Monopoly

[Trino]

23 minutes ago, rediii said:

yea and when 1000 peoe are online price changes again so devy should change something else again?

Also whatever gold I get I still have to place contracts 24/7 to get a few carta tar. Even with 100 mio gold a day I wouldnt bother to stay in port for hours to replace contracts.

 

Maybe you get it now

1. if devs adjust the amount of daily Cartagena Tar drop regarding to amount of players price will stay constant. Im almost sure there is a mechanism. If not mods will become very very expensive when players amount rise -> huge balancing problem

2. You would prefer 5 Cartagena Tars to 100 mio gold? Really? Think twice  

I still have points 3. and 4. but i only want to end this ...

[Trino]

12 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

Thx! Exactly! You then just can outbid every other because you have 50% of the price backflow in your clan wallet ... so no new contract every 2 mins ... 

[Guest]

17 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

 

5 minutes ago, Trino said:

1. if devs adjust the amount of daily Cartagena Tar drop regarding to amount of players price will stay constant. Im almost sure there is a mechanism. If not mods will become very very expensive when players amount rise -> huge balancing problem

2. You would prefer 5 Cartagena Tars to 100 mio gold? Really? Think twice  

I still have points 3. and 4. but i only want to end this ...

 

2 minutes ago, Trino said:

Thx! Exactly! You then just can outbid every other because you have 50% of the price backflow in your clan wallet ... so no new contract every 2 mins ... 

 

11 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Except no one needs more money. Clans needs ressources.

 

[Trino]

23 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Except no one needs more money. Clans needs ressources.

Ok, now you have to say us what ressource you want that you cant buy for money ?

[Bloody Hound]

13 minutes ago, Trino said:

Snip

Okay i've presented and other people solutions. I'm against port locking as it causes to many issues which could be abused. Im for giving the owner of the port a selected % resource it drops/produces as that would mean the owning clan does not need to compete for contracts when they own the port. but yeah im straying from my point...

My point is we've came up with options/solutions and all i've seen from you is a bunch of... this/that and no. However to not follow up with a solution of your own?

So i'll ask you this what you like to see?  

[vazco]

16 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Suggestion:

Port owners should be able to reserve a certain limited amount of dropped goods - in particularly trading good - for their clan at a fixed price. My suggestion would be 20% or something similar - payed up front by the clan the day before.

Why?

 - Make RvR matter for the clans

 - It's fair that the clan that pays the timer/maintenance to get some sort of advantage.

 - Monopolies were commonly used in the timeperiod as a means of organizing the suplies of a colony. Basically merchants were charged with the maintenance of a colony (for European goods) and in return had a monopoly on traded goods from the colony. 

 

Great idea

In order for this to work we would need to be able to wage a limited war against another clan in a nation - which should be doable (eg. just a PB). 

 

Also some resources should be accessible to your nation, and even more limited amount to other nations, as alts solve an important issue of snowballing RvR advantage. 

It's best if clan could decide through settings how open they want the port to be, eg. 25% to clan, 50% to nation (and always 25% to other nations). 

 

Auction could still be there, just with different colors for bids from clan and nation, so that you know whom you have to outbid. 

This would set a low price for clan, higher for nation and highest for other nations. Supply and demand will do the magic. 

 

This could be the ultimate fix for rvr. 

[vazco]

7 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'll try to explain this through the interface:

 

This way a clan which won the port (here clan "NameTBA") captured a port and set it to give 25% resources exclusively to them and 50% to other members of the nation. Smugglers always steal 25%.

Advantages:

• ports mean something - your clan profits. RvR means something again.
• there's no snowballing of RvR, as smugglers and new players without alts can get goods (but have to get to/from port quite often to do so - which increases OW traffic)

 

There's one more issue - a clan can troll a nation and set monopoly for resources. To solve this, clans could set hostility for a port and have a PB to contest port ownership (which could be trumped by another nation setting hostility for the port). This could be done even without enabling hostility on OW. It would also fix an issue of rogue clans, hostile clans in a single nation, and port flips due to eg. a need to switch lord protectors.

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, vazco said:

se

There's one more issue - a clan can troll a nation and set monopoly for resources. To solve this, clans could set hostility for a port and have a PB to contest port ownership (which could be trumped by another nation setting hostility for the port). This could be done even without enabling hostility on OW. It would also fix an issue of rogue clans, hostile clans in a single nation, and port flips due to eg. a need to switch lord protectors.

 

 

Pretty much my thought. If however we go for clan-based gameplay then we need a mechanic where one clans host creation on a port can be countered by the owning clan - otherwise we will see a shitload of alts creating their own clans, make host on a HRE port (for example) whilst the real clan (REDS for example) create hostility on a national level on either the same port or a different port - i.e. creating more multiflips where the clan in question can come under attack from both their own nation and the enemy nations.. As I see it - it will be difficult to implement with nations + clans and still avoid exploits. If a clan wants a hostile takeover of a port there's atm the option to pay someone else for the flipping and returning of the port.

[vazco]

One more improvement which could be made is to allow craft upgrades only in region capitals, and put resources for upgrades only outside of capitals. 

[Tiedemann]

The alts can so easily setup contracts , so this is needed. I support 100%!  

[Busterbloodvessel]

Naval Action Wash Cycle:

1. Something new is introduced.

2. Some like it, some hate it, but numbers generally go up.

3. People get used to it and solve the meta, players leave.

4. General moaning (more than usual), devs 'tweak' level to full max 11 or min 1.

5. Some like it, some hate it, but numbers generally go down until,

6. All but hard core remain.

7. Go to point 1 and repeat, ... endlessly.

 

Buster (Painting the UI eh! That's something new isn't it!)

Edited March 26, 2018 by Busterbloodvessel

[vazco]

On 26/03/2018 at 6:32 PM, Lars Kjaer said:

Pretty much my thought. If however we go for clan-based gameplay then we need a mechanic where one clans host creation on a port can be countered by the owning clan - otherwise we will see a shitload of alts creating their own clans, make host on a HRE port (for example) whilst the real clan (REDS for example) create hostility on a national level on either the same port or a different port - i.e. creating more multiflips where the clan in question can come under attack from both their own nation and the enemy nations.. As I see it - it will be difficult to implement with nations + clans and still avoid exploits. If a clan wants a hostile takeover of a port there's atm the option to pay someone else for the flipping and returning of the port.

I think it's not such an important issue IF national hostility would be trumped by international one. This way it's impossible to block your port from being recaptured by other nation.

The advantage on the other hand I think is big - to be able to fight your own battles yourself, without a need of finding a clan from another nation which would fight (and win) your battles for you.

 

 

I think alt clan may be not an issue - it's hard to create a whole clan of alts and grind hostility with it, and even if it's done, it can be a bannable offence.

Sure, bannable offences are not the best solution, however we have many already. It's just one more, for an issue which may not be an actual issue.

ps. Even if it occurs to be a problem, there are possible fixes - eg. don't allow a clan to grind national hostility until it has 20 members and is 2 months old.

[Ellias]

 

1. Make strategic resource only available to port owner guild.
2. Create AI strategic resource smugglers spawning in the region,  which can be captured. Let people compete to get them. It will create a hot zone with lots of open world pvp opportunities.
3. We need open world content. I have no idea what you try to achieve with "working RvR system". You will keep ending with the system working for some not for all. World history is a proof.
   
   Thanks.