Monopoly

[Trino]

Just think about twice, some thoughts on the example of Cartagena Tar (CT)

1. Option - Port Owner Clan (HRE) has full control over the selling of CT

1a. HRE decide to keep all CT for themselves and for their allies. CT will get very rare because outside HRE &friends you can only loot it (Ai-wrecks, player-wrecks, bottles). Hundreds or thousands of CT are not sold or stored in HRE Clanwarehouse. Much lesser tax from Cartagena port. No doubt after few weeks this will get changed because everyone will whine about this big advantage for HRE.

1b. HRE decide to just keep some amount for own use and sell the rest. Due to the monopol they can achieve a much higher price. So the result is more money for HRE.

2. Option - Port Owner Clan gets privileged access to a percentage of CT

For example 40% of CT go directly to HREs Clanwarehouse. This saves money for HRE (dont need to buy CT) and by selling the not self-used CTs HRE will earn more money. General price of CT will raise.

 

In my opinion both ways will just end in more money for the portowner. This can be achieved by just raising taxes too. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Trino

[Bloody Hound]

26 minutes ago, Trino said:

In my opinion both wasy will just end in more money for the portowner. This can be achieved by just raising taxes too. 

Currently the Tax for owning a Port is like 500k+ so getting a % of a resource free is still technically being paid for by the clan. 

Now while it may mean Cartagena will give more to the Port Owner, this is going to happen regardless as it's a a one off port.

However giving a % of a selected resource free per production makes other ports more desirable to clans even small Clan who own 1 port.

 

Got a port in the middle of no-where no-visits? making no money on it by tax at all? Atleast you get % of a Selected resource there.

 

Example being KOTO owns 1 port which is Puerto de nipe. We make naff all in Tax profits, however with the % selected lets say 25% if we choose to put that on Oak Logs and the port produces 2000 Oak logs that day we'll get 500 Oak logs free which might sound like alot for free but were paying the port timer tax etc so were paying 500k for 500 oak logs but atleast were getting something out of it.

or we say it drops Historical Artefacts it drops 20 in that day we get 5 of them which we can sell at MT for Gold. 

Also the items going straight to the clan warehouse would be the easiest and simple option. But you have a good moment here to encourage trading and make the selected good have to be picked up in port by a Officer or new clan rank... trader? 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bloody Hound

[Nelsons Barrel]

3 minutes ago, rediii said:

However nations also need a way to fix a internal problem with a portbattle. (if a clanngoes rogue or maybe even only the leader he can lock down ports without a possibility for the nation to get them back)

Its not like that sweden already has contracted danes to flip ports of dead swedish clans before...

[Trino]

22 minutes ago, Bloody Hound said:

 

Exempel being KOTO owns 1 port which is Puerto de nipe. We make naff all in Tax profits, however with the % selected lets say 25% if we choose to put that on Oak Logs and the port produces 2000 Oak logs that day we'll get 500 Oak logs free which might sound like alot for free but were paying the port timer tax etc so were paying 500k for 500 oak logs but atleast were getting something out of it.

 

It's only a money thing again ... you think timer costs are to high, then discuss about timer costs ... why implement a komplex system if it only affects money? Same effect could achieved by reducing costs of ports or raise their income ...

[Fenris]

2 hours ago, admin said:

RVR Indeed needs more time to be cooked properly. But we would like to ask Captains to hold on. 

We are laser focused on the following issues and just cannot reallocate resources elsewhere. 

• Priorities
• Tutorial and New Player Guidance
• Open world UI
• Port UI

Once these features are deployed we will be ready to start applying final polish to conquest, rvr, and pve. 

 

Regarding the lockdown on resources. We considered letting clans lock the store, but see more negatives in it than positives. Maybe you will help us understand the benefits better?

Good, fair enough finishing few things first before you move on.

About polishing conquest...... There is no meaningful conquest without a reason to do conquest. Means, in order to capture a port, a port needs to be worth sinking, worth mobilising people, in another words, ports need to MEAN something.

[Bloody Hound]

4 minutes ago, Trino said:

It's only a money thing again ... you think timer costs are to high, then discuss about timer costs ... why implement a komplex system if it only affects money? Same effect could achieved by reducing costs of ports or raise their income ...

I think you are missing the points i'm not on about timer costs and you must be misunderstanding. Your taking what i said was an example on about timer costs?

You think that is a complex system? Compared to the port locking one? okay.

It's very simple and easier to code than port locking (which causes alot of issues for there own nation, lone wolfs,small clans) 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bloody Hound

[Bloody Hound]

The issues here is Ports feel worthless... giving a % of a Selected resource free to owning clan makes them feel worth more and will make some worth alot.

Other issue is Clans feel like they're being outbid by alts, That'll happen regardless and port locking will cause issues for more than just alts. Atleast with the % Selected the clan owning the port gets something rather than nothing and be outbid on the dropping item.

If Cartagena produced 20 Tar a day and 5 went to HRE a day they wouldn't need to put buy orders in though they can if they want. As 5 a day is enough to make it worthwhile in the end. and it'll not effect any buy/sell contracts

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bloody Hound

[Guest]

2 hours ago, admin said:

RVR Indeed needs more time to be cooked properly. But we would like to ask Captains to hold on. 

We are laser focused on the following issues and just cannot reallocate resources elsewhere. 

• Priorities
• Tutorial and New Player Guidance
• Open world UI
• Port UI

Once these features are deployed we will be ready to start applying final polish to conquest, rvr, and pve. 

 

Regarding the lockdown on resources. We considered letting clans lock the store, but see more negatives in it than positives. Maybe you will help us understand the benefits better?

I would not advocate for a complete lockdown on ressources. Alts are an issue - yes. But there has to be space for the casual players as well. My suggestion is that a certain percentage of the drops is taken out of the store and reserved for the clan - if the clan chooses to buy up the item. Wether that be 20% as I suggest or more is kind of a moot point - that can be changed later. Atm port ownership is a liability for the clan, the costs is not being covered by taxes and trading depends on the clan actually being able to buy the trade goods before anyone else. Most ports could easily turn a profit - IF - the clan that owned it bought up all trading goods in the port. Problem is the clan that owns the port isn't the only clan that buys the ressources. 

And for RvR to matter - port ownership should guarentee a set amount of goods so owning Carta (for example) would actually matter - Why haven't DK/NG taken carta? - We wouldn't get the tar anyway.

Wether the RvR is top of the list of priorities or not doesn't really matter to me. I agree that tutorial and new player guidance should be the top priority since the game has a hard time holding on to players. I do believe PvP should be taken another glance at as well tho.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Trino said:

It's only a money thing again ... you think timer costs are to high, then discuss about timer costs ... why implement a komplex system if it only affects money? Same effect could achieved by reducing costs of ports or raise their income ...

Money is not an issue. You can basically print your own if you want to. Ownership of the port is meaningless tho and there should be some advantage to the clan that makes hostility, captures the port and pays the maintenance - regardless of the maintenance costs.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, rediii said:

 

However nations also need a way to fix a internal problem with a portbattle. (if a clanngoes rogue or maybe even only the leader he can lock down ports without a possibility for the nation to get them back)

I dislike the notion of a "rogue" clan - who decides who is rogue and who isn't? Civil wars were almost unheard of during this timeframe especially in the carribean where slave riots, pirates and enemy raiding parties were a huge issue that required the governors to work together at least to some extent. If a clan dies out - then just get someone else to flip the port. That has been arranged before and can always be achieved..... For a price.

[Trino]

23 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

I would not advocate for a complete lockdown on ressources. Alts are an issue - yes. But there has to be space for the casual players as well. My suggestion is that a certain percentage of the drops is taken out of the store and reserved for the clan - if the clan chooses to buy up the item. Wether that be 20% as I suggest or more is kind of a moot point - that can be changed later. Atm port ownership is a liability for the clan, the costs is not being covered by taxes and trading depends on the clan actually being able to buy the trade goods before anyone else. Most ports could easily turn a profit - IF - the clan that owned it bought up all trading goods in the port. Problem is the clan that owns the port isn't the only clan that buys the ressources. 

 

20 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Money is not an issue. You can basically print your own if you want to. Ownership of the port is meaningless tho and there should be some advantage to the clan that makes hostility, captures the port and pays the maintenance - regardless of the maintenance costs.

Please explain the difference between reduceing port/timer maintenance cost by 100.000 Gold/day and give the port Owner 500 Oak Logs a day  for free? I think the first quote clearly shows that you are only interested in money ... not that i cant understand you, but i see simply no difference between reducing maintenance cost/raise tax income vs. free ressources for port owner.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Trino

[Trino]

3 minutes ago, rediii said:

free ressources also free up time you else need to get them to your shipyard.

For mee that is more worth than gold

You think if you get the ressources instantly in the clan warehouse? Ok, thats true. But then the free transport is the benefit from a port. Maybe this is something to think about: free access to the clanwarehouse from every clan owned port ?

[Slim McSauce]

38 minutes ago, Nelsons Barrel said:

Its not like that sweden already has contracted danes to flip ports of dead swedish clans before...

yeah but that's dumb no one wants to have to do that, this is a sandbox, if someone wants to lock half of clans from setting contracts to a port those clans should be able to kick them out without giving away the port to an enemy.

[Trino]

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

Then noone jas to sail a trader ever again...

No.

Ok let's sort this out.

1. you are pro free ressources for port owners (instead of just adjust the costs/income of ports)

2. You said the difference between lower maintenance costs and free ressources is the free transport (given that the free ressources go directly in clanwarehouse)

3. you say free transport is shit

 

funny 😃

 

 

[Trino]

41 minutes ago, rediii said:

Now lets look to the difference.

Free ressources from a port you own and pay for land in your cwh. You get free ressources every day/week or whatever. with these ressources you build ships for defence or offensive actions or whatever in your cwh port probably.

 

Now lets look to the cwh teleport for everyone. (why do I even have to explain that?)

Need reps at a outpost? use cwh transfer

Need cannons? Books? Other ressources? Just put in cwh and take out again.

 

Teleporting stuff over the whole map like you wish. A tow to port without limitations. How can you not see that this affects a lot of other stuff.

 

Free ressources in your CWH is something that saves you time. Why is that more important than gold? Well it is time you can do other, more fun stuff. 

Ok, it's just very complicated for me. Teleporting 500 oak logs is good and saves time, teleporting reps is bad. Teleporting ships with cannons once a day is good (?), teleporting cannons without ships is bad.

But beside this, thats not my point. My point is the discussion: giving port owner privileged access to ressources is just a money thing, discussing about it is just a strange discussion about port maintenance cost. I understand that owning a port has to be desirable. But if you want give ports a slight transport advantage (basic ressource transport in one direction) lets talk about this and not about free ressources ...

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

For example if @Trashlock finaly makes his dream come true and kicks everyone from HRE, deletes the friendlist and locks every port as far as the game will allow it.

Thats 27 or so ports not accessible by any swedish player. I would call HRE a rogue clan then.

Or @Lord Vicious joins denmark with his huge albion clan, pays sweden to get all danish ports and give them to him. You cant get them back then.

A internal transfer of a port should be possible to allow a working nation even if standing alone against everyone

It's not that I can't see the point rediii, it's just that in every community, gaming or otherwise, you will find people that comes to blows with eachother. But IF @Trashlock decided to kick every member of HRE and make himself the one true king of Sweden, I couldn't blame him if he was clan creator. If @Lord Vicious decided to go danish (god forbid!) and payed someone to flip and take all danish-norwegian ports (assuming they'd fall as easy as that) then atm the only option is to pay someone for setting things right. I don't see it happening tho. The main issue is clans that become inactive - what do we do with ports that can maintain themselves but not their timers? - Either we do as we did at Orangestadt or we find another working mechanic that can't be exploited in a way where a larger clan basically bullies a smaller one simply for the sake of doing it.

The problem here is that we've decided to pick a historical timeframe - and a historical map (that is bollocks for gameplay btw) - and imo this leaves little scope for "clan-warfare". A compromise between the two points - an age of sail game set in a historically and geographical region of the world with a gorgeous map vs gameplay, is hard to come by imo. We had in Denmark-Norway a problem where the clan DS would much rather spend their time raiding than trading and we solved it by simply letting them drop the ports and other clans picked them up. This was a bother since the clans in question, along with DS, had to spend hours grinding hostility that could've been used differently - and this was a friendly swap. So I see the issue, just don't see a solution.

[Guest]

Oh and @admin since this suggestion has turned into a somewhat more elaborate discussion than intended - could we please let all woodtypes native to the carribean be craftable? - I see the point in strategic ressources, but I like the historical accuracy as well and could we please see money crops like tobacco, sugar and cotton returned to what they were? - money crops. European goods should come from Europe, carribean goods should go the other way. Make a few entrepots where european goods drops and can be ordered by players and money goods can be sent the otherway.

Deliverance: Make it so that money goods needs to be convoyed out to a point in the Atlantic (make 11 random drop points picked when the convoy sets sail) and let the rumours spread when the convoy sets off that it's on its way. Like delivery missions except meaningfull and promiting PvP - escorts vs raiders.

[Jesper Dahl]

We sure need some new mechanics since RvR currently is dead. Its an atrocious hostility grind only to get a daily bill for the work on top.

I guess the DLC may have reduced the alt swapping for now, tho until certain ports gets flipped again remain an issue. The changes to sealed bottles also made those ports a lot less valuable.  However I like that change since it gives the casual players a real chance to get hold of something outside the basic upgrades or paying out their nose for not having an alt in the right nation.

Clan benefit to port ownership is the thing we currently lack. And I agree with @Lars Kjaer. It needs to be a percentage and not a complete lockdown.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

Apart from everything we discuss I also believe though that a portbattle also has to reward the winner and maybe even loser for the portbattle. We had chests some time in the game, why not add them back with different levels of chests for different portbattles? 

basic, standard, admirality chest

the more BR involved the better the chest. Inside is some random things from bottleloot to sunken fleet loot to epic event loot with a small chance to get a paint

 

I think it is important to reward every player for doing something active (not lord protector status) to motive every single player to take part.

Maybe even hostility should be awarded. If you have hostilitypoints and take part in the PB you get a better chest for example

Agreed!

[Trino]

22 minutes ago, rediii said:

its not just a money thing.

Whats the difference between getting 5 cartagena tar or 500k gold? With that gold I still have to set up contracts every 2 minutes just to get that stuff.

Also prices are changing depending on population etc.

Money is nothing. Just look into the cwh of the HRE

It is a money thing, the difference between 5 Cartagena Tars in Cartagena and a Cartagena Caulking in Gustavia is about 1,3 Mios. The fault you made is, that the market price of 5 Cartagena Tar is far above 500k (due to the afford to set up a new contract every 2 minutes).

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Trino said:

 

Please explain the difference between reduceing port/timer maintenance cost by 100.000 Gold/day and give the port Owner 500 Oak Logs a day  for free? I think the first quote clearly shows that you are only interested in money ... not that i cant understand you, but i see simply no difference between reducing maintenance cost/raise tax income vs. free ressources for port owner.

Then you're completely missing the point. Trading turns a profit of about 200% on all national goods. This means that money will never be a problem - as long as you're trading. Why pay maintenance on a port where you or your clan gets nothing for it other than an obligation to put up the gold - wether it's 100k or 600k or 600kk is irrelevant. Port ownership should give the owning clan something tangible, an advantage compared to those that does not own the port. Why? - the owning clan made hostility, captured the port and is paying for the ports maintenance and it's timer - all in the benefit of the nation the clan belongs to.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

The solution could be allowing ports to be taken from clans within the nation (your position as governor being challenged by others) and allow transfer of port ownership among clans (this will open a lot of diplomacy options).

This is in essence a civil war. I'm not against it, it's just not historically accurate - for the entire duration of the timeframe we play the civilwars that (rarely, for GB once, for France twice and for Spain twice) racked the continent never had much of an impact on the carribean except a scarcity of important ressources like grain, processed iron (into whatever forks, knives etc) and ofc most importantly for a plantations economy - slaves. If we completely disregard the historical timeframe in favor of a better gameplay mechanic - then I'd argue for a better map as well. I've stated it numerous times - atm 25% or so of the map is unused - not because there's no players there (tho there isn't) but because there's no reason to go to the atlantic and the pacific is closed off as well leaving the playing field much smaller than the map could maintain.

[Guest]

Just now, Intrepido said:

I loveHistory, but the game has made its bets on gameplay.

We dont have anymore the historical port ownership (remember Spain having 80% of the map?), we have russia/poland/prussia in the caribbean, we will have ships that never sailed in these seas (Xebec, a ship thought for Mediterranean)... even if it hurts me seeing these kind of things, we should think, this time, which is the most "fun" fix for the current rvr status.

True. I was not a fan of the introduktion to the carribean of PL (which never had a navy, I believe it burnt down before it could sail?), DE (has never had a navy and never aspired to have one) or Russia (that didn't get a navy before Peter I,  and then only in the baltic, never a presence in the carribean). I'm not a fan of the Xebec either (don't belong in the carribean), the Snow (made for lakeside sailing and sunk in the first storm it experienced due to poor - construction) nor the Ingermanland nor the Wappen.. The two latter ones mainly for their god awfull appeances. My god they are ugly. Anyway - I don't dislike a gameplay, but it has to balance new players and casuals that may not be part of a clan or is in a less dedicated one with the RvR/PvP clans that sink a lot of hours, a lot of efforts and a lot of money into the game. Players should not be forced to be part of a nations grand strategems, but there has to be some tangible advantage to those that does use hours, ressources and efforts in the advance and protection of their nations. In regard to port swapping..

I agree that there should be a mechanic for friendly port swapping but a clan should be entitled to simply say - no. If another clan wants a port it should be the one making hostility on it or it should pay someone else to facilitate a transfer.

[Red Dragon 13]

5 hours ago, Trashlock said:

You could do that, but not for long. HRE has a system of "verified traders" and no clan members are allowed to overbid them on several critical ressources (including cartagena tar ofc). They sell it to the clan warehouse for a fixed price, that way we keep costs low, accessibility high and the time invested in shipment efficient. So if that new player comes into my clan those traders will notice quickly and then tell him about that rule. You wont make much out of that.

 

I think it just needs to be an option. It would suck if every non-clan player couldnt set contracts in any clan-owned ports. What if you add to the entry rights "Friendly Clans only" (besides national and free-for-all)? That would not change the entry rights per se, but close the port for contracts. Right now RvR doesnt matter much on critical ressources since alts can buy everything. Friendly clan lists already solved the problem of port battle entry, i think it would work for economy too.

Or you could allow clans to fix much higher taxes (50%, even 100%) and since this extra money goes to the clan, clan members would benefit or get refunds, etc

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Red Dragon 13 said:

Or you could allow clans to fix much higher taxes (50%, even 100%) and since this extra money goes to the clan, clan members would benefit or get refunds, etc

Except no one needs more money. Clans needs ressources.