Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
xDDDDDDDD

Admiralty DLC Extra Outposts (P2W or...)

Recommended Posts

Admin I need more outposts.. and I have some money! Can we come to some sort of arrangement here?

2 hours ago, z4ys said:

actual its changed to 5th rate. (thats what makes her unique - a 5th rate that can enter shallow area)

And that's the definition of pay to win, from my point of view.. Or they could rename the Nassau patrol to the Hercules patrol xD  

Edited by Tiedemann
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, z4ys said:

actual its changed to 5th rate. (thats what makes her unique - a 5th rate that can enter shallow area)

 

It's overpowered imo, but is here now so see what happens.

Can't see the point in Nassau patrol anymore though, pity as was a lot of fun.

Edited by Dibbler
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

I dont remember anyone asking for more magic ships.

Sorry, but I started begging to part with my money for ships the moment crafting started. I could look it up for you...

I don't care if extra outposts are purchasable for money or PvP marks. We'll end up in the same place gameplay wise with either option.

Btw, there would be no 14,5 knot Bellona in Legends because it was designed around balance. No, these scumbag possibilities exist because of crafting and pve content.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Thats a great comparison because bellona is another notoriously magic ship that plenty of people have 10+ notes for and wouldn't think twice about taking them to capitals in 14.5knt configuration and wiping out everything in sight with no loses. Devs have effectively shorted their entire game with magic ships and pvp marks. I pray economy changes this but soon shallow battles will be infected by uncapturable, uncraftable payed ships

Bellonas are great, because they can kill big ships and outrun them at the same time. Using 5th rates and 6th rates for PvP is so useless and not efficient atm, because most of the players use 1st rates for PvP and "defending" capitals. Come in 5th rate and you will be insta-chained to 40% or fully demasted. 3rd rates and Bellonas are giving a great balance into the game as everyone uses SOLs for farming, hostility and all game aspects. Most 5th rates or 6th rates will still get away from speedy Bellona upwind.

Edited by Banished Privateer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Christendom said:

Being able to swipe a card and immediately getting a significant advantage over other players in the game who have not, is pay to win.  

Extra outpost wouldn't make it pay to win. because if you suck in combat it doesn't matter how many outpost you have.... you will still suck. To be honest I don't even care if this game goes pay to win as long as it goes free to play. give me 2500 pop on the server...….  pay to win or not I don't care I will figure out how to make it work. of course with current build of the game that will just mean that there are 2300 people in safezone, but that's a separate problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Using 5th rates and 6th rates for PvP is so useless and not efficient atm

I've noticed. I go into patrol zones with frigates because I have principles (you might be surprised ;) ). You just pray a Bello or bigger doesn't drop on you like a ton of bricks.

Me (Belle) and @Cecil Selous (Frigate) tried to tag team a Bello in Aves zone two days ago. We barely made a dent while we were struggling with sides, structure and masts. It ran for the full 90 minutes (hello repairs!) and in the end the Bello spared us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King of Crowns said:

Extra outpost wouldn't make it pay to win. because if you suck in combat it doesn't matter how many outpost you have.... you will still suck. To be honest I don't even care if this game goes pay to win as long as it goes free to play. give me 2500 pop on the server...….  pay to win or not I don't care I will figure out how to make it work. of course with current build of the game that will just mean that there are 2300 people in safezone, but that's a separate problem. 

Doesn't matter if you win or not, the concept is pay to win.  I'm against that, this isn't a casual arcade style game like legends or warships.

I agree with you about the 2500 pop, but I don't think P2W will bring those players back.  Only more content will.  At some point people will get bored of hercs and fizzle out because while new ships are fun, no new content has been added.  This is an MMO, MMO's have quests, character progression, skill trees, varied PVE content.....more than what we have now.

If this game had 2000 people safe zones wouldn't be a problem.  They're a problem now because with 300 people, it's the only place to find them

Let's hope that these DLCs fun a little more content creation and this game gets finished.

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be ok with the ability to exchange pvp marks for extra outposts. Then the increased outposts would be a good pvp mark sink for some. If folks don't have it, then they understand there is an option in game to acquire it.

When you make someone pay real cash to get a bonus when another person who didn't pay is unable to ever get it, that's pay 2 win.

Someone paying $15 a month to get more experience and gold per battle in warthunder and world of tanks is not pay to win. Because the player who is playing for free can still get the same stuff, they just have to play more to get there.

If someone pays $15 to get more buildings, better mods, or better econ that's alright as long as someone who doesn't pay it can still acquire those bonuses too, they just have to spend a lot more time in game getting to those goals. If the only option is to pay cash or you don't get X, it's p2w simple as that

In order for something to not be p2w, there must be a way in the game for players to get something that a player can get by spending real cash. If that means they need to spend 100s of hours to get to the same point that is perfectly fine.

 

I want Paints, and I will pay some real cash for paints. And paints are great because they are cosmetic and give no advantages over anyone else. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Christendom said:

this isn't a casual arcade style game like legends or warships.

Lol. With even teams p2w is more disruptive there than in a sandbox game. Sorry, I'm disrupting your narrative...

What if easy access to fun fights and some loss mitigation has more potential to bring back ex-players and attract new ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin said:

The solomon decision would be to give the option to open the +1+or more outposts by in game means (for example lots of pvp marks). Would it change your opinion?

(BTW both le requin and hercules will drop on OW in epic chests)

Absolutely. If marks ( love the gold coin illustration ) are "soul bound". Then it is fair for players, honest players and alts alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hethwill said:

Absolutely. If marks ( love the gold coin illustration ) are "soul bound". Then it is fair for players, honest players and alts alike.

Soul bound PvP marks is a no-no thing. I like selling them or using as currency for player transactions and trading like most of the players around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jodgi said:

Lol. With even teams p2w is more disruptive there than in a sandbox game. Sorry, I'm disrupting your narrative...

What if easy access to fun fights and some loss mitigation has more potential to bring back ex-players and attract new ones?

My point was P2W is mostly featured in the arcade style games and such where even if it is P2W you can just re-queue and fight again.  NA has actual loss and gain for time invested.  P2W heavily disrupts that style of play.  

If all people wanted was quicker access to fun fights, more people would of been playing Legends.  They didn't.  The appeal of this game has always and will always be in the hunt and the chase.  That cannot be replicated in a lobby system.  The OW appeal of Naval Action is a big deal, if only they could get it right.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Liq said:

I rather see the herc for shallow patrol zone as pay2win, given it got even more buffed HP wise and reclassed as a 5th rate - It cant join shallow pbs anymore but why still shallow water in ow?

This will be addressed next week. It is indeed strong for shallow waters (and has limited competition) and we will fix it.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Teutonic said:

 

I want Paints, and I will pay some real cash for paints. And paints are great because they are cosmetic and give no advantages over anyone else. 

Paints are coming.. we just dont know when before release.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin said:

Paints are coming.. we just dont know when before release.

The sooner, the better. People love it and if you make some DLCs from them, many will buy it (helping the development).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Absolutely. If marks ( love the gold coin illustration ) are "soul bound". Then it is fair for players, honest players and alts alike.

Maybe fair for PvP-Players..... 

Players who prefer Trade or other things are forced to PvP. Is that your idea of fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, admin said:

This will be addressed next week. It is indeed strong for shallow waters (and has limited competition) and we will fix it.

As Hercules is on DLC, may I suggest to put the same way for the Rattlesnake? She is so fast...

Giving the opportunity to players who do not wish to use DLC facilities to win it in either by marks, by chest or to craft her.

Edited by Eleazar de Damas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hellmuth von Mücke said:

Maybe fair for PvP-Players..... 

Players who prefer Trade or other things are forced to PvP. Is that your idea of fair?

Nope. My idea of fair is no extra outposts :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hethwill said:

Nope. My idea of fair is no extra outposts :) 

What about players that are not narow-minded and want to try all game aspects? Trading, PvP, RvR, crafting, with 8 outposts I can't try all game features to its full potential. It's a bottleneck heavily limiting game possibilities and forcing us to focus on single game aspect.

Don't let your playstyle blind you on game overall. You do not participate in RvR and trading, so you don't need any extra outposts, thus you judge others needs by your measures.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expansion and enterprise are a must! The limit on outposts/buildings should be based on your income and ability to manage resource, not how many accounts you have or DLC you've bought.

Edited by Slim McSauce
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Christendom said:

Outposts for IRL money gives players an unfair advantage over those that do not by having a greater map presence, especially a RVR clan full of players that paid the 10 bucks.  

I get the alt argument, but an alt cannot give you additional outposts UNLESS you spent time to level that alt, get him the requisite books and ship slots.  I've set up my other character in another nation just for this purpose.  AKA invest a significant amount of time getting him to that point.  That is not pay to win.

Being able to swipe a card and immediately getting a significant advantage over other players in the game who have not, is pay to win.  

You do not need to bother with the books and all that to have a significant advantage in the economy.

Once you have enough experience to max out the perks and can crew a Trader's Brig, you are off and running.  A good deal of the rest can be bought outright.  Including marks, which are readily available in neutral ports.  To which the alt outposts provide the access.  Expensive?  Yes.  But not an obstacle to a whale.

Is it a particularly efficient form of P2W?  Perhaps not.

But if a player can buy 2nd and in some cases apparently 3rd copies of the game, and has time on their hands, it appears to be possible to exploit certain areas of the economy in a way that freezes non-alt players out.  The outpost limit doesn't cause the bottlenecks in the economy (Econ 101 will tell you where they do come from).  But the extra outposts provide privileged access to the bottlenecked activity unavailable to players who do not use them.

Out-of-game-purchase yields a meaningful advantage over someone who did not purchase.  That is P2W.

I've been at this since February.  Now I am hearing new players in my clan twittering about their alts.  I'm done playing against against that.  It just escapes me how alt P2W is somehow good, and DLC P2W is somehow bad.

I'm taking a break and will re-evaluate after the the economy rework.

Edited by Marcus Corvus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marcus Corvus said:

It just escapes me how alt P2W is somehow good

I don't believe I've seen comments to that effect. Alts are simply impossible, illegal or impractical to stop.

People who've played other sandbox game tell me alts are more or less the norm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jodgi said:

I don't believe I've seen comments to that effect. Alts are simply impossible, illegal or impractical to stop.

People who've played other sandbox game tell me alts are more or less the norm. 

Players who use eco alts support it of course :) They are already "converted" with benefits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jodgi said:

I don't believe I've seen comments to that effect. Alts are simply impossible, illegal or impractical to stop.

People who've played other sandbox game tell me alts are more or less the norm. 

 

I have no opinion on other sandbox games as this is my first exposure to one.  I am also not suggesting attempting to ban alts.

I AM of the opinion that if the game structure in some way incentivizes the use of alts (which the economy currently appears to do) the long-term effect on non-alt gameplay is corrosive.

My most telling contact with alts was watching two players whose names were variations of the same thing place extreme buy / sell contracts on opposite ends of the the same production resource in the same port.  On looking up the player names I found they belonged to the same clan.  Which was a variation on the player names.  Proof positive?  No.   But good enough for me.

The only reason for this type of contract activity is some sort of attempt to suppress activity by other players.

I am done sharing the same space with that sort of nonsense.

Edited by Marcus Corvus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I before joining this topic I bought the DLC to take a look.

I was hoping for a small increase in building availability with a small increase in outpost permits.  Not a doubling of the buildings.  What I am hoping when I return to the game that the DLC introduction signals an intention to radically expand the different types of production building available.

Purchasing an alt provides significant advantages as a resource seller for cost reduction with the increase in labor hours and available production buildings.  Purchasing the DLC (partially) levels the cost advantage as it equalizes the number of production buildings.  

The problem is that both of them appear to remove an incentive to participate in the resource markets as a buyer (except maybe to attempt to manipulate a market).  They also both appear to remove an incentive to cooperate in stocking a clan warehouse.

One of the goals I seem to remember being expressed by @admin is that clans be large and powerful.  The large part is likely to be problematic.  Both purchasing an alt and this DLC enables the player to produce what they need on their own without cooperating with anyone.  Yes I know that a lot of you combat players cooperate.  But that is a byproduct of your in-game PvP activity.  Both the alts and the DLC remove any inherent incentive in the economic structure for it.  The absence of this incentive seems likely to cripple large clans.

Regarding the economy, my opinion is that the resource markets will collapse as as buyers purchase the DLC and withdraw.  Or buy an alt - they are still better for the player with the time to run one.  In order to run my shipbuilding operation I buy oak, iron, coal, and lignum vitae on contract.  I maintain fairly large stocks of the first two, which I buy low during gluts in the Charleston market.  I put up contracts to purchase coal and LV in Brunswick.  Those contracts always get filled.  Now that I have the DLC I no longer need to buy these resources.  I also sell excess stocks of fir and hemp in Charleston.  Nobody with an alt or the DLC needs to buy these from me. Or for that matter, buy ships.  Everybody will have their own yard.  And workshop.  With labor hours and gold providing the constraints.

Oh wait.  One of the means of raising gold is now gone.  The combined effect of the DLC over time (on top of the existing alt activity) will be to completely gut an entire layer of player activity.

The number of desirable production buildings needs to be at least double the number that can be controlled by a player using the DLC, or a player plus one alt.  Preferably more.  I don't have strong opinions on what they should be but the logical approach would be with the resources used in upgrades.  If this approach is used it probably ought to be accompanied by an option for a controlling clan to restrict the nationality of who can put up a building in a closed port, but that is a separate issue.

If the types of production buildings are not radically expanded there is not going to be a player economy in this game.  The eye-candy markets provided by trade goods will still be there.  But the contract markets will vanish.

 As will players like me.

Edited by Marcus Corvus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×