Upcoming Patch

[Iroquois Confederacy]

15 minutes ago, H2O said:

Unbelievable, I am out. Your professionalism is impressing me. 

I'm honestly not certain if this is an attempt at humor or not?  They posed an idea, listened to feedback, slept on it, and updated with their thinking afterwards.  Isn't that literally the ideal scenario for developer / player interaction?

[z4ys]

5 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

I'm honestly not certain if this is an attempt at humor or not?  They posed an idea, listened to feedback, slept on it, and updated with their thinking afterwards.  Isn't that literally the ideal scenario for developer / player interaction?

Sometimes you are not able to see the wood for the trees. In my opinion devs did well. The pve ship changes like proposed do more harm than good.

 

[Navalus Magnus]

I might repeat myself but nevermind:

Would it ease the pain, if devs gave also 1VM to the players of 4th, 5th and 6th listed nations of the conquest competition?

I‘d hope for the following: This would create bigger chances for smaller nations to get VMs and thus more motivation to participate in RvR.

Even better: If devs nerf the thickness of 1st rates they would be less op against 2nd rates. This would enhance the situation for smaller nations even more.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[vazco]

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

Less rvr because BR is still wrong

From my perspective BR-limited PB's increased number and options of RvR greatly, especially for smaller nations. I judge this as a very good addition.

Maybe I didn't understand you though.

 

2 minutes ago, z4ys said:

The only barrier I see that the last cant take on the top. Which is fine. Make your progress through the ranks. The current system promotes even nation fights. Its more rewarding for the top 3 to fight each other than stomp a small one.

In reality a stomp-protection is enforced by leaders of current nations agreeing to not to do this. This protection was active even before VM system.

With VM's it's easier for a large nation to stomp small ones. It's also more profitable, as you can quickly take a few ports in a day, instead of fighting over Cartagena for weeks. In my opinion it's just a matter of time for a new Hitler to appear - someone who will despise current unwritten rules, game a mechanic to his advantage and through his actions destroy large part of server population.

ps. a rumor definitely and surely not related to this - I heard Lord Vicious was thinking of coming back  

[vazco]

1 minute ago, Navalus Magnus said:

Would it ease the pain, if devs gave also 1VM to the players of 4th, 5th and 6th listed nations of the conquest competition?

Yes, it would. Then again, it would make them irrelevant. In such case it's better to remove them.

The only way to make them work would be for them to give something interesting, which however is not changing the balance of forces.

Current quantities are also ridiculous. Getting 3 VM's per week will soon make them useless - just another nuissance if you don't get them automatically, and a small profit if you do.

[Fargo]

1 hour ago, admin said:

There are trade runs that make 3mln and even more per run and they cover the cost of a good sized fleet if they are crafted.  

3 mln are enough to cover the cost of about five crafted Victories or 10 Bucentaures. Definitely a good sized fleet.

Where is this value supposed to be sunk?! I doubt you dont realise that its not working like this. Sure it doesnt matter now, inflation remains. But after the final wipe you have to control inflation somehow. How are you going to do this without working on serious balancing now?! 

[admin]

7 minutes ago, Fargo said:

that its not working like this. Sure it doesnt matter now, inflation remains. 

This is not a monetary policy simulator. We had austerity patch and nobody cared about inflation control. You do/I do/ Majority of players dont.

But as an inflation control proponent you probably understand that if there is an unlimited supply at certain price - price will never go up above that level so there will be no inflation.
Almost all resources (with the exception of rare traded ones) have no inflation potential due to european traders. So prices for those resources will never exceed european traders price.

[z4ys]

18 minutes ago, vazco said:

From my perspective BR-limited PB's increased number and options of RvR greatly, especially for smaller nations. I judge this as a very good addition.

Maybe I didn't understand you though.

 

In reality a stomp-protection is enforced by leaders of current nations agreeing to not to do this. This protection was active even before VM system.

With VM's it's easier for a large nation to stomp small ones. It's also more profitable, as you can quickly take a few ports in a day, instead of fighting over Cartagena for weeks. In my opinion it's just a matter of time for a new Hitler to appear - someone who will despise current unwritten rules, game a mechanic to his advantage and through his actions destroy large part of server population.

ps. a rumor definitely and surely not related to this - I heard Lord Vicious was thinking of coming back  

ofc you could capture ports of small nations but you would need more than if you attack an equal enemy. More ports mean more to defend = makes you weaker. If russia spain and sweden would actually fight each other there would be no time to care about less important ports.

 

What we need is to make the penalty and reward for losing ports or taking depending on owned ports. So port trade isnt a thing anymore. And fighting an equal enemy is more rewarding than roflstomp.

by progressing through the conquest ranks a nation will gain access to sols.

Why should someone in the bottom league be able to fight a premier League nation? Isnt it more fun to fight equal?

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by z4ys

[z4ys]

4 minutes ago, rediii said:

Sweden is fighting spain and russia?

But is Spain fighting Russia? 

[vazco]

10 minutes ago, z4ys said:

And fighting an equal enemy is more rewarding than roflstomp.

Do you mean it's more efficient for Prussia to fight Spain rather than weak US? why are we taking ports from a weaker enemy instead?

[vazco]

Btw, Prussia is not hell-bent on map conquest, and everyone is swimming in Pvp marks anyway. If we were seriously competing for the map though, we would first take all American ports, then Bahamas from GB, then Commonwealth's Panama, then Spanish Mexican Bay. We wouldn't even touch Russia or Sweden. 

[Nelsons Barrel]

9 minutes ago, vazco said:

why are we taking ports from a weaker enemy instead?

Interesting statement, please explain how you should win against a stronger enemy while not beeing stronger? 

[vazco]

1 minute ago, Never Surrender said:

Interesting statement, please explain how you should win against a stronger enemy while not beeing stronger? 

You prove my point

To clarify though, I ment "from weaker of our two enemies". I predict we're not weaker than Spain, however it's not certain. 

[z4ys]

26 minutes ago, vazco said:

Do you mean it's more efficient for Prussia to fight Spain rather than weak US? why are we taking ports from a weaker enemy instead?

 We are not attacking Spain because our goal beside RvR is OW pvp. Spain would only be present in RvR and non existing for OW pvp. Have you ever tried to OW Spain? It's no fun. US is present for both. Why not switch the enemy. Yeah I talked to the Prussian clan leader but all were more interested in keeping status quo. Would only change if xoxo ditch jobe and rio seco or an other nation challenge Prussia like pirates are doing.

Edited January 26, 2018 by z4ys

[z4ys]

38 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I used to hunt Spanish players for months for many periods. In Mexico Gulf, Pensacola area, La Habana and many others. They used to be present in OW PvP quite a lot. Now it's just that Spanish safe zones are huge and it's really hard to find any fight around. The US has huge gaps in safe zones, that's why they need to be more aggressive in OW PvP to defend themselves. The vast majority of the Spanish players are safe for the most time, thus they don't really come out and fight. 

On the other hand, if you attack Spanish port, you will have 100% guaranteed PvP, right?

yep but we have a lot of US timezone players. And at this time spaniards have their siesta. I agree for EU players Spain could be interesting if....

[vazco]

55 minutes ago, Otto Kohl said:

Go try .

It's just a theory  (at least for now). We're not aiming at map victory now, we're just setting up a base for eco and PvP. 

 

1 hour ago, z4ys said:

We are not attacking Spain because our goal beside RvR is OW pvp.

We're not attacking Spain mainly because it would probably mean war with Spain and Russia, which we don't want to have at this point. That's how politics work... I've seen it work in Venigde Provincien, Sweden and Commonwealth already. It's never just about fun battles - you always avoid a brutal fight with an enemy you can't defeat. This doesn't exclude proxy wars though.

When you're a weak nation (small number of inexperienced players), you're the least safe nation. Commonwealth would die a few times if not for diplomacy. It's alawys safest to be second (as there are often coalitions formed against the first). VM system only reinforces this game mechanic.

Edited January 26, 2018 by vazco

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, Navalus Magnus said:

I might repeat myself but nevermind:

Would it ease the pain, if devs gave also 1VM to the players of 4th, 5th and 6th listed nations of the conquest competition?

I'd hope for the following: This would create bigger chances for fewer people to get VMs and thus more motivation to participate in RvR.

Even better: If they were, they would be less against the 2nd rates. This would enhance the situation for smaller nations even more.

I have suggested in the past doing it like this.  Every on that did a port battle win or lost gets one VM no matter the nation. Than give out your 1-3 rewards (we have what 11 nations so top three isn't that big).  1st Place gets 3, 2nd gets 2 and 3rd gets 1.  This is on top of the 1 every one that went to a port battle gets no matter what place your nation is in.  This means you get rewarded for fighting and not just sitting around.  Also it should not be a reward to all players in the nation. It should be a reward of those that have been in port battles and fought.  Sorry if all you do is sit around and PvE you should not be getting VM's.  You can buy them off a player that does that content.   

If your fighting and not placing your still getting PvP Marks and eventionally those marks will be more than enough to pay for what the VM's would get you.  So there is always other means to get 1st rates.  Just can't do it if you don't do those options or pay some one else that does.  Believe me there are folks sitting on millions that can buy those ships if they want or trade rare mods they get from there PvE grind.

[Fargo]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

This is not a monetary policy simulator. We had austerity patch and nobody cared about inflation control. You do/I do/ Majority of players dont.

But as an inflation control proponent you probably understand that if there is an unlimited supply at certain price - price will never go up above that level so there will be no inflation.
Almost all resources (with the exception of rare traded ones) have no inflation potential due to european traders. So prices for those resources will never exceed european traders price.

The point is that it breaks the neck of NA, no matter who cares about it. Your austerity patch brought quite some other issues, and in terms of eco balancing you could have tweaked lots of things. Not only costs, income/upkeep cost for different rates for example. Exponentially increasing income with larger ships is arguably very problematic. 

Prices?! Problem is the devaluation of your currency and everything connected with it, what in the end is the gameplay. Fixed prices even make it worse. Games with dynamic prices and with way less important economies care about controlling inflation although it would be less problematic. Because even for them its dangerously enough. This is not a new problem.

Usually all prices would just raise, currency looses value but not goods. In NA fixed resource production prices, that usually would raise with inflation, become redundantly cheap. Limited by labour the same happens with materials and ships, goods that are just resources+labour. Goods inflate aswell. You even removed any labour restriction with labour contracts buyable for marks. Now you dont just earn the millions needed for multiple large ships in a 30 minute mission, it also gives you the labour. What is also tradable making crafting redundant in addition. Each nation currently needs not more than one active shipbuilder, people just bring the necessary labour. Gameover.

Fixed european trader prices would just make player production redundant at some point, translating further raising gold inflation into resource inflation in the same way. If resource production cost wouldnt be fixed and not limited by labour already. So people just share their cheap resources and selfsupply, while selfsupply is not restricted at all. Inflation does not mean high prices, it means value loss. Resources are inflated as shit, thats why they arent valuable/expensive.

[Kawazz]

On 1/25/2018 at 10:56 AM, admin said:

Upcoming patch will get

• tutorial will be added for testing
• all npc ships will become capturable (with special debuff making them useless in pvp but still keeping the great quality for pve)
• a minor change to crafting
• thickness and hp changes of all vessels and final speed change slightly reducing max speed for all base vessels (that captains can adjust through upgrades)
• copper city or cities
• frigate epic event
   

@admin If you kill a ship that was a captured NPC ship will you still get pvp marks for that kill? Seems like that can be exploited...

By introducing this your pretty much creating easy pvp kills for the people that farm PVP marks. Why would anyone want to use the npc ships? While you say PVE that makes no sense since the debuff raises the risk of losing that ship between PVE battles.

Edited January 26, 2018 by koiz

[sveno]

I was really expecting mugholders for my Wappen.

Rum gets spilled easily with this turnrate, you know....

 

Darn developers, never do what i expect them to do!

 

 

edit: still waiting for that Carro Wappen, just that you know. ^^

Edited January 28, 2018 by sveno

[Slim McSauce]

On 1/26/2018 at 3:55 PM, koiz said:

@admin If you kill a ship that was a captured NPC ship will you still get pvp marks for that kill? Seems like that can be exploited...

By introducing this your pretty much creating easy pvp kills for the people that farm PVP marks. Why would anyone want to use the npc ships? While you say PVE that makes no sense since the debuff raises the risk of losing that ship between PVE battles.

I believe he's already holding off on the 1br because of that reason. I could be wrong.

[IndianaGeoff]

On 1/25/2018 at 3:22 PM, Dharus said:

In my decades of gaming people will PvP disadvantaged players just to be jerks caring nothing of reward.  It happens right now with this game.  I'd suggest the BR change but not debuff the ship more than the current setup.  Make it a bit more dangerous toward griefers.

It does not take decades in gaming to see this.  You see it in this game all the time.  Sure, you might have some players who will hunt for hours for a "fair" fight.  But people looking for an easy kill if a player, even without rewards will outnumber them 10 to 1.

You don't have to reward PvP.  People will do it for free.  You clearly don't have to create a stream of easy targets.  Not that it matters.  That stream will be short lived.

[jnovotny6]

found a picture of Diana on Russian site

[maturin]

That's Cherubin.

Built according to a highly inauthentic model ship styled as HMS Diana but actually resembling a Chapman design.

[louis van boxtel]

@admin any patch notes?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Luigiebox