Bramborough

Excellent points. Hadn't quite articulated this to myself in quite this manner, but makes perfect sense.

I'm not going to argue back and forth over specifics. For one thing, because we play on different servers (I think). If I'm not mistaken, you're primarily a PvP2 player, while I play on PvP1. So the particular market conditions are different. In general, however, resource/materials are one component of a ship's cost, and LH are another. With perhaps some nation-specific variation here and there, a ballpark average for PvP1 is somewhere in the 100-200g range. If that's the rate typically exchanged for purchasing LH directly via trade, or reflective of markups for ship parts, then I stand by my stance that a shipbuilder should expect a concomitant return on his own products. This will, of course, be heavily influenced by ship rate and type. Expecting a 100g/LH return on, say, a Brig, is unrealistic on PvP1 or any other server. Getting a 100g/LH return (or even 200g/LH) on a 1st-rate, however, is eminently reasonable.

That figure on navalactioncraft is only a fraction of the whole cost. It's reasonable for the builder to charge for the Labor Hours which go into the ship as well. Look also at the price of components & notes on the market; those folks are certainly getting a premium for their LH to make Midgrade Notes or Carriages or even basic stuff like Iron Ingots. Why shouldn't the shipbuilder, for the finished product? Despite a bit of loosening with recent perks such as Foreman and the Shipmasters, along with Labor Contracts, LH remain a finite, fixed-rate resource compared to money...and therefore inherently more valuable. To give them away free or at drastically below-market rates is a pretty poor economic decision. Certainly this happens all the time - and is reasonable - among cooperating friends and within clans. But to expect such in the open marketplace is a little unrealistic. As far as the rare ships like Rattlesnake Heavy, yeah, those prices are pretty ridiculous, but also obviously driven by event-BP scarcity more than the inherent value of the ships themselves. I wouldn't pay those prices (most don't), but there's enough who will to amply support the high prices for the very few of these ships which reach market.

Yep, just checked, and the other post-reset non-freetowns in the Sweden starting region (Sandy Hill, Cul-de-Sac) will be new ports, not yet existing. Gustavia / Freetowns is all that's available for preparation purposes.

Without going through and doing a lot of multi-quoting, quite a few posts demonstrate that many folks believe that there will be a "hostility mission", distinctly separate from the Orders / Fleet Orders already in game. And that it is these "hostility missions" to which the devs refer when they state that "missions will remain open to join until 25v25". Other players (I among them) see nothing in the language of the OP to indicate any such separate "hostility missions". By my reading (and re-reading), the OP seems pretty clearly to state that "missions" (i.e., those with which we're already familiar in game) will remain open. Nor have I seen anything about "hostility missions" in earlier threads on this topic during the preceding couple of months. Admin does use the term "Hostility Missions" at one point in the OP, but the meaning can easily be taken to refer to any mission which influences hostility levels...which, to my understanding of the mechanics, means any mission anywhere (even when pulled in a quiet sparsely-populated backwater of one's own territory, would still have the effect of potentially mitigating hostility). When the OP goes on to further discuss mission changes (i.e., remain open), the term "hostility mission" is not used. Rather than continue the conjecture and language-parsing from both sides of the question, it would be helpful to have a short clarifying statement from admin. I'm sure it's clear to you...but it is manifestly not clear to us. Thanks in advance.

3rd & Bach. If you're correct, then yeah, that would alleviate the concern. I see nothing in the OP language, however, indicating such distinction of separate "hostility missions". Appears to me that the "open til 25v25" applies to just plain "missions"...i.e., the Orders and Fleet Orders with which we're already familiar. The only other difference being that we can apparently select any region from any port. Perhaps a "hostility mission" is a regular mission which is chosen for an enemy-held region...and it's only those missions which might remain open for interference? Such a mechanic I think would be reasonable and worth considering. But there's nothing in admin's description I can see which states (or even implies) such. Is there prior discussion of this in some other thread I may have missed?

1. Open Missions. Not sure I like this idea. Just sounds like gank groups will now cruise around looking for open Missions in which to crash the party....instances in which players may have been for a long time already with no visibility as to what's coming. Part of smart engagement is reading the situation in OW. But now any player entering a mission is totally blind for an extended period. The net effect is not really that different from AFK-sailing (or the earlier Sociable perk...which has been removed presumably because it torqued too many people off). Yes, many people are looking for larger PvP battles in OW....that doesn't mean that they want to find themselves suddenly in the middle of one halfway through a mission, with some armor/crew already gone, not in their preferred perk/upgrade setup, etc. 2. Endymion/Indefatigable 1-dura. I guess I don't understand what exactly you're trying to test here in the first place. High-quality 1-dura ships have been available in the game for a long time, in the form of all 1st-rates and captured player ships. Is there not already plenty of information available on how players use such vessels? How/why would you expect players to use Endymion/Indefatigable any differently? If your intent is to test the effect of what happens when all ships are 1-dura, well this isn't going to provide you any meaningful results or even insights. Only way you're going to find out what happens is to actually make all ships 1-dura. Those two reservations aside, greatly looking forward to this patch. Easily the most extensive and game-changing during the 6 months I've been playing. Much of it will be awesome, some of it will be a dud (in ways neither players nor devs can foresee right now). Gonna be a lot of fun. Bring it on!

Excellent summarization and analysis of the last few weeks, Jeheil. All the Letters have been worthwhile...#28 has been perhaps the best, at least among the more recent episodes. I started watching these when I switched to the server, around #18 or 19 (roughly the time of the 3Adm Treaty).

I'm not sure we're playing the same game. NA is much less clan-focused than any other MMO I've played. Yes, it encourages group play, but that's not the same as clan-exclusive play. Perhaps it's your particular nation/server environment. I can tell you that PvP1 Britain is nothing remotely like what you describe. At all. Sure, there's big clans, small clans, and many non-clan players. But everyone just groups up and plays, not paying attention to clan tags in the least. "In new system no one outside clans even can try. Big content for 10% players, and loss for 90%." Nothing can be further from the truth. I'd expect that the new regional hostility mechanics, plus the advance notice and fewer number of Port Battles will mean not only that everyone can contribute, but will be vitally needed to do so. Yes, the fights will be bigger...big enough that no single clan could do it on their own, and it will require a national-level effort to get things done. Recent politics changes are "for clans"? So, before the last patch, diplomacy and national agreements were made by a small number of players largely outside the game, in forums and teamspeak. Since the last patch, however, we have an in-game voting system whereby every player votes allies/enemies. If anything, this has vastly decreased the influence of clans upon alliance agreements.

+1 to OP.

It does not. Free-to-Free only (with outpost required on receiving end). The outpost at which you received delivery was a in a Free Town. Had to be.

I applaud Spain & France for ending this and allowing some ports to go back. Like others, I believe this could've / should've happened at least a week ago if not more...although I somewhat understand why it didn't play out that way. Am rather wondering where Danmark-Norge stands on this question. Bigger picture....G-L has put a lot of effort during the summer into refining how wars start and are prosecuted. I think there should be some consideration by them on how wars end, with concrete win/loss criteria that stop short of a nation being wiped off map. I would prefer a persistent world with discrete limited wars, which I think would be more realistic and historical than the rather gamey winner-take-all "seasons" types ideas I've read over the past couple months.

I agree and understand. Perhaps the devs might've done better to eschew the designation entirely; it has led to some confusion and misinterpretation. I'm aware of one clan on PvE who emptied out and transferred their Clan Warehouse to another port, simply because the Free Town had a "(P)" next to its name on the various versions of draft maps.

Yes, almost everyone uses Teamspeak. The reasons and benefits are obvious. There's a few iconoclastic mavericks who, for whatever mystifying reason, flat don't want to use it...and somehow feel unfairly infringed upon when other participants in a PB or multi-ship battle desire them to do so. I believe this is the context behind the term "hard core TS clans", which initiated this particular little tangent a few posts ago.

The "15-25 days" projection appeared in an admin post dated 13 Sep (i.e., 15 days ago). Not only has that window not expired yet...we just now entered it today. We will have to wait until 08 October (end of next week) before claiming that the devs didn't meet that estimate. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16423-free-town-changes-important/ That said, we also shouldn't be terribly surprised or upset if that date also passes without an update deployed. This patch is by far the most extensive and game-changing over at least the last 6 months (the time in which I've been familiar with the game's progress), and perhaps since Steam release. I'd much rather GL take the necessary time to get it right rather than rush it out to us earlier. Meanwhile, the post-reset status of every port has been made clear, as well as what happens with outposts/ships/buildings/warehouse...in the original post of this thread. It's not at all difficult to move outposts/assets accordingly, and just be ready. Many players have already done that. With that out of the way, they simply continue to play without having to worry about it. The patch could (hypothetically...not predicting such) come as early as tonight with zero warning, and their stuff is already where it needs to be.

True...and that in turn is because the game incentivizes craft level, but not specialization. Players are simply acting rationally. There is a widespread belief that any future asset wipe, however near/far in the future it might be, will remove everything except rank and craft level (whether true or not is a completely different question). Therefore reaching level 50 is logically perceived as the only worthwhile crafting goal which will persist past game release.

I don't think I'd be terribly upset about having to grind up ranks again, because progress speed is wholly dependent upon the player; Amount of gameplay time, and the efficiency with which how that time is used, are 100% controllable. Leveling craft back up to 50, however, is a different story. Sure, one can map out an efficient path, augmented by Labor Contracts and intelligent use of perks. But ultimately, crafting progress is limited by the LH generation rate, and beyond a certain point there's little the player can do about it. Unlike actions for rank XP (i.e., battle/travel)...every player, no matter how efficient their plan, reaches a daily point defined as "well, that's all the crafting I can for today...have to wait til tomorrow to continue". I understand why the craft system is like that, and am not advocating that it be radically changed (at least, not from a level/XP perspective...BP acquisition is a separate topic). Am just saying I don't want to have to level up crafting again. Rank XP reset probably wouldn't prompt me to consider quitting NA. Craft level XP reset might.

Judging by what admin said only a few posts above... ...sounds like the PvP/PvE server merge idea is officially in the trash bin.

Yep, that's the way it goes. The endless daily drill is a part of Navy life at sea that doesn't get shown much in movies...whether of modern times or during the Age of Sail. Because it's monotonous and dreary, and doesn't make for very good television. But it pays off. A crew which is accustomed to manning General Quarters and setting Zebra in about 6 minutes when they know it's a drill...will do it in less than 4 minutes if they know (or think) it's for real. And then you walk around to check, no steps skipped, no door dogs left loose, no man missing or not in proper gear; it's dead solid perfect. Seen it firsthand many times (DCA on first ship, Duty Fire Marshal/DCTT on second, Chief Engineer on 3rd/4th...so yeah, been around this particular block more than once). How does this pertain to NA? Navies...particularly good ones, drill, drill, drill...and then drill again. The sailors hate it. Heck, the officers hate it. I hated it...even while driving everyone else (including the Captain) to do another drill. When the bubble goes up, however, and the ship goes in harm's way, boom, it goes like clockwork...on a very fast clock. Somehow, on a free-and-easy Pirate ship of the "Free Brotherhood"...hard to visualize that level of discipline, training, and plain hard work to no immediately apparent end. National warships should get some level of advantage against a Pirate vessel...and not necessarily tied to a perk.

I fully agree with this sentiment....especially since the increased OW PVP is "RvR-related", impacting the war via hostility generation (or mitigation, as the case may be). As opposed to the static and largely meaningless "gank-countergank" which characterizes most OW PvP right now. I like the idea of having a larger context providing RvR significance to pretty much all OW activities. Up til now (and still the case at moment), "the war" is merely a subset of PvP activity, in which some players choose to participate, while many others do not. With the regional hostility mechanics, my impression is that every player, regardless of rank/shiptype/playstyle, will in some way contribute to the national war effort every time they spawn out of port. I think that's awesome.

All good questions. I'd like to know the answers to these too.

I don't necessarily mind being quoted, but I very much mind it being characterized as a "Pella Putdown". I pointed out that the post apparently didn't have the effect OP intended. To stretch that into an actual "putdown" of Pellasgos himself is quite a leap.

Awesome work, Anolytic. Nicely pulls together all the various related info into one spot. Nice job. :-)

Judging by the responses seen in this thread, one might get the impression that Mr Pellasgos has fallen rather short of his stated intent. As a Brit captain who's fed a lot of time, effort, and dura/crewloss into fighting along the Colombia/Panama coast over the past couple of weeks...I sincerely don't know what to make of the OP.

Thanks guys for the responses. I'm still skeptical that it threatens the very survival of Spain, but I understand the concern now. And if I were Spanish and relied upon Key West as a trade node into La Habana, I probably wouldn't be very happy about the change either.