Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Limited economy slots - coming soon

Recommended Posts

In summary, joining port battles will be a prerequisite for land ownership in this game. There will be monopolies and they will be jeliously defended. There will be arrangements like: let the enemy take that port now, it's ok. When we re-capture, all resouces will be ours. Let's get organized and kick out all the others.

If you have too many on your server, and if you like to have a bunch of 25 people per nation controlling all resources on each server, it's a good idea actually.

If you want players to have fun in the game even if they do not join port battles, it's the worst idea ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin said:

Hello Captains. 

Some of you might remember "such is a lord" topic

To make conquest bear more importance on release the number of buildings slots in port will be limited. This means that the city governor will be able to only allocate  25 land plots for construction of mines, manufactures and shipyards. This means only 25 Captains can own something in the city. (number is arbitrary and currently is equal to the number of port battle winners)

The system will work like this. 

  1. Once you conquer the port you will receive land grants from the new governor in all cities in that region.
  2. These land grants  will be required to build buildings in the cities 
  3. If the port is captured by an enemy nation - enemy nation will of course takeover the land and destroy your buildings. 
  4. To be able to build anything in this city you will have to recapture it. 
  5. Those who don't need buildings can of course sell those land grants to adventurous businessmen. 
  6. If you win the port battle alone you will get all the permits to yourself.

This system main goals are

  • Control resource supply to avoid inflation in the future
  • Provide huge incentive to conquer and participate in conquest

(ps. that's why night flips are no longer viable and tolerable)

This will destroy the ability of the casual players to maintain any semblance of self-sufficiency. All it will do is reward the core group who already always do these things of things.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ElricTheTwo said:

I fear the impact of inactive players controlling the majority of the resources, and the nation can't do anything about it.  How do you propose to counter the inactive player issue?

Yah this was a problem we had on POTBS and Governors going inactive for a port.  The best way to flip the issue was to let it get captured and than recaptured it back to make it fresh.

4 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

@admin

A thought, what if:

Instead to give land marks only to the port winners, you give them to all the players of that nation.

For balance issues: You give more to the port winners (4x) and screneers (2x) and just 1 to all nationals. So people will get encouraged in participating in the RvR, because all of them get those marks WHEN the nation wins the pb.

I think that would be way to many land grants.  Remember they said ports.   So folks that don't want to build in that port will be able to give/sale there grants to others.  As long as there is a means for folks to do so and there is no true cap on production in port. I would prefer to see those grants work in any port that your nation owns.  Though I see this as a way to reward those that do the hard work.  I also assume that there will be some ports that others can produce in with no limitations.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Yah this was a problem we had on POTBS and Governors going inactive for a port.  The best way to flip the issue was to let it get captured and than recaptured it back to make it fresh.

 

Any remaining players with building grants would lose all their buildings - and possibly the right to even have a building if the port is captured and retaken.  This seem harsh and likely to cause players to get very frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

This will destroy the ability of the casual players to maintain any semblance of self-sufficiency. All it will do is reward the core group who already always do these things of things.

Indeed. I'm out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of 4 pagesu ahev 4 players who think this might be a good idea and rest who things u just had a brain fart....

How can u stil think this is a good idea?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cerebro said:

Out of 4 pagesu ahev 4 players who think this might be a good idea and rest who things u just had a brain fart....

How can u stil think this is a good idea?

 

You are becoming a seriously broken record

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, fox2run said:

Indeed. I'm out. 

never thought I would agree with you :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, and I'm using info from hethwills post.

Port battle full of 25 wins.  They get land grants of a sort, which is basically currency for building slots.  Thus creating land owners.  Landowners then get to vote and control the nation in some sort of Parliment system.  Biggest land owner is the de facto ruler of the nation.  So basically to gain land and resources players must then be forced into PBs to fight for their uh naval action career.  This is an interesting system, but I can already see loop holes and abuse right around the corner.  

- This will force players in larger nations to break away and join smaller ones.  Good
- Players will be able to farm other nations if they come to sort of agreement.  Bad
- This will be incredibly complex for a new player to grasp in an already complex game. Bad
- This will only ever work in a niche system with a smaller player base.  Not good or bad.
- This will effectively kill off casual play.  You will need to be a hardcore player to compete.  Bad.
- Will encourage more RVR play.  Good
 

Not sure what to really make of this system @admin, but I can see it being an interesting experiment.  I don' think it will work though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

I'm in a RvR clan in one of the smallest nations ingame. My main goal when I play is to either schedule or join a PB, so for me this would be epic! We will be rewarded for our hard work and struggles, more of our nations lazy players will be motivated to join RvR and as mentioned earlier it will encourage players in overcrowded nations to join smaller nations.

If you get "land rights" by conquering a region and also by defending the region, it should be possible for all to get land rights. The brits will have the pirates help them farm land rights this way, so I don't understand why they are crying.. But if it's only given to players who are in the original successful attack, then wow this just became hard core! B)

If this is combined or intended to be implemented after 1 durability ships and it is possible to capture all AI ships sailing around, the where is the harm in testing it..

I just want to point out that no clan owns a PB. If you have hostility points, you are seriously guaranteed to enter. If you bring the correct ship rate, pay attention to team chat and follow commands then it's perfect. If allied players want you to join their ts you have a choice. If a random player would do all this and join the danish ts, that player would be offered a clan invite after that port battle..

Since when did this become a Clan game??

This will destroy the player base in very short time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this is terrible. I am one of many people who are in a small clan because we want to actually enjoy sailing and fighting and doing semi-historical things. As such, we are generally excluded from PBs (so don't get paints/ships/rewards) from that, and the admiralty events are generally flawed in that sort of thing anyway, as 20 people will get together in a doom fleet and chase everyone else away...very rare for people to do mixed fleets, etc though that's a gripe for another time.

 

But the fact is here, this will put all but the largest clans and the usual suspects of PB players totally out of business.

 

I have enjoyed this game since the beginning and convinced half a dozen friends to buy and play it. We are all adult professionals with limited time on our hands for this sort of thing but really enjoyed the direction that the game looked like it was going. So now, I truly am scratching my head at this.

 

I disregarded probably thousands of critical comments about the developers as usual internet trolling or whining. After these last couple announcements, I really am beginning to wonder if the developers do have an end game plan in mind for this game, and if so, it seems to be one that is deliberately against a large portion of the player base.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 people now....

I think its an interesting thing to test in the alpha.

Thoughts:

- Maybe give everybody the right to place a basis of 2-3 buildings with more slots added by participating in RvR.
- Hostility makers & screeners should also get a fair share, not only the people in the PB itself, they are important to RvR to.

If your country is not letting you participate in portbattles, even if you tell you come, bring the right ship & follow orders, then something is wrong with your country.

In Sweden everybody can join portbattles, heck we even give them the proper ship for free if needed.
If portbattles get full, we see that those missed it get a place for sure next PB - RvR should be open for everybody.
 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sveno said:

5 people now....

I think its an interesting thing to test in the alpha.

Thoughts:

- Maybe give everybody the right to place a basis of 2-3 buildings with more slots added by participating in RvR.
- Hostility makers & screeners should also get a fair share, not only the people in the PB itself, they are important to RvR to.

If your country is not letting you participate in portbattles, even if you tell you come, bring the right ship & follow orders, then something is wrong with your country.

In Sweden everybody can join portbattles, heck we even give them the proper ship for free if needed.
If portbattles get full, we see that those missed it get a place for sure next PB - RvR should be open for everybody.
 

That's great if you want to do RvR and PB. How many players actually do this?

If all the the ones who don't want to,

and also cant build then how do they get the shipsresources to participate all all?

If you force players to into PB and RvR then they will not play and that's a disaster for everyone. 

DEVS please rethink this one idea...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Blue Tooth said:

Since when did this become a Clan game??

This will destroy the player base in very short time.

And @Tiedemann - accusing certain players of being "lazy" is really coming it a bit high.  And....are you high, indeed?

This is a game, I'm being lazy every hour I add to my current 800 or so.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a casual player. I spend most of my time hunting npcs, crafting, and trading. I have been in 1 PB and only a little other pvp. I like the lone wolf approach and play style. I play this game to blast holes in other ships, and go where I want, when I want, and do whatever I want. Why do I suddenly need to ask for permission to set down a building from someone else "on my side"? I see it locking me out of trading and crafting and chaining me to people I don't know and may not want to know. Please explain how this change will help me and improve my gaming experience?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrible idea. Same as limited nations crew for hire. You are risking that some players wont be able to play and enjoy the game. Your math doesnt matter. People wont be switching to weaker nation but to a stronger one. They are going to have multitude of ports, loads of materials sold inside nation and on top of that relative safety of those ports from being taken and their building destroyed. Poor will be poor. Rich will be rich. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

This system main goals are

  • Control resource supply to avoid inflation in the future
  • Provide huge incentive to conquer and participate in conquest

 

The first goal is confusing to me. The massive inflation that existed in game was a direct result of the fine woods experiment. Instead of just doing a "fine woods wipe" there was a decision to do a buyout at a high value. This caused the market to flood with gold and prices skyrocketed accordingly. Only last week or so did I see ship price drop to what they once were with roughly 300-500k for a decent but not exceptional 5th rate (now that ships are getting wiped the price is dropping even lower). Inflation wasn't really a major problem before fine woods so this seems like a nonissue.

Additionally, limiting access to production lets very few people set the prices (as some have already pointed out this too can lead to inflation through a scarcity of supply). If you are in a situation where the same group of landowners hold titles to multiple ports then absenteeism could result in catastrophic economic collapse with resources growing even scarcer (and with 1 dura ships the demand for resources is going to be high).

The economics of this just don't add up.

It is important to note we will have 1 dura ships if we have a means of production that rests in the hands of 25 landowners per region (since port battles are only for regional capitals). This means that for a nation on their back heels (reduced to one region) to field 100 ships of all ratings, those 25 must manufacture all supplies, parts and material for 100 ships - not including those that must be replaced due to combat loss. Should any of those 25 landowners have a vacation or a personal real world problem then suddenly your available producers drops even more. By focusing means of production like this it magnifies every single bump and setback and that all trickles down the process. Suddenly there is a sharp decline in iron ingots because Landowner A is visiting his Grandmother for a week. The price of iron skyrockets and suddenly ship prices fluctuate. Based on what has been presented so far this strikes me as the makings of a volatile market more than a steady one. 


I do agree with the second goal. Incentive to conquer and participate in conquest is a great goal. Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought that the point of Raids was to encourage this? 

 




 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent read all this but may I suggest let people have shipyards in freeports or their capital without requiring the land grant whatever thingy? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anne Wildcat said:

Havent read all this but may I suggest let people have shipyards in freeports or their capital without requiring the land grant whatever thingy? 

and buildings in capital regions for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Hethwill, give us your opinion about these limited economy slots.

Edited by Cabral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is honestly one of the very few of the ideas for patches that i strongly disagree with (other is closing down the pve server but they have their reasons) for me what id do when id log in is do some econ haul some mats then generaly log off after maybe talk in usa chat but if this goes in to effect i find it alot harder for me to do what i generaly am content with(not pve for a change shocker aint it?)  id generaly say have a system for econ like potbs had where you can have govs of ports and they control the tax rate in this aspect maybe 10 slots max or 20 at most per toon kinda like we have now

the difference from the gov system in potbs and my idea is if a gov all of a sudden goes in active the game will remove them from office taxes get reset and a new gov is elected after say a week of inactiveness? people would still get their econ slots and it wont be a bloody cluster f with no monoply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would love it if at least one Dev would post a response to the MASSIVE amount of concern over the proposed update. Some reassurance that they have thought it through, beyond the negative points made here...that they have solutions or that they are rethinking some things. The silence is deafening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Headless Parrot said:

I would love it if at least one Dev would post a response to the MASSIVE amount of concern over the proposed update. Some reassurance that they have thought it through, beyond the negative points made here...that they have solutions or that they are rethinking some things. The silence is deafening.

Maybe because it is 3:37 am in Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, Cecil Selous said:

Maybe because it is 3:37 am in Ukraine.

in the morning....tomorrow...whenever....just something soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...