19 mln vs 60 thousand - the cost of crew - moderated

[Neith]

More populated nations will have less crew per player (total crew pool of 250,000 for 1000 players)

Less populated nation will naturally have more crew per player (total crew pool 100,000 for 100 players)

 

All fine but this ? Really ?

 

Admin please read it again and again and again. Maybe you will understand why this is wrong ... More popluated nation will have less crew and less populated nation will have more crew ? More populated nation should have more crew and should be not problem with this.

 

I know your idea. You tries push people to switch nation and join to nation where is a less people, but this is not fair for the players. We spend on this game a lot of time and thanks to people like me nations become stronger and stronger.

 

Why becouse of this new mechanic which is trying make a balance between all nation a lot of good players will get a punishment ? Why ?

 

I know that for the game best option is to have an endless war between all nations which stay all equal for ever. Maybe system like this bring a lot of new players to game but also for sure many of them stop play. People need to have progress, not just stay in same place and lose private time. (I have Schout-bij-Nacht rank and few Santisima. Since long time there is nothing to do for me. Now also is not many chances to use my Santi because of this port system...)

 

One month ago was 2000/2300 at european prime time, now is maximum 1000/1200

 

Please give the players something else to do. Endless war and pvp where you can lose a lot and need to spend a lot of time to participate in this system and prepare before you join to this system is not exactly this what people need from this game. Should be time for pvp and time for pve. Game where people have nothing to do in pve or do not have time for pve, because of port battle system is not friendly for the players. In longer way push many of them to stop play. At this moment this game is just to hard to play even for people like i am Just one day break from port battle system is enough to lose all ports which you taken in last week thanks to your hard job.

 

At this moment people do not have even safe place to do mission or economic stuff. Water around capital should be safe for players from this nation, not for the enemies! Close to the port people should also can build tower which gives them an another protected area where they can do mission or whatever they want.

 

The open world pvp system, port battle system and economy are more than poor is just...

 

At this moment only one is very good (or was before last patch) battles. But all outside is just weak and need a lot of improvements.

 

For me this patch and system what you propose is just a time to stop play this game. To many not tested changes, not good enough. I pay for this game to have a fun, now i have just a place to waste my time and become an non-profit alpha tester. Really wish you all best, but now can't do nothing better than just take a break

Edited May 21, 2016 by Neith

[CeltiberoCaesar]

Do we have a day for this mechanic tp be included? National balance has been proved again and again a MUST in this game. It should stop the bullying actitude of the most populated nations.

Bring this ASAP, please

[Hethwill]

Reverting opinion. The crew loss should be proportionate with the durabilities. Such as 5 duras equals 20% shares ( of the ship crew, not rank crew ) per each, 4 25%, etc, or else the last dura will be simply disregarded all the time rendering the mechanic with no effect except for the first rates.

[Ratline]

Reverting opinion. The crew loss should be proportionate with the durabilities. Such as 5 duras equals 20% shares ( of the ship crew, not rank crew ) per each, 4 25%, etc, or else the last dura will be simply disregarded all the time rendering the mechanic with no effect except for the first rates.

 

This does seem so blindingly obvious that I can't understand why it's not the original proposal. Also, the new Fire Ship upgrade is a joke with both current and proposed crew mechanics. Meaningful crew loss, per dura, is about the only deterrent to totally unrealistic, unhistorical ship and crew sacrifices in open combat.

[Lannes]

To DEVELOPERS: I would like to see current crews develop experience and thus become better at sailing, firing and boarding, over time.

A battle-hardened crew should be better than a raw one. As one loses men, they could be replaced at port, but the replacements could dilute the remaining, more experienced crew.

As you move from one command to the next higher one, your core crew could come with you.

Thus, the latest, best ship I have as a Post Captain, my Trincomalee would have my best crew. My Essex the next best, and so on.

[ObiQuiet]

I'd keep it simple. Allow the crew to improve loading time, sail handling, and gunnery the longer you keep them without losing a ship. So the skills and unity of the crew are the resource to preserve, not the crew numbers.

[Talbaron]

so running the fire ship upgrade would mean transferring your crew to a mates ship or running the ship with minimum crew.

as you would not send whole crew to their death.

[Peter Fouche]

I think this is an excellent idea! Crew was always a problem for the RN for example, and I think the crew should gain xp as well as the officers. A ship was only as good as the people sailing her. (captain, officers and sailors)

 

However, this will have to be clearly thought through for it not to have massive negative impacts on the game and the community. I say roll it out, give it a couple of days for us to test and you will get your feedback quickly.

 

Looking forward to it.

[Peter Fouche]

Reverting opinion. The crew loss should be proportionate with the durabilities. Such as 5 duras equals 20% shares ( of the ship crew, not rank crew ) per each, 4 25%, etc, or else the last dura will be simply disregarded all the time rendering the mechanic with no effect except for the first rates.

 

I like this idea, however I think 20% are too much. It means that by 1 Dura you are only left with 20% crew able to work the ship... This is what it would be like for a Master&Commander to sail a Santisima. The ship will simply be unworkable and that will break the whole mechanic of the durability system as well. I think if you get to the last dura it should be like dropping one rank for that ship. Then it could work.

 

I'm also just a bit afraid that the durability system will become completely redundant as people will break up or sell ships as soon as they lose a dura on it to avoid the penalty..

[Hethwill]

No no, maybe I explained wrong. You lose 20% which can be replaced from your rank allowance given the nation pool has it.

 

But now that i look back at it sounds weird.

[CeltiberoCaesar]

An officer should reduce the proportion of dead/wounded.

I think the crew loses should always happens so the nations balance gets senses.

Edited June 8, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar

[vjrs01]

This proposal would work better if the boarding/capture/ship damage assumptions of the game were reviewed at the same time.

 

Crew was commonly commandeered from captured ships; it seems to me that crew should be 'recycled' in this way. However, the mêlée aspect of boarding, and the endpoint of crew killing on an adjacent vessel is such that all crew are killed, usually. In practice, the vessel would 'strike its colours' long before the crew were down to one man. This could — if it were to be considered a viable idea — be implemented by making morale decay during battle more rapidly than crew numbers, giving an endpoint whilst leaving a greater number of the crew alive. Those crew could then be acquired by the capturing vessel. It would also encourage 'capture rather than slaughter'; it would encourage preservation of one's own crew (for which, we receive no credit at the moment) and it would be more realistic and truer to the times.

 

I, for one, feel slightly uncomfortable sailing away and leaving a beaten crew to drown, even though they are only 'virtual' seamen. Good sailors were a resource, and in general, they weren't casually wasted.

[Enraged Ewok]

Regarding the worries over crew casualties in combat then translating to the OW, this seems like a remarkably simple thing to fix. Treat the crew number in combat as the number of combat effectives left, IE not killed/wounded. After the battle, a percentage of the crew casualties are returned to duty (wounded fixed up by the doctor), which for example would be 40-60% of the casualties. This would also apply to the enemy crew available for pressing into your crew after a boarding.

[SeethDark]

Limited crew resources is not the best idea in my opinion. It can cause a 'hunting rush' ..who first log in daily at certain time and steal more crew from the poll.

 

To make the big ships more expensive, crew costs can be added. Lets say for each day at sea you will have to give your crew a pay on arival to port. Similar type as the travel xp is working now. Biger ship, more to pay.

 

After fights, all lost crew will have to aditional be paid as 'family compensation' or recover for injured.

[CeltiberoCaesar]

The limited crew is a 'must' in my opinion. The aim is give some Nation balance so the most crowded nations have some difficulties against smaller nations.

If nation X has 100 players and have 100k crew in his ports, he will have max 1000 per player. If the nation Y has 50 players and have 100k crew in his ports, he will have 2000 per player. At the very first fight the big nation will have more 1st rates ships but each 1st rate that they lose wont be replace because they wont have crew enough. In the other hand, the small nation will be capable to replace those 1st rate ships and will be able to hit back.

This way new players will be encourage/pushed to choose small nations before big nations.

At least thats what I understood and I think it MIGHT work. We will have to test it (if there are still players in the game) and some tweak will be needed for sure... but I think is a goos idea to include a national resource that introduce some balance between nations.

[Lannes]

CeltiberoCaesar I agree. If your reasoning is correct, then it's a way to test the crew aspect and see if it works.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Lannes

[Klabauterman]

the game is much to easy, like an arcade game!

my opinion: much more realistic!

 

crews must be hired and paid and have moral.

limited crews to hire in the cities,

crew need supplies: water, food, care, weapons,...

special crew members:

officers, doctor, ship carpenter, fitter,...the cook!

different skills, sailor, gunner,...and skills can be improved, trained.

crew can be killed, healed (faster if you have a doctor), changed, taken from boarded ships,..

 

if you board a ship, and want to send it to a harbour, you need to split your crew.

and this ships can be captured by other players if the crew is small ;-)

if you want a safe return you have to escort it.

 

and no teleport!

humans can only teleport in kiddy-games or in science fiction, not in 1800 ;-)

and crew in the ship graphics ;-)

 

clap on all the sails!

ahoy

[Thomas Sailaway]

The limited crew is a 'must' in my opinion. The aim is give some Nation balance so the most crowded nations have some difficulties against smaller nations.

If nation X has 100 players and have 100k crew in his ports, he will have max 1000 per player. If the nation Y has 50 players and have 100k crew in his ports, he will have 2000 per player. At the very first fight the big nation will have more 1st rates ships but each 1st rate that they lose wont be replace because they wont have crew enough. In the other hand, the small nation will be capable to replace those 1st rate ships and will be able to hit back.

This way new players will be encourage/pushed to choose small nations before big nations.

At least thats what I understood and I think it MIGHT work. We will have to test it (if there are still players in the game) and some tweak will be needed for sure... but I think is a goos idea to include a national resource that introduce some balance between nations.

 

Well. I see the point here.

 

But.

 

There is absolutely nothing realistic about the smallest nations having the most crew, believe it or not.

 

The bigger the nation is, the more crew it should have (due to bigger population), if it was something realistic about it at all.

 

The smaller the nation is, the lesser crew would be available (due to lesser population), that's realistic. But then again, we shall see how realistic this game will be in the end. Hard to say, one day it's all about realism, and next day it's not. I prefer something inbetween.

 

And I do understand that the amount of captains demanding the amount of crew, means smaller nation, more crew for each captain, but still, it's not realistic. Speaking of realistic, then it should be more crew for bigger nations, and lesser crew for smaller nations, wich would equal the amount of crew per captain depending on the population of each nation. And then it shouldn't matter if it's a big nation or a small nation.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Thomas Sailaway

[Vernon Merrill]

Well. I see the point here.

 

But.

 

There is absolutely nothing realistic about the smallest nations having the most crew, believe it or not.

 

The bigger the nation is, the more crew it should have (due to bigger population), if it was something realistic about it at all.

 

The smaller the nation is, the lesser crew would be available (due to lesser population), that's realistic. But then again, we shall see how realistic this game will be in the end. Hard to say, one day it's all about realism, and next day it's not. I prefer something inbetween.

 

And I do understand that the amount of captains demanding the amount of crew, means smaller nation, more crew for each captain, but still, it's not realistic. Speaking of realistic, then it should be more crew for bigger nations, and lesser crew for smaller nations, wich would equal the amount of crew per captain depending on the population of each nation. And then it shouldn't matter if it's a big nation or a small nation.

 

 

True, and i see your point....  But as far as attempting to auto-balance factions for extending server fun, this is about as unobtrusive and behind the scenes as you can get.  I'm at least willing to give it a test.

[Thomas Sailaway]

True, and i see your point....  But as far as attempting to auto-balance factions for extending server fun, this is about as unobtrusive and behind the scenes as you can get.  I'm at least willing to give it a test.

 

I see the point myself of implementing this. I just hope they get it right, cause there is a lot of mistakes that can be done with this wich is already posted in this thread.

 

Again, we might see other more important/interesting things getting pushed further away, due to crew adjustments, wich was already working and could have been adjusted later.

[CaptVonGunn]

I like this as long as you dont have ALL loses in battle listed as killed since they were not.. ie maybe 30% were dead at most the rest wounded or incapacitated . Other wise the current battle exit system will just ensure that even if you win a fight you will die when you come back into Open World

[CaptVonGunn]

the game is much to easy, like an arcade game!

my opinion: much more realistic!

 

crews must be hired and paid and have moral.

limited crews to hire in the cities,

crew need supplies: water, food, care, weapons,...

special crew members:

officers, doctor, ship carpenter, fitter,...the cook!

different skills, sailor, gunner,...and skills can be improved, trained.

crew can be killed, healed (faster if you have a doctor), changed, taken from boarded ships,..

 

if you board a ship, and want to send it to a harbour, you need to split your crew.

and this ships can be captured by other players if the crew is small ;-)

if you want a safe return you have to escort it.

 

and no teleport!

humans can only teleport in kiddy-games or in science fiction, not in 1800 ;-)

and crew in the ship graphics ;-)

 

clap on all the sails!

ahoy

 

 

 All fine except for the fact that in a REAL world you wouldn't finish a battle and then suddenly have a dozen enemy surrounding you at 100 yards that you never saw coming

[Don Sancho Navarro]

Good discussion.

 

I am personally not interested in becoming a human resources manager. An option would be tu put crew management on AUTO, with a small penalty for corruption and petty theft from accountants and junior managers. Which was usual at the time.

Most of us have only a few hours to play the game and besides our crafting obligations, looking for resources, doing escorts etc there is little time for anything else. Please, do not sacrifice the playability of the game for the sake of 100% realism.

 

Greetings.

 

Don Sancho Navarro, Capitán de Bandera.

[Bleakbeard]

I am anxious about the increased crew cost on top of my current expenses.  I just captured my first Connie; not having the means to buy one and several months behind the crafting curve.

 

Were I to be penalized for running the 1 durability Constitution I'd just sell it.  The risk of losing more than half of my crew allotment (Demon) would be high for the tight budget of time/imaginary currency that I'm running on.  No player is going to constrict themselves to losing the vast majority of their crew by running a 1 durability ship unless the risks are adequate (1st Rate).

 

While the developers are appreciably desirous of trying to hinder zergs, crew recruitment is ultimately going to be pointless as a means of controlling large nations.  As previously noted if the costs are too high, anyone in their right mind will sell non-1st-Rate 1 durability ships rather than risk losing both important modules (the current dissuasion) and the majority of their crew allotment.  The primary draw upon the nation's pool is predominately the SoL.

 

The smaller nation must be able to sink the larger ships faster than they can be crewed or else the national crew pool system is pointless.  Can the small nation craft enough big ships to eventually face the enemy?  Eventually.  Particularly after a wipe?   The small nation will be gated not by crew nor material resources, but will lose the war through a race of crafting LH.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I am anxious about the increased crew cost on top of my current expenses.  I just captured my first Connie; not having the means to buy one and several months behind the crafting curve.

 

Were I to be penalized for running the 1 durability Constitution I'd just sell it.  The risk of losing more than half of my crew allotment (Demon) would be high for the tight budget of time/imaginary currency that I'm running on.  No player is going to constrict themselves to losing the vast majority of their crew by running a 1 durability ship unless the risks are adequate (1st Rate).

 

While the developers are appreciably desirous of trying to hinder zergs, crew recruitment is ultimately going to be pointless as a means of controlling large nations.  As previously noted if the costs are too high, anyone in their right mind will sell non-1st-Rate 1 durability ships rather than risk losing both important modules (the current dissuasion) and the majority of their crew allotment.  The primary draw upon the nation's pool is predominately the SoL.

 

The smaller nation must be able to sink the larger ships faster than they can be crewed or else the national crew pool system is pointless.  Can the small nation craft enough big ships to eventually face the enemy?  Eventually.  Particularly after a wipe?   The small nation will be gated not by crew nor material resources, but will lose the war through a race of crafting LH.

 

There is no good reason why a sunk ship couldn't launch life boats and most of the crew become "survivors".  

 

Despite how fast ours sink because it's a game, historically speaking wooden ships did not go down quickly. It's a small suspension of disbelief to imagine that crew would be taking to life boats once the ship could no longer maintain buoyancy.

 

Heck, they could add a toggle for launch boats like the boarding preparation.  The further along you were with it, the more survivors you would end up with.