Fargo
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fargo
-
-
2 hours ago, Remus said:
I don't think labour is well balanced - but this isn't a disagreement, merely semantics. I think labour is poorly balanced. but I do think that most players do use all their labour. And I then use this to make shortcuts in my analysis - perfectly safely because if players don't use all their labour, the situation is even worse.In short, using labour does not sink enough gold.
Players won't always use all their labour if they don't have to. Why should they? And why should they have to? I mean, I will because I like that part of gameplay, But at the moment - despite being an active crafter - I use a small fraction of my resource buildings because the balance (with labour hours) is such that I don't need to. In a different scenario I might be anxiously getting every last twig out of my forests but not need to worry too much about labour hours; a third scenario might have me starved of gold; in a fourth my crafting capacity might be limited by the amount of real life time I need to spend hauling. None of these is wrong (though some are more disagreeable than others)
Ofcourse its a disagreement, because your method assumes that labour is balanced.
Its another big claim to say that people refuse to use their LH, because they dont want to take 3 minutes each day to produce basic stuff. This is not sensible and nonsense to consider for balancing. If it would be much effort, ok, but it is not.
"labour does not sink enough gold" I mean just tell me how you would improve balancing based on that statement. How would you know if you have to decrease the labour cost for resources, if you have to increase the gold cost, or if you have to increase the general labour generation?! I dont think you can, because youre missing a reference point.
Labour in general does not sink anything. The only connection between labour and gold balancing is that both are based on the amount of consumption goods that needs to be replaced. Another example. Assume we change the labour distribution and resources dont require labour anymore. Now resources are only restricted by gold and building capacities. If there was a gold-labour connection before, suddenly it disappeared?!
2 hours ago, Remus said:No. That is the model that PotBS used. Something like two months of labour hours to make a 2-dura first rate, but a run of the mill 3 dura heavy frigate could be turned out in a day, and small frigates and PvP hunting ships built quicker still. But Naval Action has gone for a more linear approach, meaning that even small frigates take over two days to make. Restrict production of elite ships by all means but right now the stranglehold applies to light frigates.too. This is a PvP ship combat game, but it isn't much fun if all you can afford to lose is a Brig.
Again, we are talking about 5 dura ships each 2 days. Look at the facts instead of claiming what you believe: 1) People are able to stack hundreds of best quality ships. 2) Over two years it was no problem that ships took too long to craft. 3) With stiffness-speed rng, people could afford to throw away the trash ships. Ship cost was basically twice as high, and we had this for a very long time.
In general you cant compare those games directly, unless the combat speed is similar (=ship lifetime).
-
Why not keep it simple?! You want to set 100k bounty, you pay 100k at the bounty board, you might pay 10% fee to the bounty office, sinking that person grants 100k.
Using alts would only transfer gold between your chars.
The fee would be a small additional gold sink.
Setting a minimum bounty would prevent bounty spamming.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, NeeRo said:
Its just an idea, the points you make are also very good. I just think there needs to be something to stop inflation and I dont really care what it is.
Well, you didnt made that clear looking at the topic name and your first post;)
1 hour ago, NeeRo said:I want ships with different attributes on top of their stats. Means if you craft a Live Oak BS Strong hull consti you always get that ship + 3 random extra attributes (2% speed, 1cm more thickness, 5 more morale for boarding, etc...).
And in that way rng would be fine (probably you shouldnt make speed a random attribute). Rng for minor boni is no problem at all. The problem is crafting a fir or teak ship that relies on speed, when speed is based on rng.
But to be a gold sink, rng needs to generate ships that get thrown away. Either rng is fair and balanced, or its a money sink. One excludes the other.
-
2 hours ago, Remus said:
I can tell, but only because we know (becasue of the high price paid for labour contracts) that at the moment labour hours are a limiting factor. If we were in the situation that 50 crafters could supply the need for 2000 players then you are right, we would need to know how many labour hours were actually being used. But right now I can assume everyone is using all their labour hours, farming all their resources or buying off NPCs in the shop (for almost exactly the same price - certainly this is what I find when I buy from NPCs). It seems a l'Ocean Gold, Live Oak Build Strength sinks the most gold per LH day at 70000, and I say it isn't enough. You might now say that only 1500 rather than 2000 players actually use all their labour, and I say, well, that makes the situation worse.
I think i found the major missunderstanding causing this discussion. As i said, you assume that labour is well balanced already. But you cant tell that just because people are using all their labour. People would always do this, until gold becomes a limiting factor. You could have high gold inflation and labour inflation at the same time, and you wouldnt notice it with your method. All you can tell is about limiting factors.
My question is not how much people use their labour to transform gold inflation into resource inflation. The question is how much labour do 2000 people need to generate, to supply themselfes with all consumption goods. When i can answer this, i will know the amount of goods that needs to be replaced.
2 hours ago, Remus said:I disagree. I suspect that more ships are made for players to simply to add to their fleets or to replace ships they no longer want than are made to replace actual sunk ships. If you only look at sunk ships, you are missing half the picture.
When i say sunk, i mean lost, or needs to be replaced. If you throw away an old ship, well its not technically sunk, but the result is the same. It needs to be replaced. "The major money sink is defined by all consumption goods that need to be replaced." Ships that you buy but never use for example are no consumption goods.
3 hours ago, Remus said:But labour hours fall into a different category. They form a hard cap on production, on the number of ships being made.
3 hours ago, Remus said:My 50 players doing all the crafting for 2000 players is rather extrreme, but we must never be at the position where 2000 players cannot make the ships that 2000 players want (want, not need - there should be no 'need' in a game) however hard they grind, haul, conquer, scavenge or anything else the game offers that makes players work for their goodies. I'd much rather 50 players being able to meet all the needs of 2000 than needing 2001, or even 2000 where 500 of them really, really don't want to do crafitng.
Well, of course it should be about needs. If it was about player wishes, they would take everything and for free. Balancing based on player wishes would be horrible. The need definition could exclude first rates for example, so by pure labour balancing those ships become limited. Your PB fleets would run out of ships if your nation would produce mostly first rates.
And that is no hard cap on production numbers, it is a cap for production capacity. You still can supply the same number of ships, but 3rd and second rates instead of first rates.
-
11 hours ago, Remus said:
I think we must be playing different games. I'd be happy enough if each playing session gave me three battles, one I won, one I escaped from and one I lost. Right now I'm levelling, checking out Testbed, spending time looking at game mechanics and such like, so I'm not playing quite as I would normally, but this whole game is about ship combat, and to my mind ship combat means someone losing a ship.
Thats why we need to talk about average numbers. You dont know them, neither do i. But playing since steam release i have a good idea of ship lifetimes.
11 hours ago, Remus said:Not at all. Two things:
- The X amount of labour does not need to be generated by all 2000 players. It would be an entirely satisfactory economy if only 50 dedicated crafters generated the X amount of labour and everyone else let theirs go to waste. What really does not work though if it needs 2500 players to generate the labour to supply 2000 players with ships.
- Irrespective of how many people the X amount of labour is generated by, it should sink perhaps 75% of all the gold generated by those 2k players each day. I might have the percentage wrong, but 75% is closer to the mark than the perhaps 20% it is now. It cannot be 100% because gold disappears from circulation, either by hoarding (which pretty much everyone does, to some degree) or players leaving the game taking their gold with them. In an ideal world, the amount of gold in circulation divided by the number of active players should remain more or less constant over time.
1. Its bad to have people generating much more labour than needed, because this makes it neglectable. Labour inflation if you want so, it would loose all value. Labour is distributed to promote player interactions, to not have 50 crafters doin all by themselfe. Its hard to say what numbers would be best and i dont claim to know that saying "roughly". When 2500 e.g. is for mostly first rates, people would use some more second rates when labour becomes limitating, maybe thats not too bad.
2. Only labour used to produce resources sinks money. All material crafting and building the final ships doesnt. Ofcourse about 75% of the generated gold should be sunk, but labour has nothing to do with this! Independent from how much labour is needed for resource production, the production cost can be adjusted how you want it to be.
11 hours ago, Remus said:It is a mistake to think of a ship (or anything else) having an intrinsic value. It is also a mistake to think of an individual player's gold acquisitions and spending. I might get 10 gold by capturing an NPC trader and taking its goods. If I sell this to the shop I have brought 10 new gold pieces into the economy, which needs to be sunk somehow so as not to cause inflation. If, on the other hand, I sold the cargo to another player, I would still have 10 gold myself, but no new gold will have entered the economy and no new gold sink is needed.
I always talk about average numbers and this was just a very simplified example. We need to look at the whole thing. When i say 10 gold is gained on average, this includes every source of income and every kind of player. You might earn 15 gold one day and 5 the other, but seen over some time 10 gold would be realistic. Maybe now the example explains it for you.
When you capture a trader you bring resources into economy, which have a certain gold value. If you sell to a player, then he does not need to harvest those resources from the npc and therefore no new gold entered economy, but less gold is going to leave. The effect is the same.
11 hours ago, Remus said:The ship I am sailing in could be sunk in battle (no new gold enters the economy), captured or traded to another player (no new gold for this transaction), listed in the shop (some gold sunk), sold in the shop (new gold into economy) or broken for parts (no new gold). The subesequent owner, if there is one, has the same options. This is why whenever I refer to sunk gold it is at the point the gold passes out of the game. Crafters harvesting oak sink gold. Crafters listing ships in the shop sink gold. Players buying ships from NPC sellers in the shop sink gold. Players buying ships from crafters do not sink gold and players sinking ships don't sink gold either, for the gold was lost to the economy when the ship was made.
You need to look at the whole prozess. Harvesting resources removes gold, but only because someone sunk those resources previously. The amount of ships sunk defines the major money sink.
11 hours ago, Remus said:To me, this says much the same as I was saying, that there is a relationship between gold costs and labour costs.
Ofcourse there is a relationship, because seen in days of income and days to craft, balancing would be the same. When Z days of labour are sunk in Z days also Z days of gold income needs to be sunk in Z days. But thats not helpful not knowing Z.
The point is that you cant tell about balancing/inflation without knowing ship lifetimes. You are assuming that all resources bought are sunk, that ship lifetime equals crafting time, that labour is perfectly balanced already. But if you would know the perfect balancing for labour, you would know the amount of ships sunk. Its a contradiction in itself.
You might say that resources produced even without demand are a money sink, but thats not true. As long as labour is not limiting, gold inflation partly becomes resource inflation, but that doesnt make anything better.
-
3 hours ago, Remus said:
My reply was to a comment which I took - perhaps incorrectly - to be a complaint by a combat-orientated player that they had to spend time crafting. Personally I don't think players should be forced to craft, but at the moment everyone is because of the severe restrictions on labour hours.
Well you claimed that crafting takes too long, but thats not the case. In general it makes no sense to look at actual broken economy btw.
3 hours ago, Remus said:Two days for a light frigate might well be fine if everyone makes good use of their labour hours, but this doesn't make it right. PotBS did many things wrong but construction times weren't far off, in my opinion. What would you say the equivalent ship is to a Surprise? A Raa, perhaps? Well, a Raa took 0.37 days; a Raa Mastercraft 0.5 days.
Be careful not to mix up stuff. 5 dura ship = 5 ships in 2 days = 0,4 days/ship. The question is if you can compare the combat speed in those games. In NA it takes quite some time to loose a ship, 5 dura ships not rarely lasted for weeks and longer.
3 hours ago, Remus said:But - and I really cannot emphasise this enough - labour is of vital importance to gold balancing.
No, its not. Look, the balancing of labour cost and generation/player needs to make sure that players can supply themselfe. When X amount of labour is sunk (ships+kits) by 2k players each day, 2k players need to generate roughly X amount of labour each day. This is seperate and independent from gold balancing.
Assume you earn 10 gold, and you sink a ship worth 8 gold (resource value) each day. Balancing is fine and independent from labour balancing. Labour in this case just needs to make sure that your not limited to craft the one ship you need each day. Assume you could craft 100 ships each day, thats a possible money sink of 800 gold/day. 1) This is not important and says nothing about inflation, because you only stack 2 gold each day. 2) The gold wouldnt be sunk, until the 100 ships you crafted are lost. Its doesnt matter if you stack gold, or items of the same value that can be traded back into gold.
Lets look at your example. A ship costs/sinks 1 mio., thats the pure resource value that goes to npcs. You earn 1 mio in a few hours, lets say one day of playtime, so 1mio/day. The ship uses 10 days of LH. This alone doesnt tell much, because its important to know the lifetime for that ship. If you sink a ship each 10 days, labour balancing would be fine, but gold rewards are 10 times too high/ ship cost 10 times too low. If you sink a ship each day, gold balancing would be fine, but either labour cost too high, or labour generation too low.
-
2 hours ago, Remus said:
Yes, true, but the main reason everyone has to get involved in running the economy is because everything takes so long to make. I'm crafting level 26 and I can basically make one gold fifth-rate every 2 days. I've got the materials for more and I'd happily do more hauling, but I'm always stuck for hours. If I bought LCs, I'd need 2 a day to double production and at 500k each I'd have to charge about 3 million for a Surprise to make it worthwhile.
One golden 5th equals 5 golden 5th rate duras each 2 days, what seems more than enough. Labour has nothing to do with gold balancing, the high labour value we are used to is a result, not a cause of rising prices/inflation.
2 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:Well, rng is one option.
But only if its rng between "good" and "trash" and therefore affecting ship cost (50% trash doubles the cost on average). Its the cost that matters, rng is just a very stupid way to increase it. Why not just increase the cost directly instead?! Its an option, but not sensible. We saw the results of trash ships swarming the market, generating fake supply.
2 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:When HC players grind 12 hours per day, that will create money. We have to make everything to be very expensive to counter this. At the same time casual players are suffering because they cannot ever play that much -> Casuals cannot ever own more expensive things.
No we dont. As i said, all we need is something valuable, but not necessary. Hardcore players would have faster access to lets say expensive second and first rates, but the average player wont suffer while the common PB ships are 3rd rates. It would only take them longer to sail a first rate from time to time, but nothing is restricting them to do PBs in competetive ships at any time.
Its possible that 90% of 2k players on a server are HC grinders and 10% casual players would suffer from average balancing, but 1) its highly unlikely, 2) it would be a successfull game.
-
1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:
Hard question, but I have to agree that inflation could be our enemy in the future. Something else than ships that we could randomize?
Where is the connection between inflation and rng?!
To reduce inflation the first step is resonable balancing between gold rewards and ship cost + further costs.
To control inflation just give people something expensive to buy/craft, that is valuable, but not necessary to play. This can be higher quality ships (only providing minor boni), first+second rates (not necessary in a 3rd rate meta), one specific ship of each class, or simply paints and marks.
-
1
-
-
The problem with rng as a money sink is, that by definition some rng outcomes need to be so bad, that ships become trash and get thrown away. Because if potential trash ships would be bought and used and therefore reduced demand, not more ships would need to be crafted than before.
-
I think its the right decision not to do artificial PVE zones.
1) How would you obtain a healthy balance between PVE and PVP guys on a mixed server? On the long term players would probably split up on two servers again, just named server 1 and 2 instead of PVP and PVE. The PVE zone would become more and more redundant for both servers.
2) I like both PVE and PVP and probably the majority of players does so. This would mean that PVP is more of a mixed PVP/PVE server nevertheless. I never had problems doing relaxed PVE alone or with friends on pvp3/pvp1. When i think about it i did way more PVE than PVP. The point of risk free afk trading, no need to comment...
3) If you want to do something for players avoiding PVP, do it in a natural way. For example secure the inside of friendly waters, increase the distance of free ports and capitals e.g. and dont force people to do missions in conquest areas. When basically PVE is secured by PVP, thats automatically leading to balancing/keeps the PVE guys distributed.
4) PVE only wont work on the long run, but if people like to stack infinite wealth and fill all their docks with meaningless ships, let them do it. If enough people play to keep this server up, its fine. If not enough people play, its probably not worth dealing with, we cant please the needs of everyone. New missions and better AI will be great for everyone, but to make pure PVE servers work you would need far more than that.
-
1 hour ago, Hethwill said:
The more trees you cut the faster a forest gets depleted.
The more grunts you have mining the faster the veins dry out.
There's a lot, and I mean a lot, of information regarding a lot of particular events in every single region we play with.
Entire settlements were abandoned due to soil being completely messed due to intensive sugar crops for example.
Resources can be modeled dynamically without being strictly coded as a "punish/reward" mechanic but rather a deck of events that may be based on RL events.
So what is the problem is we have a Silver shortage !? Apart from crying on forum that is. It could be a game event thing.
Like this ideas.
Just make it the more buildings of the same type produce in one port, the lower the production rate becomes. Maybe -5% each 10 buildings and -30% at max, so ports never become useless, but people are rewarded to craft in further ports, in general owning further ports gets rewarded.
Events would be nice, just be careful with shortages. A storm destroying buildings, creatures reducing production rates, revolts increasing production costs, all fine, but a silver port suddenly becoming useless could restrict ship production. Its not realistic, but ship supply needs to be granted at any point.
1 hour ago, rediii said:Would be the wrong way. If a nation gets bigger it has to get some disadvantages to avoid snowballing.
Yeah, but in the same way you should be rewarded somehow. There should be a cap of course, maybe +-15% for production cost. Right now sweden might be at +5%, brits at -10%. Nothing to worry about.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
Wars should inflate taxes. Wars should influence availability of resources.
That alone is something worth looking to when thinking economy/political.
Could just depend on the amount of ports. The more ports you own, the lower the taxes+production costs/rates. Maybe its possible to track the number of ships sunk relative to the palyerbase of each nation instead. We need to keep it simple, dynamic taxes (that also cant be avoided unless you smuggle) would be fun to think about etc., but it probably would never make it in the game.
BOT: I guess this just became redundant
#wipehype
-
15 minutes ago, sruPL said:
You can't pump money out, centrally planned economy or controlling the players funds is the worst idea ever that never worked. Deflation is yet another problem that might be caused by over-balancing economy too much. For the proper balancing economy this game needs massive changes that would take months. EVE has economy experts hired that analyze the market and balance it as far as I know. Lots of charts, diagrams, statistics and data tables presenting the whole game economy.
Of course you can, read my proposal. Just give people something meaningful to use the money for, thats a common measure to reduce inflation.
Massive changes? We had a simple economy for about two years and inflation wasnt a noticable problem. We need something that is working/fun, it doesnt need to be perfect.
26 minutes ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:2. No moneysink. Most games have stuff like horses or armor which are very expensive and hard to get (mostly through RNG dropchance with different attributes). Will probably be even worse after the durability changes.
Each ship sinking removes money equal to its resource production value out of the game, thats about 25k for a 5th rate dura up to 300k for a first rate. Crew and repair cost in addition. Basically everything you use is a consumption good and therefore a potential money sink.
24 minutes ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:And just to put that in perspective: Doing a trade run between Gustavia and Christansted gives you 2 million gold. Doing a mission in contrast brings you maybe 50k?
18 minutes ago, rediii said:tradegoods should be removed. They are just items to print money without pricechanges by players because the market is full.
Yes, no need for those items, but with proper balancing even this would be no problem. Its no matter how many different income sources there are, if each on provides roughly the same amount of money per time spend.
-
4 hours ago, Krists said:
Inflation = NPC
Too much bots who print money
1 hour ago, sruRUS said:Inflation is not only caused by NPC, inflation is caused by infinite source of gold. We receive gold from PvP fights, from missions (you don't pay for ammo / crew salary), from production of resources (you don't pay for the workers in the production buildings). Actually NPC can be coded in the way to not cause any inflation, as long as they remain the same amount of goods they transport from A to B and as long as have their buildings, they need to pay for everything, they got their balance etc. In Port Royale game, every NPC is like a players. They have their sum of gold, buildings, ships that they need to purchase and they trade goods. Buy from port, sell in other or produce goods in production buildings.
What NPCs do you mean, we dont have NPCs that want to act similar to players. NA has players instead, much better, mostly more intelligent and easier to code.
We dont receive gold from resource production, thats actually the biggest money sink we have. If there are npcs buying resources for fixed margins its something different, but all resources needed for crafting are produced for money that flows out of the game. On the other side the npc providing your combat rewards is printing money, but thats it.
Nothing wrong with that as long as the balancing isnt too bad. Bad balancing would cause in/deflation, but even good balancing would result in slow inflation. What we saw is that changes can enable exploits that change balancing/cause inflation super fast.
This is not ment to discuss the causes of inflation, but ideas to control it and to pump money out of eco right now.
-
Just a small suggestion while an asset wipe is probably not going to happen in the near future.
When introducing the admiralty store, expand it and make all marks, paints, etc. availiable for gold in addition. Appropriately expensive ofcourse... people would spend millions just for paints. Prices might need adjustment when hyperinflation decreases, but just that would be a success.
Ofcourse this would only affect the time until a full asset wipe is going to happen, but the effort should be very little. You could also test how good an inflation control based on those items would work with future inflation in mind (after release wipes are no option anymore). In addition people would have more opportunities to test the new admiralty items now.
Why reward exploiters? There is no other way, but all rewards are consumables and will be gone after some time nevertheless.
Why is inflation so bad, even if money exploits get fixed? Unless you raise all fixed npc prices and rewards, money wont recover its value. When items become expensive, only the labour value is rising. But labour is neglectable, because it increases your income in the same way. To show the dimension: If you own 100mio gold, thats currently worth the resource value of 5000 golden 5th rate duras. 5000 ships, even when you pvp much and loose a ship each day, thats 13 years of potential gameplay stored! The problem with inflation in general: When money looses meaning, so does everything directly related to it: Economy, trading, combat rewards, crew and repair cost. And so does the gameplay directly related to those.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Rebel Witch said:
they already tried making them harder and more expensive to build, that wont solve the problem, it will just take longer until everyone is in 1st rates.
Expensive 1st rates could solve the problem, but ofcourse only when you wipe the existing first rate meta. E.g. assumed that 1000 total players sink 80 port battle ships each day, its simple math to set the cost so that players are not able to keep up full first rate supply with the amount of LH availiable.
Another solution is to change the rank distribution that depends on XP gain, total XP and average total playtime. If you need on average 50 hours for max rank, but the average NA player plays about 300 total hours, about 85% would play on max rank at any time. Change it back to 100 hours and it becomes 65%.
No need for artificial limitations.
-
Mods as consumption goods would add more to economy and it wouldnt require much programming work. But i I dont really care how these boni get on the ship, if just some major balancing work would be done.
Think about what mods currently do. Depending on my ship purpose i dont have to make any decisions about my mods. They only make ships in general more powerful. This adds nothing in terms of additional gameplay to the game. OW combat ships are always the same, so are PB ships and boarding ships. Currently mods are only an annoying necessity needed to not sail with major disadvantages. "The best" mod setup is not allowed to exist to make this an interesting feature.
E.g. i would remove boarding mods completely that encorage people to skip the combat part. A boarding ship should never be a pure boarding ship, it should be trimmed for killing the enemy crew and raking, but still capably of doing anything else. Change boarding mods to improve manouverability, acceleration rates, use of grape shot, tacking ability, etc. Then they are not boarding specific, providing more options for all type of ships. Instead of always the same very specific ships we could have more diversity inbetween, that should be the goal. If you can use your personal allround ship for multiple purposes you also dont need multiple specific ships when boni become permanent, saving time/gold without limiting gameplay options.
Sorry for offtopic.
-
In theory your proposal would work if costs dont differ. But refusing realism and removing everything exiting about shipbuilding, only for a psychologically reason that might not mean something at all?! Warcraft has no economy btw.
I dont get your point against 1 dura. Again, there is no cost/effort difference (per dura) between 1 and 10 dura if set up correctly. Realism has nothing to do with hardcore here. We could paint the sea yellow for the same reasoning.
Why should hulks i cannot use make me stay in the game in case i get wiped?! This is far-fetched and has nothing to do with durabilities. In case a nation gets wiped there needs to be a general solution. Even free ships wouldnt keep people in the nation in a situation like this, that in general is probably very unlikely to happen after we got alliances.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, jodgi said:
Whenever 1 dura ships have been tested they have been avoided by players after the new ship curiosity has been quenched. Look at the Admin quote in my sig, that came after they reviewed numbers after a 1-dura test. Whatever we say about it our actions betrayed that we didn't like the idea of 1-dura ships.
Guys, youre ignoring the same points again and again. One dura can only work/be fun, when you change the mod system and economy with it. Thats what we are talking about. Just randomly changing duras wont work, thats what your testing proofed. If you want to help, tell us why one dura shouldnt work against this background. Your post... basically contains nothing.
One dura would on one hand push your income, you could sell captured ships on the market/use them. On the other hand ships become cheaper for you. 2-5 times more ships on the market plus captured ships would mean much more competition. Players need to buy ships more often means more player interaction, what in general makes this game fun.
4 minutes ago, jodgi said:Tell you what, if the builders are able and willing to provide even the best stuff to the fighters at a rate the fighters are able to pay then I'm totally onboard. If I can only do PvP and pay my way with that activity I'll be a happy camper.
From what we've had since day one up until today the reality has been far from that. I didn't have a choice to not drag myself through crafting, if I did that I would not have been able to be competitive... not even close.
Thats exactly how it should be, and its "just" a matter of general balancing no matter how many duras we have. Keep in mind that since day one nobody really cared about crafting, adjusted or finetuned something. And rng made half of the ships produced trash, this wont happen anymore.
2 minutes ago, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:The Admiralty receives the ship by crafters.
Who shall define the prices? Fixed npc prices would be a no go for a free market.
-
2
-
-
1 dura done right would even reduce ships prices, because of more competition. When you double the dura, you cut resource cost, the outfitting cost (mods) and LH by half, to keep the current balancing. When you want to keep the carriages, cut the resources and LH for these by half, or reduce other materials instead.
(Short about LH: they define the crafting time/ship supply, but they dont make ships more expensive. For example if you double all LH needed for ships the ship prices would rise, but because of lower supply. If supply is still fine prices wouldnt change, this would only drop the value/LH. This is why you should balance income with resource cost. The amount of LH for ships depends on the LH generation/palyer and the amount of ships sinking. When on average each player sinks (not captured) one ship each two days, each palyer needs to generate at least half the LH needed for an according ship per day. You can see the value/LH as an inflation indicator. With constant resource costs more money on the market rising prices would only rise the labour value. If LH make 80% of ship prices its either bad balancing, or massive inflation, or both.
In short to increase the cost you increase the resource amount or resource production cost, to lower the ship supply you increase the amount of LH. How you spread cost and LH over different materials doesnt matter.)
45 minutes ago, Yar Matey said:I think the overall consensus from the community was a 1 durability ship system was a better system. There were only 1 or 2 vocal community members I can remember that spoke out against a 1 durability system. Unfortunately, the devs seem to think a 1 durability system is a bad idea, and I do not think this is a battle the community can win. The devs are going to do what they want to do and we are destined to have 3 durability first rates.
They should at least give us a reasoning why they think its a bad idea. If there are technical limitations, im fine with that. Or if it would be too much work to change eco and mods e.g., but they want to change these nevertheless. But ignoring rational discussions because they cant compete against 1 dura this way?! We wasted a lot of time here then.
16 minutes ago, _Masterviolin said:I think a universal 1 dura system would be a fatal blow to activity.
But we can proofe this wrong, thats the point.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AngryPanCake said:
I do not want to sound negative, but I personally do not believe this game is going to be an MMO. It's too much of a niche game that attracts a certain type of players (history buffs, certain hobbyists, age of sail enthusiasts, sailboat owners...etc), this is not for the player who is looking for the intense fast paced shooter. But, if I'm wrong, then this is going to be a fantastic MMO game.
Its not like NA needs 20k players, a few thousand would be fine and NA had these players already. There was a second pvp server, because too many players. Mechanics were very simple at this time, and the game was harsh, but it was functional and never restricting. It took twice the time to get to max rank back then for example. No AI fleets or BR mechanics protecting you. All ships craftable. NPC economy. I think ow speed was also slower. But people had fun with that and just the feeling you had in NA was great.
I dont see forts as a problem, but AI fleets are bad in every way. I think you can look at pvp as a result of functional economy-, shipbuilding-, conquest- and RoE mechanics. Eco needs a reset, shipbuilding and conquest is too restricted. RoE problems refer to AI fleets. In addition everything lacks major balancing.
-
7
-
-
38 minutes ago, Angus McGregor said:
With Steam's refund policy, I am very critical in the first hour of playing a new game. If it doesn't seem to be what I had in mind when I bought it, that refund button gets clicked fast. So no - I don't think HachiRoku's comment is baseless at all.
Hmm youre right, i didnt have refund policy in mind. But thats the purpose of the refund button. If already loosing a few cutter missions makes you give up on exploring the whole game, you probably wont have fun with it in general. You sometimes loose alot in NA, and you need to learn the game. But youre right, some people just trying out the game without beeing really interested would refund.
-
1 hour ago, HachiRoku said:
This might have been said before but I think you really need to give new players something less frustrating than a cutter and give them a more stable platform like a brig or snow at the start. I believe alot of people are driven away after a few failed missions in cutters.
Totally baseless. I believe nobody buys a game like this for 40$ and quits after a few failed missions.
I think some people dont notice that they can upgrade the basic 4pders. Maybe give them a few free 6pd cannons, so they also dont sink necessarily in the first mission.
-
1 hour ago, Yar Matey said:
Just because the game falls into the sandbox category is not an acceptable excuse to not have content in the game. The tools need to exist in a game like this for PvP to take place. Before hostility, it was the flag system.
Also, when it comes to adding PvP content nothing has to be forced and soft restrictions can exist in the sense that if you bring the wrong ships to the battle, you are destined to lose. For example, if the mission in a battle is to destroy the heavily armed square tower, but the tower is in a shallow water area where no non-shallow water ship can enter, the attacking team would be forced to bring at least one mortar brig, or they would lose the battle because shallow water ships will not stand a chance against a square tower and boarding one in a shallow water ship would be nearly impossible due to the difference in crew that the tower would have compared to the shallow water ship. This is a non-forced restriction where you can bring any shallow water ship to the battle, but if everyone is in a heavy rattlesnake, you will most likely lose the battle. The hard restriction of only shallow water ships makes sense because anything bigger will run aground.
Of course you need basic mechanics that define the game... but these are already in since steam release.
Your example is fine, the devision in shallow and deep water isnt an artificial restriction. But thats part of the conquest mechanics. Im just saying that neither focussing on new pve content, nor focussing on new artificial pvp content would help the game in its current state.
2 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:Either you do it roleplay (NA is far from that, and i've seen zero rp community/clan) but even there you need content (stuff to buy / earn/ careers).
Roleplay just means that you imagine a backgroundstory for your character, mentality, etc. and act accordingly. I have seen a little bit role play in NA, but i guess its rare in most games unless there are special rp servers.
#wipehype
Bring back random elements to crafting
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Well, you claimed that labour is significantly affecting gold balancing/inflation, thats why we started this discussion.
Lets get back to this, so maybe we can end it soonish;). You said income should be balanced with the possible gold sink. Your simplified example was a ship costs 1mio and takes 10 days to craft, the possible money sink is 100k/day. Now lets add to this that the ship is also sunk each 10 days. Max money sink and real money sink are 100k/day, income was 1mio/day.
To fix the situation by gold balancing, we can reduce the income to 100k. How should labour fix the problem? By decreasing labour cost to one day, the possible sink becomes 1mio gold/day. But the ship still only sinks each 10 days, the real money sink is still 100k/day.
What happened? Instead of fixing gold inflation, we generated labour inflation in addition. The result would be 10 times more ship supply than demand, everything looses value, eco crashes, etc. You could try to define that as a money sink, but over time the market would be saturated by cheap ships, materials and resources. And finally labour didnt had any affect on gold balancing.
What if gold cost was fine already and labour balancing restricted people to do pvp and sink enough gold? Decreasing labour costs would fix it in that case. I dont think you can increase demands by decreasing costs.
Buy/gather oak to craft planks. Buy iron ingots to craft iron fittings. Buy/gather iron ore and coal to craft ingots. Those are not just simple to craft, but also belog to the most needed materials.
Craftable labour contracts are nonesense, lets hope they get rid of this again with the next patch.
No, as i just said, assume resources dont require labour anymore. Nothing that costs gold and labour at the same time without changing the total amount of labour used for goods, no labour sinking gold. Balancing would still be fine, because gold and labour are balanced seperately.
Its not important what is more restricting. Building capacities dont have much to do with general labour balancing. When they dont restrict the production of recources needed, they just define how resource production is distributed.
No doubt that labour is the most restricting factor here, but that doesnt mean it is restricting anything! Claiming that labour is restricting and ships take too long to craft is a ridiculous claim, while the whole server stacks incredible amounts of ships.
Those ships are crafted, what do you mean by npc ships?