Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Development plans update - Second Half of 2019


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Preechur Blackheart said:

Two cents worth:

1) If we need more players and marketing to the Chinese would bring some in, that would be a good thing. I would think marketing would include a distinctive Chinese ship, and a safe Chinese colony area. They would need a 55 point port of their own. I know it would not be historical, but it could be alt-history....

2) I think game balance would be helped if every nation's safe capital was a 55 point port. As it is now, nations without a 55 point port cannot build ships that are competitive with the current leading nations. 55 point ports were located away from capitals because the devs wanted to maximize OW travel, encouraging battles. But the decline in player population tells us that the game is declining, and at least  a part of that is the lack of a 55 point port for every nation. Upgrading national capitals to 55 points would give the lesser nations the HOPE of regaining competitiveness. IMHO.

Giving everyone 55 point port removes the point of having those ports. Maybe if you want to go down that route maybe have capitals be 25 or 35? With rng bonuses?

as for china as nation, i think adding it as a “hardcore” nation would be the best way to do it and would also mean it could be done without a full reset(although this would make it very hard for china to find its feet)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, admin said:

Germany had colonies in the Caribbean. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonization_of_the_Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas

Caribbean country selection is our decision and we take full financial responsibility of this decision. In the past this decision has led to more copies = more players despite complaints of people unfamiliar with history of colonization of the world. 

Having settlements isn't having a LARGE NAVAL PRESENCE and most of those listed where only renting ports for a few years from other nations so they can resupply trade ships and it was in the 1600 not during 1700-1820 which the game is suppose to take place in time wise.  Russia had nothing.  Poland had some troops that Napoleon sent to Cuba.   You basically threw out the historical nation of this game just to please some players and basically show just how bias you are..... 

I have never seen a game developer do such to there game just to please some of there sales.   Name one other Historical game that added other nations that wasn't part of the original theme and area of operation?  I mean if this was Naval Action: NORTH SEA I could see it, but it's not (by the way could be expansions:  North Sea, Mediterranean, Ivory Coast...)

Since we are beyond caring about historical any more, why don't we just make the factions as you proposed and add new nations to each faction and move them around to balance the player base some.  If a nation gets to powerful have it loose allies and be on it's own.  Nations are to week give it more allies. 

I'm really hoping the server down times to upgrade the servers is also going to be used for a big major update patch with some balance and changes added.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Preechur Blackheart said:

I think game balance would be helped if every nation's safe capital was a 55 point port.

Not a good idea, after that we can return to no port bonus era, but every capital should have 45 points, and a preset port bonus configuration. Also capitals should need not have rare woods spawning nearby or not able to plant rare wood forests nearby. 

This should definitly help! @admin I know you are reading :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

Not a good idea, after that we can return to no port bonus era, but every capital should have 45 points, and a preset port bonus configuration. Also capitals should need not have rare woods spawning nearby or not able to plant rare wood forests nearby. 

This should definitly help! @admin I know you are reading :)

Imo i agree with some points being added to capitals but if you 45 pt capital it doesnt encourage players to move out hence why 25 or 35 pts would be better since it would mean you can only craft “ok” ships in capital 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sir "The Lorax" John said:

We really may as well have dreadnoughts if junks are added to the game... and the ships in that stamp are far, far older than the 17th/18th centuries

 

I'm glad admin has not announced any plans for them.

It's true what they say: the Qing had even less of a chance of developing a Napoleonic navy than Poland-Lithuania.  I really don't know about this proposal of a Qing invasion, but I do know that we cannot have junks in this game.  I can't say it enough, fighting junks in Napoleonic warships would be more one-sided than fighting Napoleonic warships in a dreadnought.  

The only historical Asian threats to European warships of which I am aware were those posed by pirates who sailed in such ships of such antique designs as restricted their combat-effectiveness to swift boarding actions in China-Sea calms.  I am, admittedly, running on a small database of knowledge on this region, but the few engagements which I can recall involved dhow-ish or junk warships crammed to the wales with men for boarding.  I can imagine that gunboats were in limited use by pirate clans as well... Maybe admin could add some Chinese pirate options or flags?

Aside from the realism bonus, this stops dividing the playerbase further by adding another nation.  It could also revitalize the pirates, maybe bring more meaning to them.

There is some information here about pirates of the South China Sea: https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-32

So it's complete fantasy to add another navy which did not exist (and could not have existed)... but if admin wants the game to be fantasy then at least for sanity's sake I hope that if they reject the pirate idea they make the 'Chinese faction' hired European-built men-of-war (Qing privateers) and not imperial junks.  

WRONG: So it's complete fantasy to add another navy which did not exist (and could not have existed

 

here you can find a example of a mutiny on a dutch voc vessel 

where chinese mutineers were involved 

here are many cases also that chinese sailors occupied the sailing vessels around the world and in particular vessels from the east who and where sailors not only visited but   

where sailors not only settled in the west but also created descendants that are visible today in populations on islands in the west.

 

look at the bottom

https://www.rosegardencuracao.com/rosegarden-takeoutlunchspecials.pdf  (link)

Oude Caracasbaaiweg, Willemstad, Curaçao

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

other example 

1785 @admin
Title:
Story of the murdered murderers in the night between Dec. 24 and 25. 1783 on board the ship Java
Edition:
Pieter Gillissen and son, Middelburg, 1785
Note:
In duplicate. At a mutiny of Chinese sailors on the VOC ship 'Java' at the Cape of Good Hope, vice-admiral Jacob Cornelis Mattheus (Matthijs) Radermacher and his wife, on their return from India to the Netherlands, were killed. Jacob Cornelis Mattheus (Matthijs) Radermacher (1741-1783), born in The Hague in 1741, Council of the Indies and vice-admiral. Translation of: Translation du massacre, arrivé la nuit du 24 au 25 décembre 1783 (Flessingue: T. Corbelyn & Fils, 1784). Cf. J.R. Bruijn and E.S. van Eyck van Heslinga, Mutiny. Riot and trial on ships of the VOC (Haarlem 1980)
External link:
A copy from the possession of the Leiden University Library is available online via Delpher

1785
Titel:
 
Verhaal van den gepleegden moord in den nacht tusschen den 24 en 25 dec. 1783 aan boord van het schip Java
Uitgave:
 
Pieter Gillissen en zoon, Middelburg, 1785
Notabene:
 
In tweevoud. Bij een muiterij van Chinese matrozen op het VOC-schip 'Java' bij Kaap de Goede Hoop kwamen vice-admiraal Jacob Cornelis Mattheus (Matthijs) Radermacher en zijn vrouw, op terugreis uit Indië naar Nederland, om het leven.Betreft de moord op mr Jacob Cornelis Mattheus (Matthijs) Radermacher (1741-1783), geboren 's-Gravenhage 1741, Raad van Indië en vice-admiraal. Vertaling van: Rélation du massacre, arrivé la nuit du 24 au 25 décembre 1783 (Flessingue : T. Corbelyn & Fils, 1784). Vgl. J.R. Bruijn en E.S. van Eyck van Heslinga, Muiterij. Oproer en berechting op schepen van de VOC (Haarlem 1980)
Externe link:
 
Een exemplaar uit het bezit van de Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden is online beschikbaar via Delpher
Edited by Thonys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, admin said:

Germany had colonies in the Caribbean. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonization_of_the_Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas

Caribbean country selection is our decision and we take full financial responsibility of this decision. In the past this decision has led to more copies = more players despite complaints of people unfamiliar with history of colonization of the world. 

 

19 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Thats very nice from a finantial pov.

 

But you have introduced a GAMEPLAY issue too, a serious one that should be looked at.  You have nations with 5% pop in a server of 600-700 guys. 30-40 guys in some nations. Come on. Do you understand that many nations have a really hard time in rvr? 

 

It is required to merge nations into alliances or coalitions or whatever.

It is exactly like @Intrepido said: When devs decide to have a variety of nations to sell more game copies, wich brings more players..fine. But that makes it a mandatory task to bring an ally system to keep the server health in terms of balance and RvR. @admin seems to igore every request for an improved/dynamic ally system wich can give the low pop nations a tool to really work together. Because of the lack of such a system, the RvR died. Yes, there is a Port Battle here and there, but remind the good old times when we had much of PBs every day. Now we have some smaller nations not able to participate in RvR and that is a bad game design mistake in my oppinion.

And YES: The problems of too expensive ships or too much grind or too high pb-br are things that make the problem even bigger, but the main problem ist: We need support for low Pop nations to come together and unite. Because i dont see the will of the devs to solve that problem, or simply accept there is a problem, i see no future and no reason to play the game anymore.

Edited by Sven Silberbart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sven Silberbart said:

 

It is exactly like @Intrepido said: When devs decide to have a variety of nations to sell more game copies, wich brings more players..fine. But that makes it a mandatory task to bring an ally system to keep the server health in terms of balance and RvR. @admin seems to igore every request for an improved/dynamic ally system wich can give the low pop nations a tool to really work together. Because of the lack of such a system, the RvR died. Yes, there is a Port Battle here and there, but remind the good old times when we had much of PBs every day. Now we have some smaller nations not able to participate in RvR and that is a bad game design mistake in my oppinion.

And YES: The problems of too expensive ships or too much grind or too high pb-br are things that make the problem even bigger, but the main problem ist: We need support for low Pop nations to come together and unite. Because i dont see the will of the devs to solve that problem, or simply accept there is a problem, i see no future and no reason to play the game anymore.

but i think you jump the conclusions to early

give it some time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sven Silberbart I completely understand your point. On the other hand there are most interesting ways to adapt. E.g. I do not care for ports and brick war with 25:25 1st rates. Infiltrate a Zerg and produce your stuff in what ever nation is leading. The PvP options on the war server are still good. Who cares if a nation has some good PB Fleets if there are no Port battles. The good think with this game is that you have several ways of playing it. If the game would necessarily have RvR I would have  stopped playing month ago. There are several ways to bypass the (in my eyes broken as stated in many of my posts) RvR system. PvP is still big fun. Adding new nations seems good as long as it brings more players. Important in my eyes is to have less or at least not more magic in the combat system.

Edited by Sir Loorkon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sven Silberbart said:

 

And YES: The problems of too expensive ships 


Production (digging and growing) costs are fixed at reasonable low price and their supply does not end.
This makes the too expensive ships problem player driven. But its a sandbox so there is no problem.
No-one -wants to make ships at cost (which is low) and sell them at 10-30% margin. 
In addition to that captured ships are free. Which further increases supply of ships - but does not lower the price - which means that there is just too much money

which needs to be addressed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, admin said:


Production (digging and growing) costs are fixed at reasonable low price and their supply does not end.
This makes the too expensive ships problem player driven. But its a sandbox so there is no problem.
No-one -wants to make ships at cost (which is low) and sell them at 10-30% margin. 
In addition to that captured ships are free. Which further increases supply of ships - but does not lower the price - which means that there is just too much money

which needs to be addressed. 

the problem is that it has become and requirement for us players to have the best gear possible to do some kind of end game content, it should be the other way around, do this and be rewarded by better items, this along with the winner gets all and the loser falls makes it so players rather leave the game instead of pick them selves up. Again, give us reasons to go into rvr with a full fleet of 3rd rate even ai ships when we know that the force we face would be 4-5 port bonus 1st rates.

And it doesent help alot that the crafting has been simplified to make it "QOL". I was for the change when it first happened, but id rather have the old system where you would craft those furnitures, or knees to the ships of the nation, it makes it much more inclusive for the players that invest more time in the economy of the game

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Add economic bonuses when nation holds entire county - Clan owning County Port gets to decide which rare resource spawns (Denmark holds San Juan port and entire county, and decides to have Cartaghena caulking spawn. so both swedish carpenters and carta caulking would spawn).

2. Choose One --
A. Drop ports bonuses altogether
B. Allow the ability for a nation to further invest ports to make all county ports have the ability to be 55 points
C. addition to B - allow ALL ports ability to be 55 points.

3. Lower BR on port battles (I believe admin has already stated this will happen)

4. RvR must go through regional towns first before the County Capital.

Do these 4 things and the enjoyment for everyone will go up. Players will continue to RvR and also have incentive to hold the entire county. There will be more ports that allow for rare resources to spawn allowing for better variation of market pricing. Lowering BR on ports will further allow ALL nations with ANY population to fight in a myriad of different areas/ports without feeling useless.

Either dropping port bonuses or allowing ports to be invested into 55 point ports will also Allow any Nation to either all be "equal" or have the best options available.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you may not have enough players if the Map continues to become Russian :/ Love the game, but so tired of constantly losing ports to the Russians. Maybe before implementing more features, you try to implement a balance on larger nations...otherwise there will be nobody on to play :/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

The expensive ships has been always the Purple/gold with special trims and those behind the permit wall (rng or combat marks).

 

But by far the greatest issue has been the UPGRADES as many of them could cost several times the price of the ship that carries them. Which is a nonsense.

Making the effort of crafting a ship and then equipping bad upgrades is a no for many players.

It's wasted time.

We have a long record of posts in this forum in which admin tells us that inflation (and not also scarcity, so - basically -  too much grind to access things) is the only thing that makes prices high.

Not that he actually thinks that (he has a Master in economics AFAIK), rather he knows that he cannot reduce the grind (due to the monetization model based heavily on DLCs) and then he is "obliged" to propose the solution of deflating prices by reducing the avaliable money.

Problem is that deflation is usually not an effective way to expand economy in a situation of stagflation.

Edited by toblerone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, toblerone said:

It's wasted time.

We have a long record of posts in this forum in which admin tells us that inflation (and not also scarcity, so - basically -  too much grind to access things) is the only thing that makes prices high.

Not that he actually thinks that (he has a Master in economics AFAIK), rather he knows that he cannot reduce the grind (due to the monetization model based heavily on DLCs) and then he is "obliged" to propose the solution of deflating prices by reducing the avaliable money.

Problem is that deflation is usually not an effective way to expand economy in a situation of stagflation.

Frighteningly similar to how central banks ‘manage’ the real world economy.  
 

playing with the money supply is not a fix for perverse incentives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not care, if they add more nations. But we might move from the carribean to some fantasy map then, to make it a full fantasy game with some historical ships.

If there are 4 or 5 core nations with uncapturable capitals, I don't see a problem with more "lmpossible" nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 10:00 PM, admin said:


Production (digging and growing) costs are fixed at reasonable low price and their supply does not end.
This makes the too expensive ships problem player driven. But its a sandbox so there is no problem.
No-one -wants to make ships at cost (which is low) and sell them at 10-30% margin. 
In addition to that captured ships are free. Which further increases supply of ships - but does not lower the price - which means that there is just too much money

which needs to be addressed. 

@admin, completly disagree about too much money !

We had those deflation times often in the past and the only what it does was hurting the already poorer and fresh players... :( 

There are many costs in the game, Repairs, Rum, Crew, cannons, which are essentially for sailing even in the most basic way...if you take money away from players, those prices will stay the same and many people will begin to starve...

 

Sorry, i dont get this (stupid) argument "take away money from players and ship get cheaper"...yeah, but you forget that players have then also much less money :P 

What do you want to win with this ? The ratio will stay the same but you will only hurt your newer players and casual ones...

 

I dont see a problem with ships being more expensive if they get sold ??? The market prices are already dropping in some ports below the real costs...

 

Pls dont interfere always in your market system, you will only destabilize everything !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 11:47 AM, Sven Silberbart said:

 

It is exactly like @Intrepido said: When devs decide to have a variety of nations to sell more game copies, wich brings more players..fine. But that makes it a mandatory task to bring an ally system to keep the server health in terms of balance and RvR. @admin seems to igore every request for an improved/dynamic ally system wich can give the low pop nations a tool to really work together. Because of the lack of such a system, the RvR died. Yes, there is a Port Battle here and there, but remind the good old times when we had much of PBs every day. Now we have some smaller nations not able to participate in RvR and that is a bad game design mistake in my oppinion.

And YES: The problems of too expensive ships or too much grind or too high pb-br are things that make the problem even bigger, but the main problem ist: We need support for low Pop nations to come together and unite. Because i dont see the will of the devs to solve that problem, or simply accept there is a problem, i see no future and no reason to play the game anymore.

Small nations can "unite" without alliance too. Why you insist on such mechanic is beyond me. Again, you can repeat this over and over again, but forcing alliances won´t bring players back. Except you.

Trouble is, this is not a wish list. "Make an alliance, i will return to the game", is just bollocks and a behavior of an 5 year old, which does not understand that those who left the game prolly will not come back, untilll a miracle happens. And it´s not called alliance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rediii said:

small nations cant unite without  a alliancemechanic because they cant help eachother inside the PB.

Glad I could help you 

Inside the pb? Like, that would solve any problem..You can´t force people to play only because some foreign nation members would be able to join pb on your side. Trouble is much deeper and has begun with forged papers, too many nations, and, have a seat.. "lack of content".

People play, get bored, they quit. Glad i could help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...