Patch 22: Patrol BR limits, Grape fix and Planking mechanics improvements

[GrubbyZebra]

4 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Player driven economy.

I think that this also contains traders who buy and sell goods from other players.  This can be done in shops or from player to player.

Lets say a product price is 250k and our trader know that he could get a better price from it in some other port.

250k + 25k tax = 275k

Now he has to think what would be the minimum price for the product to sell it forward.  He also has to pay 10% tax again.

~306k he will be at +-0 income rate.

This means that value of the original buy price has been increased by +1/5    + As he is a trader he probably wants his cut.  Also price cannot be too high or else he wont be able to resell the product.

Another example with similar figures.  You find a ship, price 2.5m.  You know that in some other port you can get 3m from it.  That 500k is not just enough to make this trade.  Maybe if you are able to sell it with 3.5m, but that is already rather high price that it is probably better to avoid this deal.

Taxes are probably too high to support trade between players, player driven trade.  Especially when we speak from actually useful products.

Smaller tax rate would also help small nations as it would increase amount of products in their capital.

edit..

Simply put..  Product resell price has to be 25% higher than the price you bought it.

This is way too high if we want a working economy where players buy and sell.

How do you figure? Crafting mats can sell at 200-300% markup without issue, some even higher than that (WO, Cedar for example). I don't know anyone that sells their mats at only a 25% markup.......

[Cmdr RideZ]

12 hours ago, BPHick said:

How do you figure? Crafting mats can sell at 200-300% markup without issue, some even higher than that (WO, Cedar for example). I don't know anyone that sells their mats at only a 25% markup.......

You buy from port A and sell at port B, this kind of "pure" trade does not work too well.

[Rouleur]

Where most ports are simply a cost burden with no real benefit it is not surprising the desire to attack, which generally means losing more often than not, is not particularly attractive, especially given the current hostility system.

Possible solutions:

• Make ports more valuable, or at least more ports worthwhile. 
• Change the port battle mechanism so that valuable ports require some sort of hostility as now and others less so - maybe a variant of the old flag system.
• Buy a flag which creates a coastal battle just off the port - win that and you get a full port battle the following day.  These would be decided by BR only and last an hour. One large circle that shrinks in the last 15 minutes and if the defender or attacker simply sails away, ships over the line return to open world and the BR is lost for determining the outcome. 

I would also change the circle mechanism for full port battles, battles decided by ships simply sailing back and forwards to circles is a bit false. Either reduce the number of circles too two, or make the port circle (the most strategic) worth more so fighting over it has more value to the outcome. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Rouleur

[GrubbyZebra]

7 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

You buy from port A and sell at port B, this kind of "pure" trade does not work too well.

it does if you know how to research profit potential. I can make a profit on just about any resource in the game if I am willing to sail it to the right port.

[Cmdr RideZ]

18 hours ago, BPHick said:

it does if you know how to research profit potential. I can make a profit on just about any resource in the game if I am willing to sail it to the right port.

I believe you missed the whole point.

[Ahoy H.R. Matey]

Alright... tried this new planking business, and it's straight-up crazypants. IDK why we suddenly needed a nerf to ship durability.

A 5th rate shouldn't be able to threaten a ship three times its size; at least not without sterncamping. The whole "snuggle up and blast point-blank" is bananas.

Please roll it back.

[Guest]

On 3/21/2018 at 6:51 PM, Slim Jimmerson said:

1st rates should have the ability to destroy a 6th-7th rate near it. If I was one of these small ship captains I wouldn't dare to hang right below the towering hull of a 1st rate with many hundreds of men aboard.

Realistically the crew would light the ship up with musket, grenades and swivel fire. Or just gently roll their ship over one of the small ships, crushing it like a a leaf on the pavement.

things like this would be fixed if we had "alive" marines which could shoot muskets and swivel guns at lets say 100-200 meters automatically

[Lovec1990]

10 minutes ago, Wyy said:

things like this would be fixed if we had "alive" marines which could shoot muskets and swivel guns at lets say 100-200 meters automatically

actually this feature is in game just disabled

[Lovec1990]

Just now, rediii said:

And its not tested, has no visual indicator etc. You just lose crew if you enter the zone as I understood and that would indeed feel wrong.

Marines on deck shooting muskets would fix that tho. After thqt testing and balancing would do the rest

you model in few redcoats with guns and people will understand human models are already in game its a one day work to model them in game then its just testing and balance

[Lovec1990]

im just saying

[Sir Texas Sir]

47 minutes ago, rediii said:

And its not tested, has no visual indicator etc. You just lose crew if you enter the zone as I understood and that would indeed feel wrong.

Marines on deck shooting muskets would fix that tho. After thqt testing and balancing would do the rest

Like I told some one that wanted to se his crew load the guns and have them recoil.  Why are you looking at your crew in a fight?  My attention is on my team mates and the enemy crew not watching my crew stroke guns.  Give a shaded circle around my ship on the mini map is all the indicator you need to know you are too close.

[admin]

in one of the next patches we will add a medium ship only event
hispaniola and aves will remain free for all
tumbado and la mona will only let 4th rates and below

[Lovec1990]

1 minute ago, admin said:

in one of the next patches we will add a medium ship only event
hispaniola and aves will remain free for all
tumbado and la mona will only let 4th rates and below

nice, any info on Premium ships?

[AeRoTR]

@admin please give us freetowns as default outpost which don’t cost outpost space and which requires sailing there of course.

Edit: There are many freetowns, I want to participate in all missions, look for pvp. But it is difficult, I need to select some, delete some sail again for other, build outpost, rinse and repeat.

Edited March 27, 2018 by AeRoTR

[NethrosDefectus]

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

Too few outpost permits. It was always a bottleneck in this game. More outposts = more chances for PvP. There are so many missed opportunities for PvP because action takes place in X place and I don't have any outpost nearby...

How many would you recommend? Surely "resource management" should be just as important as convenience no?

[victor]

Just now, NethrosDefectus said:

How many would you recommend? Surely "resource management" should be just as important as convenience no?

A batch of X more port slots could be another DLC paid feature (and the same could work for ships drydock space and/or building slots).

Make people buy DLC for their main account, instead of alts.

Edited March 27, 2018 by victor

[Nelsons Barrel]

7 minutes ago, victor said:

A batch of X more port slots could be another DLC paid feature (and the same could work for ships drydock space and/or building slots).

Make people buy DLC for their main account, instead of alts.

Actually no, outposts should be just another money sink. Players would pay for next slots easily 10, 20, 50 millions, we just dont have the possibilty right now to use money for something usefull. (Maintenance is just a real joke, denying content because its counterproductive to own useless ports).

[NethrosDefectus]

7 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

We can start with 10 for testing and I wouldn't consider outposts as "resource". Outposts are investments, permits cost a lot of gold. I invest into outposts to get more PvP opportunities. Your "resource management" - we are already limited to 5 buildings. 

Of course outposts are a resource in the same way that clans should consider ports they own as a resource. You should have to make choices based on your needs, for example if you want an outpost at Grand Turk so you can stockpile teak then you would need to sacrifice the opportunity of having an outpost at somewhere like great corn to raid from. Similarly if you want to be able to have outposts in all the free ports so you can raid more areas easily then you have to give up the chance to stockpile resources somewhere.

People looking for the easy option is becoming all too common in the game lately.

 

[NethrosDefectus]

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

That reduces PvP opportunities. Good mechanic? Production is limited by building slots, not outposts.

There are plenty of opportunities for PvP if you are willing to actually look for them especially if you go to areas more than 15 minutes sailing from La Torture

[Hethwill]

Every time I read "money sink" it comes to mind that the excess money being handled. or whatever.

Just out of curiosity, as it has absolutely no influence whatsoever in the game as it stand, and for a sense of perspective. And compare the values to what we make in game 

 - bill for contruction of the ship Torrington ( trade snow ) in Philadephia, 1729 -

- bill for the construction of the Delaware ( trade snow ) also in Philadephia -

 

Now let's look to the actual cash trade in the very first haul of the Delaware

 

Funny how everyone wants to be given lots of win-win and then ask for money sinks once devaluation hits hard. But hey, the examples given above was trader career, that man would never be a naval officer but was a very successful businessman. He couldn't just walk up to the Admiralty and request a frigate for the weekend fishing trip  

S!

 

[Landsman]

56 minutes ago, admin said:

tumbado and la mona will only let 4th rates and below

Thanks man, appreciate it.

[Slim McSauce]

11 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:

There are plenty of opportunities for PvP if you are willing to actually look for them especially if you go to areas more than 15 minutes sailing from La Torture

obviously not enough

[NethrosDefectus]

1 minute ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

obviously not enough

Your preferred method of "PvP" is where you can gank 6 v 1 and the victim has no reasonable chance of winning or survival, and even then you are not getting enough PvP?

Perhaps your next suggestion will be that a patrol zone be put in the bay right outside KPR so you can really capitalise on it?

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, NethrosDefectus said:

Your preferred method of "PvP" is where you can gank 6 v 1 and the victim has no reasonable chance of winning or survival, and even then you are not getting enough PvP?

Perhaps your next suggestion will be that a patrol zone be put in the bay right outside KPR so you can really capitalise on it?

yeah exactly that. "There are plenty opportunities if you like ganks"

Otherwise no there isn't enough good pvp to be found

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, admin said:

in one of the next patches we will add a medium ship only event
hispaniola and aves will remain free for all
tumbado and la mona will only let 4th rates and below

why wouldn't you just add so the stronger side can only have 1,5 times the BR of the smaller side, then if someone wants to join the battle they have to join the weaker side to even out the battle and not join and enforce the gankfest.