1st rates too cheap?

[Todbringer]

Basically, 1st rates should be extremely expensive to craft, so that players that can afford them will rarely risk them in battle.

 

Historically, 1st rate ships were so expensive that it rarely happened that there were two active in a navy at the same time. When the UK decided to build HMS Victory it was considered weird because UK at the time already had a 1st rate ship in active duty. During the entire 18th century UK (who due to it's policy had to have fleet stronger than Spanish and French fleet combined) only had ten 1st rates in total commissioned.

 

1st rates were so valuable and expensive that they were used only during the wars and were conserved during peacetime in order to prevent wear and tear.

 

Most of the action and battles were carried out by 2nd rates (who also often served as flagships in different areas) and 3rd rates.

 

Soon every PB will be consisted of 1st rates and nothing else. By rising the price of 1st rates players would be encouraged to use smaller ships for RvR and PvP, which would be historically more accurate and would allow players to diversify, and the big 1st rates would then be brought out for those really, really important battles since the players would not want to risk them needlessly.

[Mrdoomed]

Basically, 1st rates should be extremely expensive to craft, so that players that can afford them will rarely risk them in battle.

Historically, 1st rate ships were so expensive that it rarely happened that there were two active in a navy at the same time. When the UK decided to build HMS Victory it was considered weird because UK at the time already had a 1st rate ship in active duty. During the entire 18th century UK (who due to it's policy had to have fleet stronger than Spanish and French fleet combined) only had ten 1st rates in total commissioned.

1st rates were so valuable and expensive that they were used only during the wars and were conserved during peacetime in order to prevent wear and tear.

Most of the action and battles were carried out by 2nd rates (who also often served as flagships in different areas) and 3rd rates.

Soon every PB will be consisted of 1st rates and nothing else. By rising the price of 1st rates players would be encouraged to use smaller ships for RvR and PvP, which would be historically more accurate and would allow players to diversify, and the big 1st rates would then be brought out for those really, really important battles since the players would not want to risk them needlessly.

So far anything that has kept a tryhard from his 1st rate has been met with hostility ( unless it was aimed at pirates then it was kewl ). I wish ships had limites or expensive upkeep but like you said a few months after launch the ports will be full of nothing but 1st rates.

[admin]

yes. crafting is on the table for rework

exceptional ships should be more expensive to make

1st rates should be a lot more expensive to make and maintain.

 

but because its a game eventually a lot of people will have them anyway. 

we are testing new ways to limit the supply of at least some of the vessels.

[Grundgemunkey]

Basically, 1st rates should be extremely expensive to craft, so that players that can afford them will rarely risk them in battle.

 

Historically, 1st rate ships were so expensive that it rarely happened that there were two active in a navy at the same time. When the UK decided to build HMS Victory it was considered weird because UK at the time already had a 1st rate ship in active duty. During the entire 18th century UK (who due to it's policy had to have fleet stronger than Spanish and French fleet combined) only had ten 1st rates in total commissioned.

 

1st rates were so valuable and expensive that they were used only during the wars and were conserved during peacetime in order to prevent wear and tear.

 

Most of the action and battles were carried out by 2nd rates (who also often served as flagships in different areas) and 3rd rates.

 

Soon every PB will be consisted of 1st rates and nothing else. By rising the price of 1st rates players would be encouraged to use smaller ships for RvR and PvP, which would be historically more accurate and would allow players to diversify, and the big 1st rates would then be brought out for those really, really important battles since the players would not want to risk them needlessly.

 

 the devs addressed this in making regional capitals only 1st rate ..

[Todbringer]

yes. crafting is on the table for rework

exceptional ships should be more expensive to make

1st rates should be a lot more expensive to make and maintain.

 

but because its a game eventually a lot of people will have them anyway. 

we are testing new ways to limit the supply of at least some of the vessels.

 

True. But it is not necessary to prevent people from having them (everybody will craft or buy one sooner or later), but to make them think twice before using them for every battle. 

 

If it takes you a month and lots of sailing/contracts to craft one, you will not use them in every battle. And catching and destroying one will be a big blow for that nation, not only for the player himself.

[D. Federico de Gravina y N]

Great idea!!!!

Edited August 19, 2016 by Don Alejandro De C. y M.

[Yar Matey]

yes. crafting is on the table for rework

exceptional ships should be more expensive to make

1st rates should be a lot more expensive to make and maintain.

 

but because its a game eventually a lot of people will have them anyway. 

we are testing new ways to limit the supply of at least some of the vessels.

 

I think crew cost was a step in the right direction to solving the first rate spam.  However, in order to really fix the issue of everyone sailing around in 1st rates, it needs to be more costly to the players in gold/money to sail and use in battle than you will receive in rewards.  If your victory, Santismia, or l'ocean receives battle damage, it should cost a staggering amount to repair.  Make it it cost hundreds of thousands of gold to repair.  Make 1 repair kit for a first rate cost 300k gold or more.  If your first rate ship is badly damaged to the point of nearly sinking, make it cost 1.5 million gold to repair along with needing to use live oak planks and other crafted materials to re-construct the ships.

 

Also, having a first rate in your group could add a morale bonus to all 2nd and 3rd rate ships unless its captured or sunk, but the moral bonus only applies to other 2nd and 3rd rate ships, having the largest effect on 3rd rates and lower.  This way battles become a brawl of 3rd rates and 2nd rates with 1 or 2 first rate ships in port battles.  Having a flagship first rate could give a bonuses to cannon load time, and sailing as well as a boost to boarding morale.  Have first rate ships provide a 10% bonus to reload and sailing to 3rd rate ships and a 5% bonus to 2nd rate ships. You could even include a rear admiral officer that gets special perks to boost nearby ships. 

 

Rear Admiral Officer Perks (only works if piloting a first rate ship of the line):

10% faster reload for all 3rd rate ships, 5% faster reload for all 2nd rate ships in a 1000 meter radius, and 12% to all 4th rate and lower ships.

10% boost to morale when boarding or being boarded (only effects 3rd rates and lower)

50% increase in influence range for nearby ships (3rd rates and lower)

10% boost to repairs to 3rd rate ships and 5% for 2nd rate ships when nearby friendly ships use a repair kit

10% speed bonus to all nearby friendly ships

10% faster pumping speed when friendly ships are taking on water

 

You could even add penalty perks to nearby enemy ships for Rear Admiral Officer:

second rate ships and lower in nearby vicinity (500 meters) suffer a 10% penalty to reload speed

 

The possibilities here are endless.

 

It will also make battles way more strategic in that, everyone will try and protect their first rate because losing it, will almost certainly spell doom for your team. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ultravis

[Snoopy]

I don't think eco-limiting works very well in a game, only the grind requirements will increase by making them more expensive.

If they are the weapon of choice (like most people seem to assume) players will have them no matter the cost, you only make having them a more miserable game experience by increasing cost or by (say) demanding rare drops.

 

Having said that, I do not mind having balancing done across the board to get ship cost in alignment to their historical price escalation through the classes [1-6].

 

But thanks to the damn accountants of the era, we know fairly well how much each ship type costs and first rates were never really unicorns that needed dragon hide and virgin blood to make. They should not be in the game either, but ideally limited in usage by other factors (BR/draft).

 

I think what curtailed their usage is just that they had limited return of investment when looking across the entire budget of a navy.

They did have good combat value in large battles but wars where you really needed them were rare enough that a 1st rate could be laid up for decades, whereas the RoE on Frigates and other cruisers which would be continuously employed until they were worn out was much better and as such three deckers were prestige objects and luxury items.

 

If you look at the National News section in the forum the 'prestige' part is already there - and player made. When a first rate sinks or is captured, you will see gloating&screenshots enough.

[Sven Silberbart]

It should be nearly unimpossible to build a 1st as a solo player.

A medium size clan needs to work as team very long to build just one of that ships.

If such a ship is spotted at see everyone should say "WOW...really really big ship with much guns"

[SheepDip]

My 2 cents , regardless of cost or maintenance , having only 1 life evens things out pretty well 

[SheepDip]

By the way , I am real close to Rear Admiral and I just bought a Santi in Charleston , Gold 2/5 , build /speed for 2,500,000 . Is that considered expensive or cheap ?

[Yar Matey]

Wonderful, more hardcore changes. Some things could use Real Life as an reference, others have to be forgotten for the sake of gameplay and fun.

 

There is nothing hardcore about it.  Historically fleets were made up of 3rd rates with usually only 1 first and a hand full of second rates.  3rd rates made up the bulk of naval battles during this era.  A 3rd rate is more than capable of holding its own against a 1st rate, and I would like to see more 3rd rates and less first and second rates in naval engagements. 

 

3rd rates will be for normal and casual players, and 1st rates will be for the hardcore players.  If changes are implemented correctly, than it could work and be fun for all players.  That is why I recommended moral boost for smaller ships when in the presents of a first rate in battle giving them faster reload, and rigging speed. 

[Todbringer]

I don't mind working hard and long to get a 1st rate. It is something to do at top rank, it shows accomplishment and determination and with all that hard work I'll think not twice but 10 times before risking it needlessly.

 

But when it is really needed then a 1st rate will be a big thing to have in a battle.

[Eldberg]

yes. crafting is on the table for rework

exceptional ships should be more expensive to make

1st rates should be a lot more expensive to make and maintain.

 

but because its a game eventually a lot of people will have them anyway. 

we are testing new ways to limit the supply of at least some of the vessels.

And that is why there should be crew wages, not crew cost. You did not buy crew like slaves...

To lower the amount of high crew ships on the open ocean and in battles you would replace crew cost with an crew wage that increases in an exponential fashion (what this means is that the more crew you have, the more you pay per crew). For example:

0-200 Crew: 50 Gold per Crew per Game Day

201-500 Crew: 75 Gold per Crew per Game Day

501-900 Crew: 125 Gold per Crew per Game Day

901+ Crew: 200 Gold per Crew per Game Day

What this would do is make sailing a 1st rate very costly. Using the above example (which is VERY rough) it could work like this:

Fully crewed Frigate cost per day: 13,000 Gold

Fully crewed Constitution cost per day: 28,750 Gold

Fully crewed Santisima cost per day: 127,500 Gold

The result would be that the bigger the ship you sail, the more crew you need. The more crew you need, the more it costs. Sailing around in 4th and 3rd rates would be much more cost effective, thus would make it more common. By doing the crew wages exponentially, it protects newer players in smaller ships, as maintenance is kept low. The real costs come in when you are sailing top of the line ships (which is what is needed). I believe 1 in game day is about 48 mins. Gold would automatically be deducted from the players funds. If the players funds run dry mid sail, their crew mutinies and they loose a durability (and return to the nearest safe port).

[delaine]

And that is why there should be crew wages, not crew cost. You did not buy crew like slaves...

To lower the amount of high crew ships on the open ocean and in battles you would replace crew cost with an crew wage that increases in an exponential fashion (what this means is that the more crew you have, the more you pay per crew). For example:

0-200 Crew: 50 Gold per Crew per Game Day

201-500 Crew: 75 Gold per Crew per Game Day

501-900 Crew: 125 Gold per Crew per Game Day

901+ Crew: 200 Gold per Crew per Game Day

What this would do is make sailing a 1st rate very costly. Using the above example (which is VERY rough) it could work like this:

Fully crewed Frigate cost per day: 13,000 Gold

Fully crewed Constitution cost per day: 28,750 Gold

Fully crewed Santisima cost per day: 127,500 Gold

The result would be that the bigger the ship you sail, the more crew you need. The more crew you need, the more it costs. Sailing around in 4th and 3rd rates would be much more cost effective, thus would make it more common. By doing the crew wages exponentially, it protects newer players in smaller ships, as maintenance is kept low. The real costs come in when you are sailing top of the line ships (which is what is needed). I believe 1 in game day is about 48 mins. Gold would automatically be deducted from the players funds. If the players funds run dry mid sail, their crew mutinies and they loose a durability (and return to the nearest safe port).

sounds like somthing if you want you should go play uncharted waters

[Skully]

Issues are starting to boil here.

I've added ship cost to the pricing guide at http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15480-the-definitive-pricing-guide/

An interesting bit is appearing here, if you express the cost of a Large Carriage against duras, you are better off crafting a Constitution as opposed to a 3rd.
Lowering the dura on a Constitution might have some weird side-effects from an economical perspective.

We are also coming up shortly to an exploit around repairs...

I'll confer with Henry whether to put it on the table yet.

 

As for crew cost per day, we should not do that. You might run out of money unable to mount any form of expedition.

Rather just toss in enough Food Supplies for the amount of days you expect to be at sea with a certain amount of crew.

That way not being online or not mounting an expedition will not cost you anything. While short trips will cost little and long trips cost more.

[Mrdoomed]

Issues are starting to boil here.

I've added ship cost to the pricing guide at http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15480-the-definitive-pricing-guide/

An interesting bit is appearing here, if you express the cost of a Large Carriage against duras, you are better off crafting a Constitution as opposed to a 3rd.

Lowering the dura on a Constitution might have some weird side-effects from an economical perspective.

We are also coming up shortly to an exploit around repairs...

I'll confer with Henry whether to put it on the table yet.

As for crew cost per day, we should not do that. You might run out of money unable to mount any form of expedition.

Rather just toss in enough Food Supplies for the amount of days you expect to be at sea with a certain amount of crew.

That way not being online or not mounting an expedition will not cost you anything. While short trips will cost little and long trips cost more.

Long trips costing more will just give another reason for people to say they cant sail far in a sailing game.

[Todbringer]

Long trips costing more will just give another reason for people to say they cant sail far in a sailing game.

 

So what? People will always be lazy. If you start listening to them complaining ships will zoom around at warp speeds and you'd have instant teleportation to any port ont he map.

 

Thing is that the cost of making the ship should not be so prohibitive to make it impossile for the player to get one with an effort, but at the same time make it expensive enough to make it very valuable for them, too valuable to risk needlessly in an unimportant battle.

 

I like the idea of crew using food and maybe rum provisions for voyages. Makes a cash drain later on, makes people plan their voyages, adds realism and adventure to the traveling (in those days ship supplies were important. Remember Columbus who would have had starved if he hadn't found land).

 

The thing witht he first rates was that due to the amount of cannons (100+ cannons per ship - entire land armies of that time had less cannons, I think standard army at Waterloo had something like 20-30 cannons) and the amount of trained seamen they had to pay the costs of maintenance was high. That's why they conserved them during peacetime and rarely deployed them.

 

One could argue that when ship is in harbor it is conserved in the dry dock and there is no upkeep. But when at sea you could introduce some kind of pay for the crew?

[Todbringer]

tbh, I would only put food rations and maybe rum/grog to be used while sailing. Not gold. otherwise, as someone noted before, you'll get catch 22 when someone will run out of gold and won't be able to sail to earn more gold to sail.

[katerholzig]

one thing to fix it would be to add cannon balls

[BorisDemontford]

1st rate are too cheap but making them more expensive will not diminish their numbers, players will always do whatever it takes to have the best equipment available.

[Todbringer]

1st rate are too cheap but making them more expensive will not diminish their numbers, players will always do whatever it takes to have the best equipment available.

 

 

I agree. That's why I think devs should try to influence the will of the player whether to use it and risk it or not.

 

no matter how expensive you make it, players will eventually have them. So make them expensive enough that players won't want to risk them in every battle.

[Todbringer]

the goal wouldn't be to remove 1st rates from battles, just to make them less common in PBs. To avoid that PBs would be only 1st rates and nothing else.

[Snoopy]

Just to illustrate this a bit, the initial costs of a few select vessels:

 

Three decks:

Ville de Paris 110 (1795)   £78,830

Victory 100 (1765)             £57,748

Barfleur 90 (1768)             £49,222

 

Two decks:

Foudroyant 80 (1798)         £60,685

Bellona 74 (1760)               £43,391

Vanguard 74  (1787)           £39,116

Agamemnon 64 (1781)       £24,415

[Mrdoomed]

So what? People will always be lazy. If you start listening to them complaining ships will zoom around at warp speeds and you'd have instant teleportation to any port ont he map.

Thing is that the cost of making the ship should not be so prohibitive to make it impossile for the player to get one with an effort, but at the same time make it expensive enough to make it very valuable for them, too valuable to risk needlessly in an unimportant battle.

I like the idea of crew using food and maybe rum provisions for voyages. Makes a cash drain later on, makes people plan their voyages, adds realism and adventure to the traveling (in those days ship supplies were important. Remember Columbus who would have had starved if he hadn't found land).

The thing witht he first rates was that due to the amount of cannons (100+ cannons per ship - entire land armies of that time had less cannons, I think standard army at Waterloo had something like 20-30 cannons) and the amount of trained seamen they had to pay the costs of maintenance was high. That's why they conserved them during peacetime and rarely deployed them.

One could argue that when ship is in harbor it is conserved in the dry dock and there is no upkeep. But when at sea you could introduce some kind of pay for the crew?

You are preaching to the choir. Ive been advocating for more realism since day one. Im simply telling you what will happen and that the dev team listens to those who cry the loudest.