Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Coaster

Ensign
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Coaster

  1. I add that it would be useful if Port Improvements can be 'torn down', taking say a week to complete the 'tear down' (to prevent any reactionary abuse regarding defenses). This would allow ports to dynamically redevelop with the ebb and flow of conquest.

    On a related note, it would also be very useful if the Clan Warehouse had at least 2 parts, so one could be to safeguard high value items (only Officers can withdraw), and the other for mundane items everyone can withdraw (like repairs/rum, majority of books, common upgrades)

  2. On 1/3/2020 at 9:25 PM, admin said:

    Its a hard decision as its very hard to go away from the canon of the british rating system (abandoned in the early 19th)
    Constitution is stronger than any frigate and its build strength make this ship rival 3rd rates. 
    On the other hand its not a third rate.

     

    You created your own rating system with the BR stat. Why not tune events/missions etc to that?

  3. What about a port reset? For example, every 6 months, winning nation declared, ports are reset. Players don't lose their personal assets, except craft buildings (and doubloon costs can be altered to reflect this, perhaps even dynamically changed depending on time left of current 'round'). It might even open the possibility of releasing core nation ports from capture exempt status.

    However, the biggest obstacle is Prolific Forger - because of that DLC nation populations are much less likely to fluctuate (unlike if the nation change permit was available through admiralty).

  4. 42 minutes ago, CTC_ClanLeader said:

    u are playing the wrong type of game... 

    By suggesting an economic model, that puts less emphasis on spreadsheets, and more emphasis on putting ships out in the seas? an economic model where players who pvp might be interested in the challenge of sailing an armed trader, because losing the battle isnt going to set them back weeks, and getting the goods to port will have an actual effect on the RvR game?

    No, i think really you're playing the wrong type of game.

  5. Sure, there could be a crafting system. Preferrably one that focuses on consumables, or cosmetics.

    But the ship itself? no. Every player needs a ship to play the game (or more accurately every player is a ship). Using the economy to throttle a players ability to play the game is bad. Ships need to be easily replaceable when needed, and standardised. Any advantage or disadvantage should be from player skill, either from ability to sail, or choice of ship for a given goal.

    What ive put forward is a suggestion of how to integrate the economy with the combat, creating a reason to be on the waves, navy or trader, that players can feel comfortable about taking part in, and working towards a goal for your nation. But without a ship, you cannot do anything. Nothing.

  6. 5 minutes ago, Niagara said:

    Shipbuilders

    What is this? collecting resources, clicking buttons, putting result on the market. To say it is a niche activity is an understatement. It might hook 1 player in 100, into playing.

    Also, since a player built ship is better than a store bought one, people want them. But it takes a lot of effort to make one. So people start attaching inflated value to them, being afraid to lose them because of the effort required to replace them, and when they are lost they sometimes give up playing because of the thought of the effort needed to replace.

    So although 'shipbuilding' could be something added, what we want is players in ships, unafraid of sailing said ships, taking the risk to haul or guard cargos, because doing so means building the nation towards the choice of a bigger ship.

    • Like 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

    Crafting/trading and PVE don't go hand in hand. You can have PVP only with crafting.

    You can play survival simulator on DayZ, but everything still revolves around PVP because that's the nature of the game. Naval Action isn't about PVE at all. In fact you could remove all AI ships as long as you had a population to fill the OW. The same can't be said in reverse, just look at the PVE server,

    You can't use Fantasy MMO mechanics in a Naval Action because reality limits this game. That being said, PVE content shouldn't be ignored, its a good buffer to PVP. But it shouldn't be mixed in with PVP/RVR based nations because it just gets in the way, looking at multi capital safezones and colonial nations

    There is little or no PvE content. Everything revolves around PvP. The population is not coming. Quite the opposite, from reports.

     

    The PvE server is empty because there is little or no PvE content.

  8. 15 minutes ago, Niagara said:

    Again I agree that we need a Supply and Demand economy that is fair to most players and I think that being chased by privateers is ok when doing trade runs if I know I have a fair chance of getting away but the current system with speed fitted ships in large groups that hunt slow traders is not exactly fair either.

    This proposed broadstrokes idea puts a far greater reward on managing to deliver those goods, by having ship class availability linked to the city size. Thus, it would be of paramount importance to the 'Navy' types that the traders within their nation succeed as often as possible (escorts).

    Other trade opportunities could be developed (holding majorities in industries that produce said goods, shipping goods to a centralised neutral port and selling to the heaviest purse, etc etc), but what the economy needs to do is become entwined with the combat in such a way, that it is crucial to progress, but without the burden of just falling on one side (people want to sail ships. Bigger ships require them to put in effort, whether they are a trader or brawler).

    • Like 1
  9. 3 hours ago, Hethwill said:

    Interesting suggestion and interesting reply.

    I'd suggest no safety zones involved and let trade wars come back then. Want to protect your trade ? Sail out and pvp the raiders out.

    Yes

    Put the availability of ships into the realm of the RvR element (bigger city = bigger ships to be purchased/ordered). Cities then always demand goods, making it easier to make currency, and replace losses.

    So then players are not so afraid of losing their ship, trading ships will be needed (or a nation will fall behind in the tech race), and with the Match mechanic, new players will have a chance to start on the same line as veterans when the server resets for the next match.

    • Like 1
  10. That statement could be applied to PvP, which is the point of the thread.

    Does there need to be an incentive to get into a ship and find a fight? No. That is perhaps the most basic activity in the game.

    Incentives should be provided for the more niche elements of the game, without accidentally rewarding the most basic activity. Otherwise, all that will be done is the most basic activity.

  11. Almost every player wants to be known as a shipwright, who’s ‘skills’ are sought after for creating tailored vessels, or who has the largest New Ship Emporium. To this end, there is an entire system for crafting ships and upgrades, with an armada of resources and commodities to fuel this activity. Resources are made difficult to access or obtain, buildings artificially restricted, labour times tweaked and balanced, all to add a throttle to the market, making the process feel cumbersome and unworthwhile.

    Instead, perhaps ships should just be a thing that can be bought or ordered, from large cities. Large cities however, are created by the players regularly supplying the city with resources, causing growth (and cities no longer supplied with a minimum, shrink in size). Of course, there would still be a market for selling commodities, but by and large their actual usefulness to a player, outside the city growth mechanic, would be minimal. The greater a nations population, the greater the requirement needed to supply cities to grow, giving another tool to help mitigate any population imbalance.

    This might then make larger cities become juicy targets to the RvR element, cargo ships would become more numerous, or cities would idle along at a small size, offering commensurate ships and shipbuilding facilities.

     

    To go one step further, the game might be subdivided into matches. A match lasts a set amount of time, say 6 months, culminating in an endgame. Fortunes and reputations are made, winners are announced, and then the game is reset, with nothing remaining, except perhaps a Title to be held during the next match, earnt from the previous match (Dread Pirate, Lord of the Admiralty, Bursar of the West Indies, etc etc).

  12. Why does the game offer rewards for PvP?

    If a player wants to go out and pick a fight, for no other reason than to fight, then so be it. But the game shouldn’t be offering incentives for it. It creates an artificial environment where the strategic element of the game becomes largely superfluous because simply picking a fight is more rewarding, as well as turning the community toxic as every player is reduced to being just a virtual power up pinyata.

    Combat should be an expense. An overhead that traders try to minimize. A last resort that Admiralties use. Its going to happen, that’s humanity, but at least let the RvR strategy determine the lions share of when and where.

  13. On 12/5/2017 at 12:04 PM, Grundgemunkey said:

    if you want to sail on a traders run for 3 hrs there and 3 back and spread it over two days of gameplay ... thats great if you find that challenging and fun ,,,, but dont make everyone have to do it to play the game

    I think they do it because they want a better than shop-bought ship. The reason you feel you have to do it, is to remain competitive in combat. It is certainly not required to play the game.

    edit: In fact, it seems to be the required answer to all these requests about multiple durability, more accessible  modifications etc.

    And that answer is: goto the shop buy a ship. If you want something better, put the effort in.

  14. To promote more interaction between players with regards to the economy

     

    Traders put up Contracts in a port for x tons of a commodity to be shipped to another port within a specified time interval, together with the commodity, and funds to cover the contract.

    Haulers may then accept the contract, specifying how much they will take, and paying a per ton sum of money as determined by the Trader, and receives a 'contract' document.

    Upon arrival at the destination port, the Hauler cashes in the contract and is paid a per ton sum of cash, also as determined by the Trader.

     

    Thus, if the Hauler is caught and divested of the goods on the journey, the Trader will not be losing out since the Hauler put up a deposit on the goods. If the Hauler so wishes, he could then obtain the goods elsewhere, so as to complete the contract.

    If the contract expires, then the Hauler is left with the merchandise, and the Trader with the deposit.

     

    The Trader may remove any un-negotiated contracts or part thereof, at any time.

    • Like 1
  15. On 2017-6-10 at 3:48 PM, admin said:

    We would like to show everyone that rookie ships are beasts in right hands and that ai is completely incompetent against the right opponent.

    And this is your idea of a tutorial for new players?

    I think perhaps a traditional approach might yield better player retention, along with cleaning up what little information there is so that normal people can understand it.

  16. From the details currently available, this looks like a splendid idea for a feature.

     

    I think perhaps also, the 'PVP twist' has been somewhat understated - Can't find no action? raid a port. You might get some player controlled defenders. Not only that, but the activity might attract enemy players to the port in hopes of catching you as you leave. Then there's the counter - raid a port to deliberately attract players to try catch you, and have another fleet waiting in a nearby cove. It could also do a nice job of enticing otherwise pvp-shy players into a fight, especially as the 'defenders'.

     

    The raiders themselves should be unable to dock at the port for a decent period of time (to prevent any exploit of raiding then hiding out there until the heat has gone, plus the inhabitants won't be happy to see them so soon again). However, i don't think there should be any real impact to a ports status, or any owned resources stolen, or you run the risk of a raid becoming the new PB.

     

    All in all, it would just be another option for something to do when you log in for an evenings entertainment.

  17. My suggestion for reworking the pirates

     

    Its based on the idea that pirates want to promote trade in the nations, which they can then exploit (piracy), yet not actually be a Nation themselves.

    Map Change

    1. All NPC pirate fleets removed - if there's a pirate, its a player.
    2. All Pirate towns turned to freeports - remove the concept that there is a 'Pirate Nation'.
    3. Pirate starting locations list expanded - For variety, but definately not catering to 'rookies'. Piracy is dangerous.
    4. All freeports given resources - All players can place crafting buildings (and outposts) in freeports.

    Gameplay Changes

    1. Pirates may place an outpost and crafting buildings anywhere - Since they don't have a stable base.
    2. Pirates can attack a town, and if successful, it becomes a freeport - creating opportunity for national traders to exploit (and be exploited). Needs to be a 'raid' style event, as opposed to 'port battle'.
    3. Freeports are able to be taken by Nations - creating strategical use for pirates by the nations. Multiple nations can build contention, and the final port battle will involve all nations who participated.
    4. Pirates may attend any port battle. They do not need contention points. - Allows for mercenary arrangements, and also for pirates to exploit the chaos.
×
×
  • Create New...