Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Fesevoa

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Fesevoa

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I'm not at home right now, but when I get a chance I will tonight. I know there is a timezone difference though between the US eastcoast the where the devs are so I wanted to try to put something out when they could see it today.
  2. I don't believe anyone has said, nor the patch notes said, that labor hours are unique to each building. If that's how things are that's great, but if not, that's how I believe it should be. Btw, what I proposed is basically how PoTBS had their production buildings, and they had a great economic system.
  3. I propose this change to labor hours. - There will no longer be a general labor hour pool, instead, each building would have its own labor hour pool, the max amount of which could be increased by building level and also crafting level. (Alternatively, instead of increasing labor hour pools, perhaps increased level could increase production building cap. Base 5, +1 at Level 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. Cap'd at 10 buildings for a level 50 crafter.) - Labor hours would regenerate per building on a 1/24th per real hour basis (I believe this is how it currently works for the general pool). - Production of resources, parts, and ships have a labor cost and a click cost in gold. - The reason for this is that it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that if you have mines, plantations, and shipyards scattered around in several locations, even if they were in the same port, it would not be the case that you had the same humans providing labor to all your facilities. You would have different workers at all your different building. Each labor force being able to produce 24 hours worth of work. - This will allow more flexible production. It doesn't make sense if someone has their workers in a mine produce iron ore for a day that their shipyard becomes idle.
  4. Looks good! Now with production buildings in, is the "Port Royal" style supply of resources out?
  5. We won't be going anywhere. I believe Long Term, the devs need to make a choice - for realism or balance. Having the Danish and Swedish capitals on top of each other was bound to create fated enemies, especially if the Swedish were going to be allied with the French. 8 Nations, some of which naturally get some player preference may be too much, and spreads the groups too thin, even on a giant map like this. I believe either the nations need to be scaled down to 4-5 (British, French, Spanish, Pirate, and maybe US since its popular and draws people to the game), or evenly spread out all the nations. This, coupled with new Port Battle mechanics, a way to interface with captured ports, and a long term idea of what the "campaigns" look like will be a recipe for success for this game.
  6. Before this happened to Sweden I voiced my opinion this was a problem when it was happening to Spain. I hope if anything comes from this it is that we for the most part, unanimously agree that the Port Battle conquest system is deeply flawed and needs priority discussion.
  7. You were specifically told we were busy and could not talk at the time as we were having our own meeting. You're not expected to come crawling to us, nor should you expect us to come crawling to you.
  8. That was not an offer, you said what you wanted and set your own time.
  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvgKLB4k8Fs Yogscast Duncan (~2 million subscribers) just posted a video of their main cast members playing Naval Action. They do acknowledge that it is early access, but clearly were not sure how certain things worked. At the end they said they intend to release more Naval Action videos. Yogscast Duncan's videos sometimes reach 100-200,000 views, so even if 1 or 2% of they viewers became interested, that's a pretty significant population boost to the game. Update - Here is their follow up video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgm_oB9r9TY
  10. Yes, admin has said the map (port ownership) will be reset 1 or 2 times, and then 1 more time before full game release.
  11. All nations starting level sounds good, but have you considered spreading out the capitals? Nations like US, Spain, Great Brittan, and Dutch can expand out fairly easily. Swedish, Dane, and French are right on top of each other and it would be hard to expand without being on top of someone's capital. Even if its not historical, it might be better for long term game balance to spread out the capitals.
  12. I think the underpop / timezone situation is a broad issue. Naturally larger territories will be harder to hold on to, and would require more people to defend, so that makes sense. Unfortunately on the scale of the map I don't think there are enough players to adequately defend areas that may take 30 minutes to 3 hours to sail to (not accounting for teleporting to outposts, but which then require sailing Back from or not playing while you wait for the teleport to refresh). Timezone population differences make this worse because not only may it be difficult to reach farther ports to defend, there may simply not enough players to defend it. Adding to the fact that the significantly under populated nations may feel no other option in an unwinnable situation than to stop playing, which is not good for the game. If it is feasible, merging the servers (PvP&PvP) may be the best solution. Many people who play on PvP One may be in the US timezone because it was, and to an extent still is, The server for PvP. Players who want to PvP will likely go where the players are. Any suggestions on how to fix this needs to take into account what the long term state of the open world and Nation vs Nation is. In POTBS when a nation had enough points they "Won", got a reward, and all the ports reset ownership. In EVE, player organizations rise and fall, gain and lose all their territory, but players can just change corp's or alliances. This game is stuck in between, where (as far as I know) there is no mass reset of ports if a side "wins". You can't enter ports owned by other nations like POTBS had (which allowed trade and operation of production buildings, but often with an imposed high tax by the owning nation; and you can't easily change sides like in EVE. This will have to be addressed in some way. As far as port battles are concerned, there must be a better way than waiting around to see IF a port is going to be attacked. The games scale and mechanics don't mix well with dropping what you're doing to go defend a port on a moments notice that may take an hour to get to while the enemy was ready and likely started already. Both EVE and POTBS had scheduled battles. You could put ports or stations into contention, and both sides would know when there would have to be a fight for it. I think this game will need something like that as well, with perhaps a limit on the number of active attacks. (If I recall in POTBS a nation could have 2 attacks active at any given time?) Finally in regards to underpop bonuses, it goes back to whats the big picture to conquest in this game. Underpop nations by % of server pop perhaps could get bonuses to gold rewards (think lower cost of upkeep due to smaller territory, can afford larger bounties), more production building slots, some kind of admiralty compensation in some form, etc. This game has great potential and this is what early access is for. Hopefully we can find good solutions to these issues.
  13. That's good to know, leads to a second question though, is there a way to check what the "max port price" is?
  14. Looking forward to Production Buildings, hopefully they come soon. And I think cool down on repairs is a good idea. I've been in battles before where they can get spread out and spend 20 minutes trying to sail to my other friends in an engagement that is still going on. Didn't make sense that my crew would just be idling about, not repairing anything.
×
×
  • Create New...