Patch 11.0: New ships, Unity 5, Improved clan based conquest, and many other changes.

[shaeberle84]

3 hours ago, admin said:

there are 10 mln iron ore loads, 6 mln iron ingots loads, and 4 mln iron fittings loads in the system right now (in stores or in player holdings). Some resources were cut as they were oversupplied

Why are they there in the first place? Because of stupid fixed prices the NPC/AI buys materials more expensive than they were to craft. Making Ingots and other materials was the easiest way to make money after patch 10.0.

Remove the fixed prices, PLEASE! They ruin the economy completely (coming from someone with a PhD in economics btw).

[shaeberle84]

14 hours ago, rediii said:

Eco is broken.

 

Noone sells ressources/materials anymore because gold isn't worth anything so we cant build ships anymore alone

This will resolve after the new price level is known. Then people will sell ressources and/or their labour hours again. Overall higher price level is actually a good thing, because now it is more profitable to sell ressources to players than to craft materials and sell them to NPCs.

Fixed NPC prices are still stupid, though. ^^

[shaeberle84]

3 hours ago, rediii said:

Thats right and I struggle of a way how eck is atleast a bit possible but I dont know yet. :/ Maybe it comes back to life though. Money is only worth nothing because noone sells ressources but maybe it changes once ressources are bought up in the surrounding ports.

You can easily tackle that by increasing the number of production buildings per player (however, increasing costs over-proportionately, like ship slots or outpost costs).

[shaeberle84]

3 hours ago, admin said:

Unlike reality (iron deposit is finite) the supply is unlimited as 10000 players can build a mine in the city, and mine normally.

The daily production is reduced but it is in fact unlimited because of european traders that were brought back. Place a contract for coal in a coal producing city and if the price is right the resource will be brought to you.

There is no inflation on production costs as a result. Because if economy was fully realistic we go back to - "i want to play an iron miner but i can't because the iron mine license is already given to that guild and no-one else can have it as there is only one mine in that city"

Please give us more information on the level of european trader prices.

[victor]

On 9/13/2017 at 12:33 PM, Stepp636 said:

Wo cares about one victory mark? 

It's just 100 CM's now

I guess that the problem is that the initial advantage is likely to keep DK ahead for some time, assuming that from now on GB and DK will conquest the same amount of port per day (as it was in the last two days).

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by victor

[Quineloe]

1 minute ago, Peter Goldman said:

One AI almost exploded next to me (1st rate with 400 crew went into fire shock). The ship wasn't in crew shock.

Did you hammer it very hard with multiple broadsides at the time that happened?

[Robert]

4 hours ago, admin said:

Everybody wants realistic economy and zero sum balanced rewards, but nobody plays those games. 
Realistic economy means 1% are rich, everyone else has a job. We found that most players don't  want a job in a game, they just want progress at their own pace and it means money should not be a problem for everyone. 

I just started the game and want to say, good job, love the game and I think this patch is a step in the right direction. I have few suggestions that might help with the new players, I think the game needs to speed up and get new players faster to rank 6 (250 crew) which means adjusting the experience and combat marks earned for 1-6 rank missions and ow activities.

I think the missions should scale with the rank and need to be toned down, AI and all, for example rank 3 missions are against 3 AI ships which are deadly accurate that seem to take less damage, not suffer from crew loss and sail pretty well at 55% sails. I have played games ever since they were invented and like a challenge but those NPC's would give a new equal rank player an embarrassing beat down most of the time. If if by chance the new player wins, would of used consumables and spent a lot of time for 125 exp and couple combat marks. Basically a new player is stuck doing the rank 1 missions which is 50-100 exp, 1-3 cm while there is 11000 exp needed to get to a meaningful PvP/PvE rank. I understand the concept of time to learn and all but there is not much learning if you stuck in a cutter for the means to advance. The main thing to be learned is manual sailing which you can get the basics in a snow but the best practice is a 5th rate.  That's were the fun is too so getting the new players faster there would help attracting/keeping them in game. Like you said, most of us we already have a job and we don't need this to be one, it's the fun and recreational factor that we are after.

In conclusion, awesome job for creating such a beautiful game, please keep going at it and don't give up just trial and error, as you already know, with the right balance this game has the potential to be the best. Just my thoughts!

[Quineloe]

in the end, the weekly victory mark shower will hit the nation that is willing to do the most PVE grind to maintain ports no one cares about.

I mean Tax income for Victoria 785 gold yesterday? 100k upkeep. And that's what most ports look like.  Placentia 108k? barely sustains itself, and that's right next to Belize.

Same for the Danish. San Juan is great, I'm sure the other Danish clans love lining the pockets of Hydra. But Viequess is barely breaking 10k. The hot areas around the capitals are barely sustaining themselves as it is if you add them all up. That you can hold, but that's not going to be enough to be competitive for the Map Win.

What will the tax traffic of Calobelo be like? Of Sale-Trou? Sancti Spiritus? Ahumada? Turtle Cay? No, these ports will have no value beyond the 1 conquest point they provide. A conquest point that costs 700k a week.  So who will win the map? The nation that is the most determined to grind that 700k multiplied by X every week.

[Stepp636]

54 minutes ago, victor said:

I guess that the problem is that the initial advantage is likely to keep DK ahead for some time, assuming that from now on GB and DK will conquest the same amount of port per day (as it was in the last two days).

 

I know that but I still don't care nor should anyone else with the increase of mission rewards and the decrease of the permit costs. 

[victor]

29 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

There are ports worth 2 and 3 points, you didn't consider it. Danish took San Juan worth 3 points for example and we took Cartagena de Indias.

Oh I see, I did not know it, since I'm not into RvR a lot, just commenting (and BTW I'm not even in the brit faction)

[Hodo]

5 hours ago, admin said:

There is no inflation in production goods, because production costs stay the same and supply is unlimited (every player can have 5 buildings + there are european traders).

You can grow fir at 31 gold per load of logs. and this stays the same even if money supply increases 10х
Real inflation affects all costs including production costs (salaries, cost of electricity, steam or whatever). Production cost are not going up. 

There will be inflation of looted goods as the supply is limited.

The inflation isnt really from the production goods, but from the gold itself.   By giving out more per mission reward it effectively prints more money, thus reducing the value of the current money.   This is where the inflation will come in.  

 

While again I think the XP rewards are good and the marks increase is good.  The problem lies in the massive increase in gold payouts per mission.  An increase of 1.5 would have been fine, but now I think it is closer to 2.5 if not higher.  

[Quineloe]

This is way too early to judge this patch people. It's been 4 days. There have been zero losses in RVR so far because all we do is fight neutral fleets. There have been almost no maintenance hits on our ports yet because we just started taking them. Wait for maintenance to be an actual factor, wait for RVR losses to be an actual factor, then judge the money gain again.

[victor]

23 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

This is way too early to judge this patch people. It's been 4 days. There have been zero losses in RVR so far because all we do is fight neutral fleets. There have been almost no maintenance hits on our ports yet because we just started taking them. Wait for maintenance to be an actual factor, wait for RVR losses to be an actual factor, then judge the money gain again.

wise words. In my opinion, the winner - in this new game - will be the faction able to keep the highest number of ports in the long term, not the one that conquers them in a rush.

Edited September 14, 2017 by victor

[Vizzini]

5 minutes ago, victor said:

wise words. In my opinion, the winner - in this new game - will the faction able to keep the highest number of ports, not the one that conquers them.

Yes indeed, The front lines could be very fluid this season

[John Cavanaugh]

6 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

Yes indeed, The front lines could be very fluid this season

Yes and no, I expect most of the bigger clans won't expand into the majority of ports - we'll see people centralizing around the money makers - white oak, teak, and upgrade spawns, as well as rare production resources such as gold/silver and labor contracts to ensure access. Most of the map will stay neutral except when a port is nationalized to stamp out an entrenched raiding group with production set up within spitting distance of an Econ hub. Due to the admiralty/pirate den Wasas for 4th rate pbs, people will have to be watchful and counter a nation taking a port within striking distance of them(1) - we now have a risk of PB fleets being instantly assembled at the FOB rather than transported there in a fleet or trickle that can be intercepted. As a result we'll see clans erecting buffer zones around their vital ports, even if they are an Econ sink(2).

because of reduced production we'll see a partial return, even for larger clans, to early 2016 resource collection from Ai to increase the stockpiling necessary for RvR. It will be economicaly imperative to control these ports as a way to counter losses through tax - even if they're just paying themselves at that point(3).

(1) combat marks, despite their increased availability, will skyrocket in costs as people stockpile them for just this purpose - money leaves the system via tax in capitol, or in upkeep paid in a 1% tax trade hub. 

(2) clans will pay out several mln a day protecting those vital ports from a fleet that can't be effectively screened coming in from an adjacent neutral port or tactical flip, removing money from the system. 

(3) upkeep and buying from Ai, whether from EUTrader or basic contract, will further reduce money in the system. 

In conclusion - inflation will hit - but the market will stabilize, likely just above current pricing, and national/clan borders will return to near - pre wipe locations except possibly deep gulf and the New Edinburgh- Dariena region of panama

[shaeberle84]

1 hour ago, Quineloe said:

in the end, the weekly victory mark shower will hit the nation that is willing to do the most PVE grind to maintain ports no one cares about.

I mean Tax income for Victoria 785 gold yesterday? 100k upkeep. And that's what most ports look like.  Placentia 108k? barely sustains itself, and that's right next to Belize.

Same for the Danish. San Juan is great, I'm sure the other Danish clans love lining the pockets of Hydra. But Viequess is barely breaking 10k. The hot areas around the capitals are barely sustaining themselves as it is if you add them all up. That you can hold, but that's not going to be enough to be competitive for the Map Win.

What will the tax traffic of Calobelo be like? Of Sale-Trou? Sancti Spiritus? Ahumada? Turtle Cay? No, these ports will have no value beyond the 1 conquest point they provide. A conquest point that costs 700k a week.  So who will win the map? The nation that is the most determined to grind that 700k multiplied by X every week.

Tax income could be generated by limiting production or buildings in ports. For example constructing buildings or extracting ressources increase in costs the more there are in a port. 

If you want to produce more (or cheaper), you need more ports.

That way each port generates some income.

You can produce cheap, but far away from the capital or more expensive, but close to the capital.

[Quineloe]

At some point people will just abandon production of resources and buy everything from euro traders and save themselves all the trouble with port maintenance.

[Teutonic]

33 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

At some point people will just abandon production of resources and buy everything from euro traders and save themselves all the trouble with port maintenance.

maybe...but also maybe the maintenance will cost less than having to buy from EU traders.

Certainly we will see how it goes, but that is when we give feedback to make a good balance.

EDIT - I also think Clans should be allowed to taxes members for their rewards, so clans can actually get players to help participate in pooling money for maintenance.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Teutonic

[Vizzini]

3 hours ago, Hodo said:

The inflation isnt really from the production goods, but from the gold itself.   By giving out more per mission reward it effectively prints more money, thus reducing the value of the current money.   This is where the inflation will come in.  

 

While again I think the XP rewards are good and the marks increase is good.  The problem lies in the massive increase in gold payouts per mission.  An increase of 1.5 would have been fine, but now I think it is closer to 2.5 if not higher.  

Could zap a large amount of gold from circulation every 3 months with a 5 mill Forged paper via the admiralty ..or something along those lines

[Quineloe]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

hostilitymissions spawn very far from the target port and its very hard to defend right now.

 

I would say they need to get closer

Exactly. Good luck figuring out where the attackers are.

[Quineloe]

You can still buy iron in huge quantities for 120 each from ai shops all over the place...

[Fargo]

11 hours ago, admin said:

There is no inflation in production goods, because production costs stay the same and supply is unlimited (every player can have 5 buildings + there are european traders).

You can grow fir at 31 gold per load of logs. and this stays the same even if money supply increases 10х
Real inflation affects all costs including production costs (salaries, cost of electricity, steam or whatever). Production cost are not going up. 

There will be inflation of looted goods as the supply is limited.

That AI prices dont react to inflation makes it even worse... 

Dont tell us something is not possible while you obviously dont know what youre talking about. Nobody asks for 0 sum economy, but have you tested it? Why dont you test 5% inflation, when you have the required data?! Every working economy has some inflation, you just need to control it. For example give rich players opportunities to spend gold for cosmetic stuff.

Shall we remember people how you handled one dura, a simple logical decision that took weeks, that we had to force after you claimed multiple times its not possible?! How you seriously "tested" economy with 10 guys on the testbed spread over 8 nations?!

The truth is that you dont know what youre doing, and that you cant justify your decisions. Ofcourse you dont have to justify your decisions, you can ignore all criticism and reasoning, you dont have to admit mistakes. But how are we supposed to help, and how are you supposed to make progress like this?! Im so tied of arguing against nonesense that got into the game for no reason, just to not make regress in the best case. Reading your comments in this topic is like a punsh in the face if you spent dozens of hours of your freetime dealing with issues, discussing, explaining and making serious suggestions.

Just tell us, what data was this drastic change based on? Why dont you make adjustments to steadily improve balancings, based on observable data? What we get are foolish answers like this:

On 13.9.2017 at 3:54 PM, admin said:

if you look at things from the "Achilles and Tortoise" paradox then all things will never finish 

http://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/zenos-paradox-of-the-tortoise-and-achilles

After this paradox youre never able to cross a room of 2 meters. Reality looks slightly different.

As another excuse you called drastic balancing changes "experimenting". But experimenting does not equal clueless try and error. You compared yourself with scientists. But science is about making predictions, not testing random stuff. Youre just trying to avoid and to conceal.

I hope at some point everyone is going to realise what youre doing here. If you dont change your mindset, admit that the game isnt in a perfect state and start to seriously deal with issues and coherences instead of counting "likes", all we can do is leave the sinking ship.

Sorry for harsh words, but someone has to point it out. I wouldnt care if you would only waste your own time, but its our time.

[Quineloe]

The removal of durability was a design decision, not a logical one. Get off the high horse you mounted only because you got your way this once.

[Rigge1988]

To remove durabilities was probably the best decision ever made by the devs.

[CaptVonGunn]

13 hours ago, Skully said:

To obtain a certain commodity, in the current circumstances, you have two choices:

• Wait until something comes available at fair price
• Buy at high price

Since option #1 isn't really viable, you can only choose #2.

Opportunity cost = high price - fair price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

With prices on the rise, it is a fast upward spiral.

But there is an end to it. At some point we have to accept a price to be fair and then the opportunity cost has become 0 (at the high price level).

PS. I'm selling Hull Repairs in Christeansted (G) for as little as 4000 / p.  GONE 

Maybe the Traders use to work only on resources.. and only at the towns that resource was produced..  it "was" AI Buy cost times 3 plus 1 gold.. so if you wanted say coal and it was normally for sale at 30.. but there was none on the market.. You could pay 91 per and get as much as you wanted via contracts. Have not tested it yet to see if it still works that way... Also based on contracts I have already done for certain items(crooked ect.) it does NOT work for them