Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Based on the player feedback and design deep dive internally we now think that limitation on economy slots should not be done. It will work only when ports could be controlled by clans and when c

Based on community feedback, this idea is no longer being considered.  Please continue to provide constructive feedback on ideas that are being presented to assist Game-Labs with thinking through new

Oh for feck sake! So that means most players wont be able to build anything in a port????????? So we wont be able to craft or trade or do feck all. Funny way to run a game ..... stopping mos

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
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
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
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
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
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...

 

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
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
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
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the other ideas, but this is horrid. I play at odd hours and mostly solo. While I do plan to try some port battles, that isn't what I sail for. And I love building my own ships. Guess I won't be doing that anymore.

Perhaps a baseline of a few building slots like we have now, or fewer, but winning a PB lets you build additional ones in that port? This would let people like me get our basic materials, but the rare and elite stuff would be fought for tooth and nail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we have 300 ports with 7500 buildings yay terrific but sorry "epic" not going to work. As an Aussie I'm time zone challenged. I read this the same way as some other players those who get involved in the port battles are the only people who will benefit from this. I will ask where this will leave the casual players or even those players who screen rather than PB. I am in the PvE server right now and already I am already reading players saying 'that's it I'm quitting this game'. I am sure that if I go over to the PvP EU server I'll be reading the same thing. Limiting peoples ability to play the game is not in the best interest of the game. I am not sure where this will go but I will try it out for a while and see how it plays out. You do realise that those lucky few who get buildings aren't going to give a damn about anything else but protecting the empire they are attempting to build and the port you will now have tied them too.

Regards Shot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick, immediate feedback from a person representing a small group of friends that play somewhat regularly but never talk on the forums:

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

Previous posts cover the 'why' more than thoroughly. Just passing on our opinion.

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

×
×
  • Create New...