[Development plans update: 1 half of 2019]

On 11/29/2018 at 6:49 AM, admin said:

but what about complaints that sailing is boring. Wont NPCs actually help the player to actually do something while sailing like evading hotspots or checking a horizon from time to time?

Now I think I finally understand your apparent stance on the baseline economics as regarding doubloons and crafting.  The game is advertised as hardcore and realistic.  Apparently the realism doesn't include merchant activity.  At least not at any levels appropriate to the "beautiful age of sail."  You apparently want all players engaging in combat at every sailing.  Any economically meaningful level of crafting appears to be dependent on it.

Yes, merchants playing on the War server should expect some degree of risk.  But not need to regularly sail through the middle of Trafalgar.  

Well it is your game.

Time for me to move on.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

2 hours ago, admin said:

But the patrol and challenges give plenty of doubloons + they drop in loot and especially drop well in PvP (with bonus loot in patrols and port battles)
We monitor the supply and do not see the problems with doubloons yet. The supply grows maybe even too fast. 

Whether the doubloon price is astronomical depends on what they are being used for.  If for notes, books, and for the component in the line ships, the prices are probably too low.

If to buy extra labor, then yes.  The prices are astronomical.   Getting labor hours out of the same bucket as notes and books simply does not work.

If you are going to insist on using Doubloons for this the labor hour yield from a contract would need to be increased by at least a factor of 10 for this to come close to making any economic sense.  Probably a good deal more.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

1 hour ago, Barbancourt said:

What does "L3 labor valuation" mean?

Level 3 production buildings and a level 3 shipyard.  Labor hour bonus.  Using that yields a slightly more optimistic estimate.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

5 hours ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Yeah it is bloody rare  but may happen.

Thing is a good salesman, that offers a good quality for a competitive price will sell his crations like hot cakes.

Which is what I was doing last spring before the DLC releases pretty much broke the market sector I selling into.

In order for this to happen you need quite a few more folks interested in selling resources and crafted ships. Then the price comes down.  But for this to happen the baseline resource and crafting math has to actually work.

It currently does not.  Resource extraction and ship crafting is currently restricted to free labor.  Or it has to be subsidized with doubloons from combat.  This is not a recipe for a self-sustaining economy.

5 hours ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Majority of salesmen tries to sell ships like they are made of el dorado gold... ridiculous.

I am currently able to get Doubloons in the free ports for about 110 Reals each.  This appears to result in an L3 labor valuation for a fir/fir T-brig (resources + shipyard) of roughly 80,000 Reals.  Which pretty much swamps the straight cost in Reals used for the resources.  And makes an  Admiralty sale pretty much meaningless.

I am really quite curious to know what you consider "el dorado" prices.  What would you expect to pay for a fir/fir T-brig?

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

2 hours ago, SS Minnow said:

OK, don't remember a port ever buying my ship, but maybe 3k is too cheap now, idk.  Isn't this a good way to promote crafting, AI capturing, ship market, economic diversity...lol

AI yes.  Crafting not so much.  Unless you stick to free labor.  But the economics blow all to hell if you start buying doubloons to get the  labor.

Don't have my notes handy but I suspect that 3k is in the neighborhood of the resource costs for a baseline build.  With NO meaningful allowance for the labor costs for the resources and ship

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

1 minute ago, jodgi said:

Yes, @thewuif has been awol a long time. He might get back to it, who knows?

Won't be waiting around for that. 

I'm sure this will be a great game.  But it's about done holding my interest.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

2 minutes ago, vazco said:

Just look here:
http://www.navalactioncraft.com/

If this guy was that much interested in crafting and economy to create a great feature, I bet others will as well. I guess API may need some new methods though, eg to pull contracts created by players. Probably also navalactioncraft would have to be updated to be useful, as it seems to show prices incorrectly now.

If you notice this site hasn't exactly kept up with game changes.

I don't think he's been playing for some time.  If he is still active he is free to chime in. 

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

7 minutes ago, Bartolomew Roberts said:

So if traders tools are removed whats to stop someone putting them up on the web?

Nothing.  Except the folks that put API data on the web tend to be interested in combat mechanics.

Not in economics.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

7 minutes ago, admin said:

api will contain same prices information but it won't be in game (but on community managed resources). Which is a lot better for us. We cannot improve the trader tool and do not want to have an unfinshed feature in a final game.

This is not exactly "improved trading."  Unless you make the information available in a way that the user does not have to be a coder to access.

7 minutes ago, admin said:

And i personally believe that electronic trading and knowing prices for goods 1000 miles away is against the age of sail setting. 

Except that no merchant of any consequence visits every location they do business in.  They have people for that.

[Economy update 2. Improved trading]

25 minutes ago, admin said:

Final part of the economy update will be deployed before the end of the year. 

• Approximately 50+ new goods will be added for trading
• Dyes will be added (part for the future)
• Resources will be repositioned and system of distribution changed - this might cause changes of spawn for standard natural resources in some locations
• Pricing systems might start including distance from source into consideration
• Trader tool will most likely be removed as it gives too much information; turning search of good deals into modern electronic trading, destroying immersion and trading opportunities for those who want to occasionally stumble upon something special. It was always a qa tool to help developers find problems with prices and test changes in economy and pricing mechanisms.

 

 

Final?  So no other changes to the economy?

Current trading ranges for Doubloons makes them impractical to use for extra labor if selling resources and crafted ships.  This throttles contract market activity.  Either 1)  extra labor needs to be paid for in Reals or 2)  merchants need their own way of obtaining extra labor for Reals that is separate from the Admiralty conversion.

Given what else Doubloons are used for I am not seeing how they could possibly be balanced so as to make extra labor a practical option.  Except for maybe successful combat players who can simply ignore the trading cost.

[More Outposts, More Dockspace]

17 hours ago, admin said:

 

If you want more quality PVP (you do want quality pvp based on your post about ganking)  you don't want more outposts you want less outposts. Then for example you found a nice solo target his friends wont be able to jump into location easily. Outposts favor biggest side. Real solo player unconsciously wants zero outposts in game even if they help him occasionally. 
 

I've probably played solo about half my game time since moving over from the PvE server last Spring.  I don't have an opinion on the PvP aspect of this.  The economy is another matter.

Maxing out on outposts is really the only way at present for a single-account player to get around transaction stove-piping caused by not being able to see other players' contract activity without visiting a port.

The restriction has the effect of concentrating player-to-player econ inside of populated ports.  Reducing the number of outposts WITHOUT providing some sort of global contract visibility will further discourage player dispersion.

Incidentally this is a big factor in why folks get bored quickly on the PvE server.  Leave the populated areas and you are unlikely to see any other players.

I must not have been a real solo player.  That I might want zero outposts was news to me.

[New UI - Display Resource Costs / Labor Hours from Blueprint Link]

8 hours ago, Phaserburn said:

This was the same as before. You need at least 1 for the value of LH to be there.

I'm talking about compared to the old UI.  There was no live calculation.  But opening the production in the old UI tab displayed what the building produced and what it required.  Of course you had to do your own math to get to a per unit cost but at least you could get at something to work with.

[New UI - Display Resource Costs / Labor Hours from Blueprint Link]

Sorting out what stuff actually costs may be unnecessarily difficult for newer players.  It used to be possible to tease this out of the old UI without actually having the building in port.

The blueprint window calls the resource collection window.  It currently shows labor hours available but does not display any calculations unless a building is present.

My suggestion:  Allow this to display calculations even if collection is not available.  This will allow players considering contract offers to readily  look up what the resource actually costs in both Reals and labor without having to own the building in the port they are visiting.

 

[Temporary contract changes - MONDAY 29 Oct]

4 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

It won't ruin just trading, clans owning many ports will pay millions for maintenance of ports because contracts as the main income source are covering it. Just wait to watch clans pay 5-7m per day.

Since contracts are what I do this shuts me down almost completely. 

Not a big deal if it's not very long.

[Solution to keep A global server ?]

2 hours ago, Celtiberofrog said:

I guess a good "prime time frame" for EUR players might be [19:00 to 22:00], for the East map zone

What would be the best compromize for the "prime time frame" between West & East cost USA players ?

Like I said, the East/West coast US doesn't really matter.  The three hour spread really doesn't mean much.

But there is at least one Australian in my clan.  How does this work for someone in THAT time zone?

[My port, my monopoly.]

1 hour ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Also less sales for 2nd accounts for gamelabs

I doubt that's intentional for a game that's dependent on new sales to pay the bills for the server.  Encouraging alt accounts is self-defeating in a stagnant PC market.  They make the game much more difficult for single-account players.

The PC game market isn't going to get much bigger than it already is.  The universe of potential buyers within that space who have time to run 2nd and 3rd game accounts is likely a good deal smaller.

Some of us actually do have lives elsewhere.

[My port, my monopoly.]

28 minutes ago, Sento de Benimaclet said:

The idea is not to end trade between players, but the port owner has more or total control over the resources of its port. 

More yes.  Total no.  Air-locked monopolies suffocate economies by denying entry to new participants.

Econ 101.

[Solution to keep A global server ?]

2 minutes ago, Celtiberofrog said:

For US West cost, it might still work in case the "2 hours PB timer windows" are set within a 3 hours "prime time frame", let say in same map zone we could have 2 or 3 timer windows.  

Won't affect US west as only a three-hour differential. 

But locking out folks further west might be a problem for a game that is dependent on new sales in a stagnant PC market.

[My port, my monopoly.]

1 hour ago, Sento de Benimaclet said:

I have always wondered: if a clan wins a port, why does not enjoy the monopoly of its resources? I think he has earned the right to buy and sell exclusively the various resources of that port. Is it fair that other clans of their own nation or traders from other nations can buy resources as if the port were also outside them? What do you think? Greetings !! 

Depends on what sort of game you want.  Monopolies are never a good idea if you want a self-sustaining player-to-player economy.

24 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

Players today : 600       Players after such a suggestion is enacted :  200

Yup.  And it would be unlikely to every break into four digits after release.

Essentially what this does is kick the ladder down from the tree house for new players.  Would be pretty much at the mercy of whatever clan recruited them.  If an incompetent one that can't hold a port, or get along with others, they would be pretty much hosed.

Not a good plan for new player retention.

 

5 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

Agreed that they should have [more] control.  That's discussed in other threads.  To suggest no one else can perform commerce is counterproductive.

More control yes.  Probably some granularity in allowing bonuses for allied clans, at least.

[Solution to keep A global server ?]

I'm US west coast.  I could adjust to this but doesn't locking the map this way mess with folks further west?

[A Radical Crafting/Extraction Change]

On 9/29/2018 at 4:14 PM, John Jacob Astor said:

@admin, so a follow-question that might speak to my reservation.

What would be the mechanism for converting Reals into Doubloons?  And what are the other possible ways Doubloons are generated?

Specifically, how would a merchant acquire Doubloons to buy labor to extract production resources and build ships?

@admin, here is why my question matters, and what is at the root of my reservations about having more than one medium of exchange.

At present, the purchase of labor contracts yields a production cost for stone block that frequently approaches the Euro Trader cost.  Stone is the worst of them but running the math out on other production resources shows meager possible returns.  The best of them are well below that of dropped trade goods.  Which means that to participate in the player-to-player economy you have to ignore the labor hours.  Which works until you run out of hours and have to compete against any Alts in the same market sector.

If a merchant has to buy Doubloons, this prices the commodities above where where a reasonable profit can be made the with Euro Trader mechanic in place.  And this assumes that Doubloons are even available for sale.  In the present economy marks are only consistently available in a couple of the free ports.

Are you also planning to add some sort of fixed exchange mechanism (Reals to Doubloons) and dump the Euro Trader?  Is this is what was intended when you announced the possibility of a mint?

If so, this might actually work.  Building counts and production volumes then govern the supply of resources.  This would scale up or down with the number of players in the game, and would price-responsive to player demand.

[A Radical Crafting/Extraction Change]

On 9/28/2018 at 2:35 PM, admin said:

Whats the point except to delay the player? We are actually thinking of removing the LH limits completely (remove free hours - remove ceilings - if you have gold doubloons - you can buy workforce).

@admin, so a follow-question that might speak to my reservation.

What would be the mechanism for converting Reals into Doubloons?  And what are the other possible ways Doubloons are generated?

Specifically, how would a merchant acquire Doubloons to buy labor to extract production resources and build ships?

[A Radical Crafting/Extraction Change]

11 hours ago, Teutonic said:

I admit my suggestion wasn't optimal, I suppose it was just a different way in how someone goes about crafting. instead of waiting and then crafting, you'd craft and then wait. I just feel the process would be more smooth, but it could take a lot of time to change it for not much benefit.

As the Admin said - removing hours is a better outcome than I had hoped for and would definitely take it any day of the week.

It could and would certainly help to "fight" alts. Your limiting factor would be doubloons (essentially combat marks...right?) so you'd have to go out and farm them from sinking AI or completing missions. I only know of a few people who can effective multi-box and even then it would become tedious.

I think doubloons would be you "throttling." In truth there may be some inflation, or deflation but ultimately you'd need doubloons to continue crafting, which either means buying from players who PvE a lot (or PvP) or doing it yourself which does take time. I firmly believe giving the players the options to take time to "farm" doubloons, or purchase from others is a better solution than the current Labor Hour limitations. As such, with materials going away, I'm sure we'd have a re-balance of prices again.

In general I am in agreement with this.

As it happens I am not anti-alt.  I just want a bit more level playing field.  I also am not actually opposed to your original suggestion.  I don't have any context for it having never played EVE.

My comment about throttling has to do with my reservation about having multiple mediums of exchange, which is currently what we have.  Gold and various forms of marks are used for purchase.  This is simplified somewhat in the coming economy but it still remains.  I am not sure relying on the money supply to limit labor in the coming economy is a good idea. 

Mixed exchange mechanisms are very, very easy to unbalance.  In the late Roman empire the value of the gold solidus was well anchored but nothing else was.  If you were stuck in any of the other coinage (which was the case for shopkeepers and laborers) you were pretty much screwed.

[A Radical Crafting/Extraction Change]

2 hours ago, admin said:

We are actually thinking of removing the LH limits completely (remove free hours - remove ceilings - if you have gold doubloons - you can buy workforce).

This is beneficial as labor hours are one place where alts provide rather too much leverage in the economy vs single-account players.

It does need to have some sort of throttling, however.  Production facilities can efficiently handle only so many people in a process flow.  And a cities only have only so many people.  No limits at all might be an inflation mechanic.

[Naval insurance comes to the Caribbean]

23 minutes ago, Hethwill the Harmless said:

Correct. Speculation by contracts. That's what we have, hence we cannot have the insurance cover ( and demand payment ) of such exorbitant prices, else the entire premise of - supporting the low rank cadets loss - is lost, and it becomes a speculative money printing machine which in turn will flood the world with no-value coin.

I would agree with that.

Which is why this targeted crafting subsidy (it really isn't insurance) probably ought to be limited to the AI material costs of the ship.   No upgrades.  No bonus fudges of any kind. 

I'm not even wild about the "+ small%".  That probably ought to be set to zero until the effect of the subsidy is actually demonstrated.