Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Trading update patch - coming soon.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Released Privateer said:

What about capitals? It especially hurts 3 "hardcore" nations as they don't have capitals and trading goods consumption is heavily based on capitals. Also, it makes trading in safe zones (due to capitals) very important.  Other ports are really minor, we do have Nassau, Santo Domingo and Puerto de Espana, but county capitals should be more important than they are atm. All ports need food, clothes, tools, supplies etc. Bigger cities/ports should just have higher consumption than the smaller ones.

Well you picked those nations, if your going have problem doing trade with nations that weren't even active in this time or had influence than well maybe pick something like Spain or France instead.   I mean they are called HARD CORE NATIONS for a reason.  Better yet can we just drop these and go back to actual nations that had historical presence during the time the game is based?

Other wise going to be something interesting for any of the traders that might come back.  I think it's nice change to come, but we need a wipe and test things fresh to be honest.  Maybe we can get our numbers above 100-300 players in prime time..?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rediii said:

you dont get it. The thing is that there are not many big ports around the map like puerto de espagna, cartagena or santo domingo where they could actually do trading because right now trading is centered around the national capitals.

Actually you are missing one important change that this patch is going to cover. It will not matter if the capitol is part of the trade run because it will be the distance that determines the profit of the run. The only thing that circumvents this is generation of trade goods by delivery of local goods (which will probably be short runs that yield very little profit but are quick and will be good for low level players). Since you chose to play in a nation that does not have a centralized trade network you will not have that option. You should have known this before even making the decision to join then as it was explained IN DETAIL before those nations went active. Trying to "Add" a capitol to them now is not going to happen as it would undermine the intent of those 3 nations. If you dont like it, switch to one of the original ones. The distance being a factor should even things out which I think is the main thing I feel that invalidates your complaint. If distance is the primary determining factor then the port itself should not matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The distance being a factor should even things out which I think is the main thing I feel that invalidates your complaint. If distance is the primary determining factor then the port itself should not matter.

I suspect it's distance but also delivery to a consuming port.  I could be wrong there, but it makes sense.  Delivery of a resource from 40k will be more lucrative than delivery of the same resource from 20k....but it still needs to be to a port that will pay the price.  @admin can you verify this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First looking foward to this. Looks like some much needed improvements that should add considerably to the game experience. 

Second SirTexas got the jump on my question/ suggestion. I'm not sure a full or partial wipe is required, although I'm not against it. I was thinking with the repositioning of resources and effects the other changes will have on port value. Would a map reset be in order. A fresh start would allow us and the team to see how these changes will effect the map much easier/faster allowing identification of needed tweaks to the system quickly and with greater reliability. Also allows us to provide hopefully better feedback.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well you picked those nations, if your going have problem doing trade with nations that weren't even active in this time or had influence than well maybe pick something like Spain or France instead.   I mean they are called HARD CORE NATIONS for a reason.  Better yet can we just drop these and go back to actual nations that had historical presence during the time the game is based?

Other wise going to be something interesting for any of the traders that might come back.  I think it's nice change to come, but we need a wipe and test things fresh to be honest.  Maybe we can get our numbers above 100-300 players in prime time..?

Gatekeeping, much?

Sarcasm aside, it was never stated that the so called "hardcore" nations shall not be able to trade profitably without having to enter enemy reinforcement zones. Even those factions will need some balanced trade opportunities or they will just die out or rather be dependend on alts. And the discussion about whether or not these nation should be in the game is for another thread.

17 minutes ago, Raekur said:

Actually you are missing one important change that this patch is going to cover. It will not matter if the capitol is part of the trade run because it will be the distance that determines the profit of the run. The only thing that circumvents this is generation of trade goods by delivery of local goods (which will probably be short runs that yield very little profit but are quick and will be good for low level players). Since you chose to play in a nation that does not have a centralized trade network you will not have that option. You should have known this before even making the decision to join then as it was explained IN DETAIL before those nations went active. Trying to "Add" a capitol to them now is not going to happen as it would undermine the intent of those 3 nations. If you dont like it, switch to one of the original ones. The distance being a factor should even things out which I think is the main thing I feel that invalidates your complaint. If distance is the primary determining factor then the port itself should not matter.

Neither @Released Privateer nor @rediii asked for any capitols to be added to any nation, be it "hardcore" or not. I think the point Released (weird... I called you "Banished" before...) is trying to make is that a nation without a capital port should still be able to find capturable trade ports that at least consume some decent amount of goods. As it stands currently ports of this kind are few and far between. Even County Capitals with high BR-ratings often consume one or two goods.

@admin stated that prices are based on difference. He did not state that they are based on distance alone. Which is probably why Released (still fells weird to call you that...) is asking about whether capitals will still be the main consuming ports.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Well you picked those nations, if your going have problem doing trade with nations that weren't even active in this time or had influence than well maybe pick something like Spain or France instead.   I mean they are called HARD CORE NATIONS for a reason.  Better yet can we just drop these and go back to actual nations that had historical presence during the time the game is based?

Are you serious ? 

If these nations disappear from the game then I will stop playing this game.

I will not sail under US or English flag ..... 😉

(Hmm ok on the PVE Server i sail sometimes under US Flag ^^ )

Share this post


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

Hubs will matter more for taxes and control over resources.

Great news about hubs, however I find this information quite insufficient as the question raised quite complex.

1. How many hubs are there planned to be and their locations?
2. Will their stores be linked with other trade hubs like it was proposed (you could buy sell in one hub while docked in the other (delivery still physical)?
3. Will players be able to create player made delivery missions for other players to take?
4. When you say "resources" are those just trade goods that have nothing to do with player consumption or are they resources that players consume, e.g. to craft ships?
5. If those resources that needed for crafting what are the plans to make them available to weaker nations (linked trade hubs would sort this issue out of course if you are going to make this happen)? Example: Spain is a strong nation and is able to snatch required crafting resources from all regions. Dutch is not so strong nation and is not able to sufficiently acquire resources to be competitive. What are the options Dutch will have?

Dug out from 2 years ago (scratch anything that is NPC delivery related. It was proposed at the time to remove Free Port deliveries - no longer actual)
CsjWBYm.jpg
 

Edited by koltes
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should give Sugar more value, it was really important. Molasses were important in triangular trade.

And what about Brandy or Bananas or Indian/Hasty pudding too? And the rubber or palm oil? Coconuts? Sisal/agave? Rice? Ginger?

Maybe slaves aswell...

 

Edit 22/02/19: some of them has been added, thanks you admin

Edited by SirAlatriste
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin those are possibly nice changes, however two things are missing:

1. if you link profit to length of sailing, you will promote boring AFK sailing. It would be better to create a few very lucrative trade routes, which everyone knows about, which can be raided. Then risk = reward, not work = reward. It's better setup for the game

2. right now reals mean nothing. Doing 4h of trading set me up for 6 months of crafting from my calculation. I bet I'll find new ways to hack new system as well. We need more meaningful things (ships, or population-limited mods) to buy with money instead of doubloons. Right now only doubloons are a true limitation. This means that reals will always keep loosing value to doubloons, which makes trading a pointless activity.

Edited by vazco
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vazco said:

@admin those are possibly nice changes, however two things are missing:

1. if you link profit to length of sailing, you will promote boring AFK sailing. It would be better to create a few very lucrative trade routes, which everyone knows about, which can be raided. Then risk = reward, not work = reward. It's better setup for the game

2. right now reals mean nothing. Doing 4h of trading set me up for 6 months of crafting from my calculation. I bet I'll find new ways to hack new system as well. We need more meaningful things (ships, or population-limited mods) to buy with money instead of doubloons. Right now only doubloons are a true limitation. This means that reals will always keep loosing value to doubloons, which makes trading a pointless activity.

"right now reals mean nothing" - for you, may be. not for me for example.

"Right now only doubloons are a true limitation" - lie. You can grind them as much as you needs. And you can do it fast now, 2-3K per hour - easy, more if you ale lucky.
But trading, trading is limited by drop factor, plus competition, plus port overflow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SnovaZdorowa said:

"right now reals mean nothing" - for you, may be. not for me for example.

"Right now only doubloons are a true limitation" - lie. You can grind them as much as you needs. And you can do it fast now, 2-3K per hour - easy, more if you ale lucky.
But trading, trading is limited by drop factor, plus competition, plus port overflow.

Last time I checked sell price for doubloons was 200 reals per one. For 2mil reals you can buy materials to craft multiple 1st rates, which gives you doubloons for one. Doubloons are still a limiting factor :)

Edited by vazco

Share this post


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

Last time I checked sell price for doubloons was 200 reals per one. For 2mil reals you can buy materials to craft multiple 1st rates, which gives you doubloons for one. Doubloons are still a limiting factor :)

Why are you use Ask price? Almost sure Bid price is more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, qw569 said:

Why are you use Ask price? Almost sure Bid price is more correct.

Ask price is 100, which gives the same result - for 1 mil you can buy craft materials for multiple 1st rates.

Personally I'm pretty sure sell price is more correct as there are more ask offers than sell offers, however both give the same conclusion.

ps. Everyone can have his own opinion, but luckily it's impossible to argue with data :) 

Edited by vazco
ask and sell offers were mixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SirAlatriste said:

Maybe slaves aswell...

I have the strong suspicion that "labour contracts" represent those. I doubt many free workers were employed on the plantations in the caribbean back then and even if so, would you be able to sell them to others with a few papers?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, allowing to buy labour contracts for reals would stabilize reals a lot already. Simple and effective.

Edited by vazco
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have the strong suspicion that "labour contracts" represent those. I doubt many free workers were employed on the plantations in the caribbean back then and even if so, would you be able to sell them to others with a few papers?

I'm pretty sure your labour hours represent slaves - after all, you get free work without paying for it :) For labour contracts at least you have to pay for the work which is performed ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vazco said:

1. if you link profit to length of sailing, you will promote boring AFK sailing. It would be better to create a few very lucrative trade routes, which everyone knows about, which can be raided. Then risk = reward, not work = reward. It's better setup for the game

The problem with this suggestion is that such routes would be easy to monopolize by the big clans who would just sail large Indiamen fleet with lots of protection. The small lone trader would have no chance to compete in such a system. Having a few such routes may be viable as long as there were other options for making best profit that had to be discovered.

Another problem with such a system is that raiders would tend to concentrate around the start port and end port of the route rather than rest of the OW and these ports would literally be blockaded. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  •  
  1 hour ago, Sovereign said:

I have the strong suspicion that "labour contracts" represent those. I doubt many free workers were employed on the plantations in the caribbean back then and even if so, would you be able to sell them to others with a few papers?

I'm pretty sure your labor hours represent slaves - after all, you get free work without paying for it  For labor contracts at least you have to pay for the work which is performed 

statement:

labor hours should have been actual online game hours. 

after a week log of, everybody has the max hours (when logged in again ) and that's strange.

this means the actual player who plays the game every day is restricted over the day in comparison with the guy (with slaves workers it seems)  who logs in once a week for 2 hours.

 

perhaps paying only with reals is the way to obtain labor hours (pay the workers)

and no free LH after a week of absence.

 

 

Edited by Thonys
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archaos said:

The problem with this suggestion is that such routes would be easy to monopolize by the big clans who would just sail large Indiamen fleet with lots of protection. The small lone trader would have no chance to compete in such a system. Having a few such routes may be viable as long as there were other options for making best profit that had to be discovered.

Another problem with such a system is that raiders would tend to concentrate around the start port and end port of the route rather than rest of the OW and these ports would literally be blockaded. 

Good points about monopolizing routes. A single person who outbids buy contracts can do this. It could be overcome by  implementing those trade routes in trade missions, limited per-player in time.

It's ok if those ports are blockaded - it's great for PvP. It generates more action, which is more natural than eg. patrol zones. If you want to use this route, you have to organize escort, or try your luck. 

Such routes would be high-risk, high-reward. Like you mentioned, we would still need some mid-risk, mid-reward routes, or mid-research, mid-reward routes.

 

There's just no point in having low-risk, high-workload, high-reward trade runs. It's simply boring and doesn't serve to make OW more alive. Instead of promoting AFK sailing for 3 hours to get profit, it's better to promote an exciting 30 minute risky trade runs, which keep you constantly engaged, or a dynamic system which allows you to search for trade opportunities by outsmarting others.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

btw, allowing to buy labour contracts for reals would stabilize reals a lot already. Simple and effective.

Though stabilization also means determination. Right now people get LCs via admirality and sell them for reals. That's a free market. If LCs were purchaseable for reals you disconnect crafting from doubloons and therefore mostly from pvp.

@SnovaZdorowa perhaps you can enlighten me how you get 2-3k balloons an hour by PvE? If that was the case, why are most patrol zones (esp. Nassau) crowded with players, though we still have a high ganking intensity. Experience tells me most people only do PvP if they have to (aka leaderboards show the same 30 people all the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

enlighten me how you get 2-3k balloons an hour by PvE?

You can do it, but its boring.  Find a place with a high instance of AI Traders and just keep hitting them.  They don't all have doubloons but enough do, so that you could easily make 4-5K Doubloons in an hour.  It takes 5 mins to cap an AI TBrig.

Edited by Angus MacDuff
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You can do it, but its boring.  Find a place with a high instance of AI Traders and just keep hitting them.  They don't all have doubloons but enough do, so that you could easily make 4-5 Doubloons in an hour.  It takes 5 mins to cap an AI TBrig.

war fleets have dblns too, more stable then traders

100 reals / dbln ? lol. forget

Edited by SnovaZdorowa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...