Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Development plans update - Second Half of 2019

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Or a hard cap on the number of players per nation.  No nation can have more than 10% of the player population or own more than 10% of the county capitols.  There.  Problem solved...

Hard caps will not work either as a person finding they cannot join a nation they wanted to play for or a nation where their friends are will just not bother playing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to find the reason why I should participate in the RVR and could not.

Access to good ships is provided by money. Money gives delivery missions. Well, or buy another account during the discounts and send it to earn money and ships in the most powerful nation.

Port battles can only be seen in the context of a challenges. For example, capture Cartagena or capture all 55 point ports. Developers will not be able to come up with interesting challenges. Only a few people could do this, most of whom are no longer playing.

Edited by qw569
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of today, one solution could be an alliance system working with major powers plus attached minor powers. For example, these could be:

Major power 1: Russia (Alliance: The Baltic Union) --> attached minor powers: Poland, Sweden, Denmark

Major power 2: United Provinces (Alliance: Belle Alliance) --> France, Spain

Major power 3: England (Alliance: The Commonwealth) --> USA, Prussia

In this way, every player could still choose his or her own allegiance but would be part of a "greater goal" within the three alliances. Pirates would remain Pirates but could be attached to alliances, too (or their clans even delegated and paid to attack a specific enemy).

Edited by von Westhofen
typos

Share this post


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

I tried to find the reason why I should participate in the RVR and could not.

Access to good ships is provided by money. Money gives delivery missions. Well, or buy another account during the discounts and send it to earn money and ships in the most powerful nation.

Port battles can only be seen in the context of a challenges. For example, capture Cartagena or capture all 55 point ports. Developers will not be able to come up with interesting challenges. Only a few people could do this, most of whom are no longer playing.

Where are those players and why do they not play? Where are the new generation of good players? Gamers are gamers and its the game that changes not the players. This game is not competitive in terms of skill and only rewards grinding. The devs cannot move away from sandbox more and more yet expect the players to make the content. Player driven content requires players and mechanics to support them. Right now the mechanics are failing. 

If you want a port battle on the pvp server, how much work is their required for that 1 hour of fun? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Where are those players and why do they not play? Where are the new generation of good players? Gamers are gamers and its the game that changes not the players. This game is not competitive in terms of skill and only rewards grinding. The devs cannot move away from sandbox more and more yet expect the players to make the content. Player driven content requires players and mechanics to support them. Right now the mechanics are failing. 

If you want a port battle on the pvp server, how much work is their required for that 1 hour of fun? 

Too much work on a mid term to long term basis look at those that still commit to it long term and ask yourself how much time they spend on it , that group shrinks constantly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Instead of adding all nations individually why not give big clans the chance to found their own nation and choose a flag out of all flags of the century?

All clan owned ports would then be this nation (after maintenance) and nations that own >0 ports are chooseable by new players.

Also show new players the current map of the caribbean and show the owned ports each nation has.

This. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 12:16 PM, LeBoiteux said:

'Not sure' I would play a game as a Belgian samurai or a US lancer in TW Rome.

I wouldn't play as a belgian in any game!  😛

Share this post


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

I wouldn't play as a belgian in any game!  😛

why?

what about soccer? they're number 1 in the FIFA men's ranking right now...

Share this post


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

I havent said anything about removing. @admin clearly said it wont happen. 

Alliances or coalitions is the only way to introduce a balancing tool.

only if they are not fixed, enforced and are to an extent democratically decided like all clans in the nation get 1 vote.

Share this post


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

junk19pintaneu.jpg

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.  

Edited by Sir "The Lorax" John
source for more info
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asian nations once they see downtime is in their primetime will not tolerate it. Doesn't happen in other games and there's a huge market. 

I'll probably play for Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read all the nice ideas, the more I think it shouldn´t be regulated at all. Let it balance itself and give the possibility to develope all ports to 55 points.

Empires rise and fall. Regulations might cause undesired side-effects.

Edited by Genevieve Malfleurs
wrong topic :)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, as a player, would agree to the capital ports of 55 points and also the development-growth function of the port to 55 -70 points, provided that all ships at the NPS cannot be captured only craft

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

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...