Patch 31: Port investments, new hostility and preparation for release

[admin]

28 minutes ago, racketyjack said:

Dont mean to argue but really? Join or die? That says it all for solo players on the war server. That's why the peace server is so important, as it gives us somewhere to play this game without getting continually ganked. And point in fact, not by any means was every action a large,  hundred ship Trafalgar. Most, thru out history  where single ship or two or three. Small group of 2, 3, or 4  'rats in cutters and the like attacking a single merchant. Constitution against the HMS Guerriere, Java, Pictou, Cyane, and Levant; every single one of her battles were against only 1 or 2 ships, not dozens. She never fought a line engagement. That's was typical of the times, far more common and hence, more realistic. 

This patch is about port development. Please stop this fake news agenda of solo players being discarded or made useless. 
Majority of battles on the OW are small engagements 2v2 3v3. Most battles in NA are small engagements. Even streamed battles - most of them are small engagements. Do not believe me - check past broadcasts of naval action on twitch. 

BUT.

East India or West Indies was not conquered and developed by some solo guy. It was done by companies with their private fleets and armies like East India Company. 
Want to control West indies and build the best ships?  Join the alliance with someone. Period. There is no historical or fictitious reference of solo privateers building great first rates. Sorry. You can in our game - but best ships will require lots of RVR and many players to participate.

[toblerone]

@admin

you talk about alliance, but is there an alliance feature in the game? I mean except the "friend list" of each clan.

[admin]

2 minutes ago, toblerone said:

@admin

you talk about alliance, but is there an alliance feature in the game? I mean except the "friend list" of each clan.

Alliances were in game but were removed because they turned conversations into button clicks.
We want people to talk to each other, make agreements, betray and basically do human things (instead of button clicks)

Friend list is the alliance. Informal alliances also exist between nations and enemy players

[toblerone]

4 minutes ago, admin said:

Alliances were in game but were removed because they turned conversations into button clicks.
We want people to talk to each other, make agreements, betray and basically do human things (instead of button clicks)

Friend list is the alliance. Informal alliances also exist between nations and enemy players

I see. But I read that only the players of the clan owning the port can craft ships with bonus. Doesn't this negate the purpose of this "unformal" alliance system?

[racketyjack]

27 minutes ago, admin said:

This patch is about port development. Please stop this fake news agenda of solo players cant do anything.
Majority of battles on the OW are small engagements 2v2 3v3. Most battles in NA are small engagements. Even streamed battles - most of them are small engagements. Do not believe me - check past broadcasts of naval action on twitch. 

BUT.

East India or West Indies was not conquered and developed by some solo guy. It was done by companies with their private fleets and armies like East India Company. 
Want to control West indies and build the best ships?  Join the alliance with someone. Period. There is no historical or fictitious reference of solo privateers building great first rates. Sorry. You can in our game - but best ships will require lots of RVR and many players to participate.

The sad fact is that single players are at a disadvantage on the PVP server due to the large numbers of players in groups who hunt down single players. I experienced it myself for months before I quit the server and almost quit the game. This is common knowledge among players. That's the point I'm trying to make. It became no longer enjoyable. The peace server is what saved this game for me. Im not against team play, don't get me wrong. And I probably know and understand history as least as well as you as it is my study and hobby these last 5 decades. So I understand that large actions do occur. I understand how wars are fought and lands captured. But you devs are really cutting into the fan base when you force people to join clans or die as you so indelicately put it. There should be a reasonable approach that allows both game styles to be played. Perhaps the two different servers are the answer. But I remember how fun the game was before the big patch in May 2017. And both single players and clans were playing together without being continually ganked. Fighting against a single human player was fun and challenging. But to be chased down by 5 or 6 and watch my AI fleet ships be captured one by one was very frustrating considering the time and resources spent. I watched my fleet go from 15 ships down to less than 10 in quick order. When I finally lost my Indiaman and my prized Wasa, I'd had enough. I'm really not trying to argue as I have found that is useless online. Just trying to have my say and opinion heard and understood is all. I'll go back to the peace server now. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by racketyjack

[angriff]

Two things..

1. Looks like Pinar del Rio can only be a Spanish county now with a preset Spanish town in the realm.
2. Need to fix the pre-release black box popup on the map so you can see the map connections .  Put some see through capabilities in that big black box with the port info on it.

[Serk]

4 minutes ago, toblerone said:

I see. But I read that only the players of the clan owning the port can craft ships with bonus. Doesn't this negate the purpose of this "unformal" alliance system?

The owner clan can add clans in the same nation to their friendly clans list, including a one man clan if they so wish.  Friendly clans will have access to the port and it’s bonuses.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Serk

[Carlos_Condell]

ADMIN just a though raises with the new frontlines sistem... what happen when a large clan take over all capitals near a freetow?? basically they block the map for the rest... why you can't attack regional ports to hurt them (economy wise) prior to attack the Regional capitol? im just wondering how the RVR will be in the future with large clans blocking the acces to everyone else and basically controling 50 ports by just having a few strongest capitols... basically you need to had and control a few ports to build and craft in safety.

could be nice to have a "distance based" sistem instead of capital sistem... because if your front line aren't specifically close to the enemy nation, you have to jump into your neighbour first... so Sweeden will never attack GB or Spain, or even the gulf, because is way to far... or france if they want to attack danes, Sweden block his way up... almost the same for the rest of the nations...

i would like to have the option to attack regional ports from my closest frontline, once you control the whole region you can attack the next capital... otherwise, RVR will be very boring thing... no tactics, and some nations will be out of fight most of the time.

 

[toblerone]

1 minute ago, Serk said:

They can add clans to their friend list, including a one man clan. Friendly clans will have access to the port and it’s bonuses.

are you sure that also friendly clan will have the crafting bonus?

[angriff]

11 minutes ago, admin said:

Alliances were in game but were removed because they turned conversations into button clicks.
We want people to talk to each other, make agreements, betray and basically do human things (instead of button clicks)

Friend list is the alliance. Informal alliances also exist between nations and enemy players

well for me button clicks that provide mechanics to warn players that there is a temporary alliance would be worthwhile because I hear all the time players attacking allied players.  Not everyone and most noobs do not use Team Speak and half the other people are on discord only. Not to mention the people that dont speak english 

Edited April 24, 2019 by angriff

[z4ys]

1 minute ago, angriff said:

well for me button clicks that provide mechanics to warn players that there is a temporary alliance would be worthwhile because I hear all the time players attacking allied players.  Not everyone and most noobs do not use Team Speak and half the other people are on discord only. Not to mention the people that dont speak english 

But alliances are between clans/players and not nations. Ofc mistakes are made thats what keeps it interesting

[John Cavanaugh]

14 minutes ago, admin said:

Adding features to a group of players does not discard another group of players.
 
Solo players can capture amazing ships from clanned members for free + can group up into a small clans which can build a small holding somewhere or ally with large alliances who need experienced screeners or pvp trainers. Wars and lands were not won or captured solo in real life. This game tries to give you a realistic experience. Group sports are most popular sports.  Football players do not demand solo content. Cherish it or accept that it is not for you - its fine to not like group based competitive sports or activites.

What several people have pointed out in this thread is the problem of a gear gap. Powerful clans gain access to crafting modifiers, rare woods, etc which boost the performance of their vessels above that which can be produced by smaller, rival clans or solo players. In this scenario, were the smaller clans/solos to form up into a single fleet and attempt to fight the entrenched powerful clans, they suffer several drawbacks from the very outset -

1) Inferior woods

2) inferior or lack entirely of crafting trims
3) slower logistical apparatus (anyone not using a centralized Investment based crafting hub will still have to move resources, leaving them open to disruption, compared to their enemy who suffers no such vulnerability)

and that's all without taking into account individual player's skill gaps, and the problems involved in turning a collection of players into anything resembling an actual cohesive fleet.
This system as implemented CAN work, but tweaking is absolutely necessary. Rare woods were already a decisive factor in determining a single ship's effectiveness. Under the current economical system they are almost never available for purchase - they are so exceptionally rare and valuable that almost no one is willing to sell what limited supplies they have.
Compounding this will be the crafting hub system - those same powerful clans will control effective crafting. This may be less of an issue if it is simply a port modifier to the ship, and does not require an investment into the crafting of the ship each time it is used (e.g. an additional doubloon cost for each individual ship, in addition to the initial port set up cost), as it might create a situation in which people are willing to buy ships from that port. However, In connection with the problem of rare woods being bottlenecked by the extortionate doubloons cost and unavailability, it will inevitably lead to a situation where powerful clans have reserves of ships of drastically superior woods and drastically superior trims compared to the rest of the population, which will make any offensive action against their monopolized holdings doomed to failure.
 

The problem is not that clans might become strong, nor that RVR clans might get nice things as a result of their engagement in RVR. The problem is that the stage has been set for this to escalate to an absurd degree, with any coalition of small clans having a slim chance of effectively uprooting them.

The solution as I see it is to either make the mid-tier woods less rare (Mahogany, Sabicu, Cagurian) so that there can be again some degree of variance in the crafting of smaller clans and solos. Keeping Teak, Live Oak, and White Oak to only a handful of ports is perfectly reasonable given the goal of making them rare, but for those clans and players who do not have access to them, it should be reasonable that they have access to the mid-tier woods. To this effect I would propose keeping the number of teak/live oak/white oak ports as it is, but greatly increasing the number of mid-tier wood ports. Secondly, the doubloon cost is far too high. I base this assertion on the fact that you can scour the shops in game and you will find little to no rare woods for sale. As of my last check, with all of my alts, I was only able to find a grand total of 900 sabicu logs for sale, at a price of over 1200 reales per log. Compare this to rare(RNG) books, permits, etc. You can find them for sale in multiple ports, and asking to buy them in global chat almost always gets results. The only resource in the game for which this is not the case is rare woods, which have an incredibly high demand, and no sellers. Even unique items like Edinorog guns can be found for sale, but not one handful of white oak logs. Doubloon costs should be slashed across the board. when the delivery cost of these woods goes down, they will become an item more readily used to turn a profit in the market, as opposed to being so precious that parting with even a small quantity is unthinkable.
If rare woods, or at least mid tier woods, are at least available on the open market, those small clans can stand a chance in a contested port battle against the entrenched powerful clans.

Be a lad, make an economy that works

 

[admin]

9 minutes ago, racketyjack said:

The sad fact is that single players are at a disadvantage on the PVP server due to the large numbers of players in groups who hunt down single players. I experienced it myself for months before I quit the server and almost quit the game. This is common knowledge among players. That's the point I'm trying to make. It became no longer enjoyable. The peace server is what saved this game for me. Im not against team play, don't get me wrong. And I probably know and understand history as least as well as you as it is my study and hobby these last 5 decades. So I understand that large actions do occur. I understand how wars are fought and lands captured. But you devs are really cutting into the fan base when you force people to join clans or die as you so indelicately put it. There should be a reasonable approach that allows both game styles to be played. Perhaps the two different servers are the answer. But I remember how fun the game was before the big patch in May 2017. And both single players and clans were playing together without being continually ganked. 

Ganking was always considered a problem from day one. Initially we tried to fix it, adding this and that and what not (wasting months and months of development resources)

What we forgot is by removing ganking or forcing ganking out we cut content for others. Those who gank are also players. Why should i cut their content? Looking back i would better spend time on new 3d boarding or new skill based crafting, or individiual sail plan management and even better physix Instead of listening about ganking and fixing it fixing it fixing it with no results.

Ganking can be solved only if all battles are 1v1. Which is not why majority of players come to this game

Ganking happened in reality and happens in game. Its embraced now. Ganking is content + its historical. 
British  ganked US, France, Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, Russian and Prussian captains ALL THE TIME from 1700 until Jutland

Ganking is awesome because you win. Players love ganking because they love to win.
Just like the British trying to gank Constitution on this picture (there was an order to not engage superfrigates solo)

 

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Is it intended that Mantua be inside the Filipina county rather than West Cuba?

[toblerone]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Is it intended that Mantua be inside the Filipina county rather than West Cuba?

it's in west cuba region (if you hover on the port in the map)

Edited April 24, 2019 by toblerone

[Serk]

12 minutes ago, toblerone said:

are you sure that also friendly clan will have the crafting bonus?

Reference to “clan alliances” in the Admin’s OP and this:

• Clans will be able to decide who can access the facilities and build them
• Once you build the facility you will be able to use it even if you are kicked from clan  or alliance (provided you are in the same nation).

Edited April 24, 2019 by Serk

[admin]

8 minutes ago, John Cavanaugh said:

LIVEOAK WHITE OAK AVAILABILITY

 

yes. 

This is under consideration. The price will definitely will fall

[admin]

5 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Is it intended that Mantua be inside the Filipina county rather than West Cuba?

not sure.. only matanzas was connected to havana

pic please?

[Carlos_Condell]

@admi

Edited April 24, 2019 by Carlos_Condell

[Sir David Green]

Can clans enable their entire nation to be able to use their port facilities and bonuses and whatnot?

[admin]

19 minutes ago, Serk said:

Reference to “clan alliances” in the Admin’s OP and this:

• Clans will be able to decide who can access the facilities and build them
• Once you build the facility you will be able to use it even if you are kicked from clan  or alliance (provided you are in the same nation).

This applies to buildings (once you get the right to build a mine you have it until overall investment into mining is not destroyed)
Crafting bonus only applies to ships build by shipyards of the alliance. (so if you are not a part of the alliance you do not have the crafting bonuses)
The next logical step of the feature is to give ability to unseat the clan owning the port within one nation if you do not like their policies or just do not like them.

 

Thanks all for the comments and questions. we will update the patch notes tomorrow to have a little bit better information 

[van der Clam]

• OW hostility points are no longer granted to avoid exploits. 
• ......
• Once you taken the county capital you can take its regional cities.

We are not getting CMs, nor Leaderboard Points, nor extra Hostility Points for killing enemy players who join our Hostility Missions? Something is not right when you changed OW hostility.

Also, when one clan takes a county capital are any other clans able to take ports in that same county? Or are those ports now locked for only the first clan?

[John Hill Regard]

Here We are 

First evening after map wipe....GB  and Russian take 7 county capital each ....

No chance for small nation to expand .

 Almost all County capital that could be taken by Free town habe been taken bye this Zerg Nation....

Your new system is already a big fail like every thing you test since one year ..

When are you going to solve this problem of 35 % player's playing Brit and almost the same for Russian ....

Game was hard for small nation before but it is gonna be really boring when you will only be able to play from free town ...

Thank you dev i thing like the majority of player i'm gonna join the red or the blue the only 2 nation that you should leave on the game...

 

[Socialism]

28 minutes ago, z4ys said:

But alliances are between clans/players and not nations. Ofc mistakes are made thats what keeps it interesting

More reason to switch to a primarily clan base game IMO and ditch nations

[Guest]

Just now, John Hill Regard said:

Here We are 

First evening after map wipe....GB  and Russian take 7 county capital each ....

No chance for small nation to expand .

 Almost all County capital that could be taken by Free town habe been taken bye this Zerg Nation....

Your new system is already a big fail like every thing you test since one year ..

When are you going to solve this problem of 35 % player's playing Brit and almost the same for Russian ....

Game was hard for small nation before but it is gonna be really boring when you will only be able to play from free town ...

Thank you dev i thing like the majority of player i'm gonna join the red or the blue the only 2 nation that you should leave on the game...

 

atm every guy have big ships and outposts around the map and active nations are faster. thats normal