval Leipzig! current situation before a full assistance can be provided (in my opinion)] -Pirates are halted in saint Nicholas and the assaults subside (potential peace deal?) -Dutch keep up our alliance in panama and don't open another front (maybe they can also help liberate the swedes? ) -The US don't open up another front to the west -The Spanish reach a peace deal or at least hold off high level offensives If most (not all) of these conditions are met we should have no problem sending an expeditionary fleet to help you. But we really need the pirates to come to terms and that will free a TON of ships to help. I also see a lot of heat against our expansion. I understand you all wish to spread out and open the market up, and therefore it may be wise for the clans to sit down and talk about allowing the swedes and French to cap ports an hour away and "leapfrog" to the other side of the map. We retake the old ports and you can use the new set of ports on the other side of the Caribbean. That way maybe you will feel less hemmed in, and maybe allow you to migrate to safer waters
  10. It's balance of power politics. A longstanding British tradition! To stay at the top, we make sure other nations are large enough to fight and limit each other's power through competition, attacking any nation that gains an upper hand over other surrounding nations and preventing a counter blob from appearing to challenge us. You may argue that this is a fairly unpleasant form of politics, but doing business this way keeps the smaller nations in game, the larger nations in check and the british at the top. It also means that we won't fully crush an opposing nation, as it simply won't work for us in the long term (vendettas dies hard, as shown in the dutch, French and Swedish wars). It's also a fairly rational politic, we can't over advance a certain sector or the other nations will turn on us and we will over-extend, and it keeps our national diplomacy fairly rational as it doesn't lead to ridiculous demands (no point dominating another nation when we need it to keep a sector in check). It has led to fair diplomacy with the dutch, and a somewhat sympathetic diplomacy towards the Spanish, even though nearly all clans agree that diplomatic talks with them are difficult to say the least. Of course, not all clans abide by this policy, and pubbers may wish to expand on their own. However, it is unlikely that the British will truly blob the map as it's geographic position is simply too vulnerable to coalition agreements. Instead, you should really be much more worried about the pirates; they may be allying with you now, but once they blob enough they will turn unto their former allies. To the swedes and the French, I say time is on your side; have talks with the british and the dutch while either playing an alt account on a different faction or simply building up reserve third rates until an co-operative campaign can be reached. It can be made, as the british clans in panama made it with the dutch clans, and we even had british ships blockading Spanish ports side by side with dutch vessels. That means in theory you can have british fleets drive over to the Swedish capital and help defending outside enemy ports while you capture them. If you make peace now, you may as well be a Danish vassal state, and there are still plenty of options to consider before you make peace agreements that will affect your nation in the long run.
  11. I highly recommend that the swedes and the French continue to fight the Danes and ally together. The reason the danes want peace is so they cans secure one of their flanks and push back into Haiti. They know full well that the British have now a large number of clans to spare after kicking out the Spanish from Panama, and don't want to be sandwiched on a duel front when hostilities kick off. They will use their alliance with the pirates to reinforce that front, and may tip the sdcales if they end the Swedish wars of attrition. If you continue to fight and push on the eastern front, they will be forced to choose to either surrender Haiti or hold onto their new acquisitions IE your lands. In any case, they will lose ground and ships in the process. The worst case scenario for you is to have a Carthaginian peace and basically limp on without any ports, while the Danes shift fronts. Now, it is very unlikely the British will ever try to push past the Danish capital, and so really it is in both the French and the Swedish interest to assist one another against the Danes, as long as it doesn't extend to fighting the Dutch, who are currently allied to the British in Panama. I am not privy to clan missions or aims, and from personal observation personally think that the British are currently focussed on the American and pirate fronts to really create a large campaign fleet in such a short time. However it may be wise to check with the British clans who will wish to restore the balance of power in the east. Just my two centd
  12. This really isn't fair for the British After spending literally a month waging a campaign down south in panama to capture ports, losing ships, time and spending effort waiting in the early hours of the morning to attack ports due to their timers, after fighting almost 40-50 Spanish players every time and effectively earning our victories there, it appears we are about to have all that effort get thrown out the window. The simple fact of the matter is that the Spanish failed at diplomacy with the British and with the Americans, either refusing terms or attacking their ports. The simple fact of the matter is that they clans then abandoned their own capital, leaving both their recruitment base and reinforcements, to set up a base in panama. This base was also strategically poor as it left the Spanish to literally get pushed in both sides by the Dutch and the British. They allowed the loss of their own ports. The simple fact of the matter is that the Spanish lost in panama due to combined arms and teamwork; we brits had to work hard with the dutch to destroy those southern ports against fairly equal numbers. The simple fact of the matter is that the Spanish lost by battles and not by mechanics; they lost their third rates, constitutions and other heavier vessels and therefore could not continue the fight. There was no foul play in taking or losing those vessels. The simple fact of the matter is that both the British and Spanish abused their port timers, with on one occasions my clan having to wake up at 2AM in the morning to capture a port. The simple fact of the matter is that the Spanish clans joined a European sever when they do not live in Europe of follow European time, that is their own fault. The simple fact of the matter is that this move effectively negates any point of strategy; why should I, or any of my nation bother waging successful offensive when my opponents bad actions will simply be condoned and assisted by the developers? If my clan was this badly beaten I would not go to the forums and demand my opponents work be effectively made invalid. This sets a bad precedent, and I hope all nations become aware that eventually this form of intervention will also affect them later on.
  13. If only all shipwrights were equally as far! After watching discount snows as well as crafted basic snows being sold at almost 200k, I tend to be wary when I hear calls to remove NPC base prices!
  14. For the economy I would really like lord protectors to be able to: Sell their city ownership (sell the right to the city/town) Set their cities taxes and tariffs set city production fees individually set banned good/s contraband per item allow donations to a lord protector's city Creation of a Lord protector's bank, in which the city owners can loan cash to players in return for interest invest cash into defense, patrols etc etc
×
×
  • Create New...