Dear Developers.

[Hawkwood]

39 minutes ago, Captain Reverse said:

maybe because of bad knowing the language, I do not correctly understand the topic. But again, I see more advantages from DLC ships than minuses. A lot of time has passed, but no one answered my post: D

Do you know what I saw in the last days of the game? The British, who never leave the capital area, they took the DLC ships and went to look for pvp in the open world. Yes, they lost, but then they took endimion and agamemnon and went again.
Many Russians who sat in the maracaibo went to try PVP.
Newbies do not cry that way when they lose a ship, because they have a "fallback".
I started selling many ships of Bermuda / White Oak.

So far, I see that my assumptions are only confirmed.

Good luck to everyone on the battlefields of the Caribbean Sea. And not sections of the forum: D

https://www.deepl.com/translator

This one helps a lot, maybe the best one.

About your post....You seem to forget one thing. Many of "us", still have the "old" ships, crafted BEFORE rare(which are the best) woods became so insanely expensive, and almost impossible to achieve, and BEFORE i had to get 15 !!!! Combat medals for a ship (Surprise), which can be sunk with 1 !! broadside from a large ship, and, does not have a long lifetime, even in shallow area.

You know, and this is exactly what @HachiRoku describes(among many others here), that RVR is a main driving force in this environment we have, not PVP. RVR is basically the game. It promotes trading, crafting, sailing. It promotes circulation of woods, resources and money.

The more DLC ships are in game, the more this driving force of resources, goods and sailing decreases. And you know this: A DLC ship is a click away, a crafted one costs you HOURS of your lifetime.

Cheers.

[jodgi]

As I've said before you can hold me partially responsible for the ship DLCs as I've been reminding everyone that if we are to have eco, for which I have no interest, I'd like prem ships to be excused from eco. Since 2015.

I'm sure some "EVE with sailing ships" players will rage-quit or lose interest, but what if @PYR and @Captain Reverse are right and this enables non-hardcore-eco players? We know that eco-puritans abhor DLC ships, but there are thousands and thousands of players who are used to the arena games and won't bat an eyelash to the horrors of DLC ships as long as they aren't pay-to-win inside the instances.

Maybe we've struggled since we've been riding two horses; We have a spitzenklasse fighting game AND a rather punishing economy. People like me believe we must liberate the fighting from eco while other guys believe if eco really matters and works with loads and loads of "content" things will fall into place and players who like eco will start, come back or stay.

A lot of complaints about (dub/CM/cash) expensive ships are listed in this topic and others. I too feel it because it effectively keeps me out of the ships I'd really like to sail. But I accept this because the RVR(eco) guys have been begging for this for a long time. So while you take cheap shots at "cashgrab" mentality this EVE like feature has been requested over and over through the years.

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, PYR said:

The lost of free ship in ow wont be punishing after the wipe as ships in oak will be the norm and not ships in rare woods. Doing ships in oak is very easy once your shipyard and production facilities done

yes another thing that increases the gab between the pro and the newcomer. No pvper will settle for an oak ship. They will grind the rare woods. Lets leave that for another topic. 

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, jodgi said:

As I've said before you can hold me partially responsible for the ship DLCs as I've been reminding everyone that if we are to have eco, for which I have no interest, I'd like prem ships to be excused from eco. Since 2015.

I'm sure some "EVE with sailing ships" players will rage-quit or lose interest, but what if @PYR and @Captain Reverse are right and this enables non-hardcore-eco players? We know that eco-puritans abhor DLC ships, but there are thousands and thousands of players who are used to the arena games and won't bat an eyelash to the horrors of DLC ships as long as they aren't pay-to-win inside the instances.

Maybe we've struggled since we've been riding two horses; We have a spitzenklasse fighting game AND a rather punishing economy. People like me believe we must liberate the fighting from eco while other guys believe if eco really matters and works with loads and loads of "content" things will fall into place and players who like eco will start, come back or stay.

A lot of complaints about (dub/CM/cash) expensive ships are listed in this topic and others. I too feel it because it effectively keeps me out of the ships I'd really like to sail. But I accept this because the RVR(eco) guys have been begging for this for a long time. So while you take cheap shots at "cashgrab" mentality this EVE like feature has been requested over and over through the years.

just cause a feture is requested doesn't mean its good for the game. I have given you my reasons jodgi and if you ever bring up the convenience argument again I will virtually bitch slap you  You're right btw, that is the whole design philosophy behind the DLC model. Give me money and I will make your life way easier. 

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, PYR said:

Oki, then dlc ships for which you can choose the wood close a bit that gap in favor of newbies that own the dlc

Exactly. P2W. Is it so hard to comprehend? 

[jodgi]

1 minute ago, HachiRoku said:

No pvper will settle for an oak ship

I agree... or used to, but the new grinding demand has changed me. I'd rather go out in crafted oak/oak ships and get almost every penny back instead of having to grind and grind after a loss in rare woods... I still agree in principle but the new eco demands have broken me.

14 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

It is designed to be p2w my friend

*Yawn*, ok, you've won that point.

[Slim McSauce]

DLC competes with the main game which is why it's bad. They don't work in conjunction, the DLC once established takes place of crafting, which effects hauling, logistics and economic and player combat incentives. If half of your playerbase isn't participating in the economy, then you no longer have functioning economy. There's no supply that can compete with DLC ships, and because of that there is no demand for regular ships you have to manage and co-operate to receive. It's made worse because NA doesn't have free market enterprise, unless you have 10 alts on the same char pumping out ships then there is no supply, period. For some reason the developers expect everyone to carry equal weight in supply with certain building limits, instead of a small percentage of high production members producing a large number of available ships, you get random ships on the market with no consistency.

I wouldn't be upset if it was a lobby game, but production, logistics, and co-operation are all staples off an MMO. The term eco-puritan doesn't even register here, running economy is not abnormal, the DLC, the self- sufficients and the ship-welfare recipients are the anomaly. Why you would ever sell the very soul and essence of this game for a measly dollar amount is ludicrous, you have no right to quick-pass on the rules which binds this game together to create a lobby-based game you didn't get. For one it takes like 10 minutes to capture a ship, or spend an hour on 1 trade run to buy a ship. Now that's not even possible because ship market is barren thanks to DLC ships. It's downhill from here, the more people that pay into DLC, the less need for the ship economy, no ships for sale. Self-sabotage, sacrifice the long term player for the fickle short term player. How long before all of OW is made moot to these changes?

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, PYR said:

at least they may compete or else they never wont… so imo it is not that bad. Sorry dont mean to spam, but I really I dont see it like a 'very bad 'thing'. I stp the spaming here

Its not spam because I get where you're coming from but paying to compete is the exact same thing as p2w. You are trying to justify the DLC ships like @jodgi and @Captain Reverse but you are just enhancing my argument. 

[jodgi]

8 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

I will virtually bitch slap you

We've talked about this; I want you to. We pick opposing teams and then you take me to school. If you quit over this almost pointless eco last-stand you won't be there to slap sense into me.

 

2 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

fickle short term player.

Like me?

[Ligatorswe]

We dont have a functioning economy now. But it is because most players have lots of ships, some admirals has 50 ships, or more.

 

That will change soon.

[HachiRoku]

Just now, jodgi said:

We've talked about this; I want you to. We pick opposing teams and then you take me to school. If you quit over this almost pointless eco last-stand you won't be there to slap sense into me.

 

Like me?

I didn't say I quit. I said I would not play as much. I will never quit because I love sailing trincos and connies. I might want to but saying I will is a lie. We all know how it works.

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, Ligatorswe said:

We dont have a functioning economy now. But it is because most players have lots of ships, some admirals has 50 ships, or more.

 

That will change soon.

a wipe will not change a thing. It only postpones the inevitable. Thats why many people don't want a wipe. 

[Tom Farseer]

I was fine with Herc and Requin, after they were somewhat balanced stats-wise. Mostly because 24h cooldown ensured that someone without the DLC could churn out sufficient numbers of comparable ships (Niagara ftw) without too much of a hastle.

Now that we have had some changes to Economy, wood distribution and cost even that fickle balance is a bit skewed.

L'Hermione I could have stomached.
The Rättvisan however completely blows away all eco proportions because it's cooldown is only 24h as well (a point I repeatedly made before it even got published to steam store!). 24 hrs for a 6th or light 5th rate: Ok, at least it was with older iteration of Ship buidling economy. On a 4th rate it is quite frankly FUBAR, in my opinion...

[jodgi]

11 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

I will never quit because I love sailing trincos and connies

Nice! Note to self: Tell admin to make trinco or Connie dlc for hachi...

Am I doing this right?

[Barbarosa]

Lets talk again after release.

Lets assume you sail alone in search for pvp in your crafted ship and encounter squadron of 3-5 enemies.

If you loose to them, sinking half or more, knowing their ships are crafted as well, easily you can say it was good fight and worth it.

I wonder how you will feel If you loose to them, sinking half or more, seeing all in DLC ships laughing at your lost of golden ship while actually they do loose NOTHING. 12+ hours of game time of hauling, acquiring materials for ship, +your time sailing to be sunk...

I am pretty sure they will make crafting easy again, they just need some time to sell their DLC ships. Even the crafting time required drops to 2 hours, I still have enough self respect to not compare it with something free and requires no time at all.

[Slim McSauce]

16 minutes ago, jodgi said:

Like me?

I guess man, you're the ones who bought an Open World MMOrpg and somehow convinced the devs to sell you bypass to the economy at expense of the openworld MMO players.
They should've kept NA:L open for you guys, not gave the Open World NA to you, now  the the open world MMO is spoiled and it will not recover in this iteration of the game, we'll have to wait for the next version and hope who every does the next age of sail MMO doesn't make the same mistakes. So many visions of what NA could be, but not one them, none that I have can work without a focus on economy and logistics. I mean, what's a blockade worth if there's no effect behind it? What's a raid going to do if everything is handed to us, what is taking a port for when combat only happens in patrol lobbies? Two versions of the game that can't co-exist unfortunately and that's not me being a downer, that's the apparent truth. Please, convince me otherwise, I love NA and would rather not wait 5-10 years for a spiritual successor.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Dibbler (Retired)]

 

 Is probably to late now, but perhaps a better way to have done this for devs would have been to have say Admiralty Request Points that could be bought as dlc as points per week and gained ingame as you sink AI/Players as proportion of damage done. 

Put all ships ingame as crafted and able to be requested via ARP and attach costs in ARP for ship and wood types (different woods affect cost in ARP). So for a lot of grinding would allow you to gain a spawned ship,  or people could buy weekly point dlc's or instant amount ARP (single amounts of points as buyable/pay as you go).  Ships rarity could have been achieved via chests in game, some permits only available through chest mechanic (or ARP).

Would mean constant income stream for devs,  DLC ships become as all others and can cap etc, and would allow clans to buy points to fill out port battle fleets in a rush etc. Also something like this would have reduced the cries of PTW as people would have access via lot of battles to same thing, just quicker/efficient to get packages. Lastly would mean all ships again fall in game rules, personally i find it bizarre that you cannot steal DLC ships as things are now.

 

 "Waits for people to throw tomato's at me"

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Dibbler

[Slim McSauce]

27 minutes ago, PYR said:

So imo dlc are a matter of enlarging the choice for players and not reducing it

You can't have both, it's either an Open world MMO or it's a lobby-based MMO. You can't have half the players busting ass into the economy and the other half having their stuff handed to them, at the expense of people busting ass. There's an undeniable fact that if, say 75% of ALL player bought all current and future DLC ships, depending how far they go, that there will be no economy for similar ships because those ships although compete in stats, do not compete in time. There's just no way crafting is on the same level as getting ships for free every day.

It's two different games, one has a clear advantage and you're going to try to put these these two together, it's gonna be a disaster. Crafted ships follow the rules, while DLC ships breaks all the rules. It's no competition. You're not going to have fun as a crafter competing with people who don't feel the pain of ship loss. I say crafter but that's really just a legitimate player. Playing with DLC ships is like playing with cheat codes, you'll never be able to excavate and separate that principle from the pay2win aspect of daily redeemable ships. A year after release when 75% of players own the DLC because it's all there is and a new player comes in to an empty or over priced ship market competing loss v lossless players, you likely won't be able to convince him that he can be competitive on the same level as people who own a full fleet of daily redeemables than never run out.

I'll say it again, in an environment where DLC ships feel no loss and are redeemed daily indefinitely, you will not be able to convince a player who's playing without DLC who feels every ship loss that your entire game isn't built on a p2w scheme where people who have 10 DLC redeemables aren't playing on a whole level above the regular player. That will be the scene of NA post-release. It's already been laid out this way, lets hope and pray the next version of NA does better.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Dibbler (Retired)]

36 minutes ago, Ligatorswe said:

We dont have a functioning economy now. But it is because most players have lots of ships, some admirals has 50 ships, or more.

 

That will change soon.

 

 Trade could be increased via missions to aquire refit materials, say trade to cartagena a large amount of a certain demanded produce and in return you will get 20 carta tar, 300 copper ingot,  etc. Make so that mission can be done over number of shipments and as you sell to market requested amount drops.

Limit what can be gained by area maybe 2-3 choices of refit resource per port specified in mission (choice between 3 different reward mats).

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Dibbler

[Hawkwood]

17 minutes ago, PYR said:

If you fight against 4 or 5 ennemi, you are dead anyway, what ever the boat they are in. If you fight in 1 vs 1, hermione and raat…stuff are not the best boats in their category… so it is not pay to win. Finally the need to craft your own boat is trully not the prob, as most often if you loose a boat you replace it through your clan or get it  on the market…. only solo players may need to craft it  if they dont have the reals to get it on the market.

Dude you just don´t get it.

"Finally the need to craft your own boat is trully not the prob, as most often if you loose a boat you replace it through your clan or get it  on the market"

This is the reason why.

[Liq]

I am in no way an expert in this so you could probably treat my opinion on the following as useless, yet here I go anyway

The way DLCs were approached seems not well thought through. In my humble opinion, dlc content should primarily be cosmetics - yeah we got a paint DLC, but I think it could and should have been handled differently, e.g.:

Have several paint DLCs, maybe one for each ship or paint style. E.g. "trincomalee paint dlc" which grants all paints on the trinc, or "brest harbor dlc" which grants brest harbor scheme on all ships. Once the ship is traded, captured in battle or sold, the ship would lose its paint status unless the new owner also got the DLCs.

Cosmetic Content should be pricey while actual ships, IMO, should be lower in price.

The best solution for ship dlcs would be for them to be just reskins of ships that are already ingame, with the same or very similar hard stats - the rättvisan seems to somewhat fullfil that, comparing with the aggie. But the requin on the other hand is super unique and its not possible to get a similar vessel. but that would probably not be possible to handle with the small dev size, and given the costs to develop a new ship.

[Snoopy]

One real problem, along with many framed and imagined ones with DLC ships isn't actually their fault, it's the remaining flaws of the crafting system they lay bare:

Permits (way too many of them, gating content should be a thing only for the real high end stuff if it must be done at all.. why a permit for 5th rates. Even if the required things are not hard to come by, the impression of being constricted in choice is as bad as reality and this will drive anger at $$$ ships); but more importantly:

Access to rare woods like teak/lo/etc needs to be easier. I think it would be better to focus on that part rather than shoot the messenger, i.e. the irrational hate on DLC ships.

The current crafting system allows me to click out an Agamemnon the closest equivalent to the Rat for my sinking needs every single day with very little haulage required, if any. So it comes down to cost. It's roughly the same. Ship ensurance helps a lot with crafted boats and the bigger part of the bill (loss of cannons, modules and repair stock) is identical for both. There might be many downsides to the new crafting but the grind requirement has come right down, I for one appreciate this.

Comparing costs also means comparing the cost of the DLC Rat vs a new copy of NA for crafting alt(s) if you feel a single toon can't keep up crafting with the "p2w menace". They come out roughly on even keel in my view.

The wood type restriction on silver ships is the only thing that makes the DLC ships stand out, alleviate this and there is no more p2w.

That, and remove crafting rng (also: Carthage needs to go)

Edited April 7, 2019 by Snoopy

[HachiRoku]

5 minutes ago, Liq said:

I am in no way an expert in this so you could probably treat my opinion on the following as useless, yet here I go anyway

The way DLCs were approached seems not well thought through. In my humble opinion, dlc content should primarily be cosmetics - yeah we got a paint DLC, but I think it could and should have been handled differently, e.g.:

Have several paint DLCs, maybe one for each ship or paint style. E.g. "trincomalee paint dlc" which grants all paints on the trinc, or "brest harbor dlc" which grants brest harbor scheme on all ships. Once the ship is traded, captured in battle or sold, the ship would lose its paint status unless the new owner also got the DLCs.

Cosmetic Content should be pricey while actual ships, IMO, should be lower in price.

The best solution for ship dlcs would be for them to be just reskins of ships that are already ingame, with the same or very similar hard stats - the rättvisan seems to somewhat fullfil that, comparing with the aggie. But the requin on the other hand is super unique and its not possible to get a similar vessel. but that would probably not be possible to handle with the small dev size, and given the costs to develop a new ship.

The ships price is actually irrelevant imo. Doesn't matter if they cost 5 euro or 100 euro if you just look at it from an in-game point of view. More expensive DLC would be better in a sense since fewer people will buy the "reskin" of the aggy as you correctly put it. If you look at the ship on paper it could even do with a buff. The problem is that the reskin of the aggy doesn't need any ingame time to craft. I really do want DLC ships to work. I would rather a DLC 3rd rate to be released in 1 year over a DLC cosmetic item. The requin is an anomaly for sure but atm its not that bad. You play smaller frigates and shallow water ships more than I so you could judge the performance better. Very very hard to dismast for some reason. Have you ever figured out why? I sometimes wonder if some ships have a larger hitbox than others. Maybe mast angle?

[jodgi]

28 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

a player who's playing without DLC who feels every ship loss 

Just a tiny thing that I think is highly relevant:

If you craft the non dub and CM ships you get paid almost in full when it sinks. Yes, you have to avoid the super-expensive woods for it to work.

Then you can look at how many CM's or dubs you are willing to grind through fighting activities and make agas or whatever. It only takes 2-3 guys co-operating without any DLC for this to work.

The DLC owner may see his free rare-woods ships sink, but he doesn't get a dime as insurance and the expensive guns went poof with the ship.

So if the mythical absolutely non-DLC players just play it a tiny bit smart it's the DLC guys who has to grind cash to make or buy guns.

Some years ago I saw the premium content numbers for WoT over their entire playerbase. They had the whales who bought almost everything and in effect supported everyone else, but even if many players didn't spend much on prem stuff there were almost no accounts without any premium content (premium tanks). We'll see the same here so it will only be hachi who will remain a completely non-DLC player. 

[jodgi]

4 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

why a permit for 5th rates.

I thought that was to avoid everyone running around in endys in OW, or Nassau PZ being only niag and surp as crafted ships.

I don't like feeling limited either, but people have asked for this sort of forced diversity.