Dear Developers.

[HachiRoku]

3 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

One real problem 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 and the devs have indicated there might be some automation for this in the works. 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)

Even with crafting made easier it would be still way simpler to redeem a ship. It is possible to keep up with DLC ships yeah. You can craft 4th rates every day but at what cost does that come. Completely wearing players down. If you made crafting so easy that the difference was almost nothing then crafting would be pointless. Might aswel give us all ships for free and just force use to craft mods and repairs. The whole ECO needs to be adjusted to make up for what the DLC ships have done. This is bad game design or even worse intentional. There is no irrational hate for DLC ships. You are very wrong there. The effects they have caused are hated. Shallow water port battle herc, requin metas, The open sea was 50% dlc ships at the start. Looked like that around La torte atleast. 

[Hawkwood]

[respectful language, please]

mod team

Edited April 7, 2019 by resarE

[HachiRoku]

6 minutes ago, PYR said:

1- evidence show that dlc hermione and raat... are not pay to win, although some say it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play#Pay-to-win

Pay-to-win[edit]

In some games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain an advantage over those playing for free who might otherwise need to spend time progressing in order to unlock said items(This would be ships and permits). In general a game is considered pay-to-win when a player can gain any gameplay advantage over his non-paying peers(If you own all DLC you gain a gameplay advantage since you only need to craft cannons and repairs. Basic mods are enough to pvp. The more DLC you own the more ships you can redeem a day. I would like to see some capable of crafting 1 herc, 1 requin, 1 rat, 1 herm a day).Such games are called "pay-to-win" by critics. Market research indicates that pay-to-win mechanics are considered much more acceptable by players in China than in Western countries, possibly because Chinese players are more habituated to recurring costs associated with gaming, such as gaming café fees.^[36]

A common suggestion for avoiding pay-to-win is for payments to only be used to broaden the experience without affecting gameplay.^[37] For example, games—such as Dota 2 and StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty—only allow the purchase of cosmetic items, meaning that a "free-to-play player" will be on the same level as a player who has spent money on the game. Others suggest finding a balance between a game that encourages players to pay for extra content that enhances the game without making the free version feel limited by comparison.^[38] This theory is that players who do not pay for items would still increase awareness of it through word of mouth marketing, which ultimately benefits the game indirectly.

In response to concerns about players using payments to gain an advantage in the game, titles such as World of Tanks have explicitly committed to not giving paying players any advantages over their non-paying peers, while allowing the users buying the "gold" or "premium" ammo and expendables without paying the real money. However, features affecting gameplay and win rate, such as purchasing a 100% crew training level, a premium account, premium vehicles, and converting experience points to free experience points, remain available for the paying customers only.^[39][40]

 

The evidence is there man and there is no debate about it. 

[Hawkwood]

[Warning issued]

mod team

Edited April 7, 2019 by resarE

[Snoopy]

12 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Even with crafting made easier it would be still way simpler to redeem a ship. It is possible to keep up with DLC ships yeah. You can craft 4th rates every day but at what cost does that come. Completely wearing players down. If you made crafting so easy that the difference was almost nothing then crafting would be pointless. Might aswel give us all ships for free and just force use to craft mods and repairs. The whole ECO needs to be adjusted to make up for what the DLC ships have done. This is bad game design or even worse intentional. There is no irrational hate for DLC ships. You are very wrong there. The effects they have caused are hated. Shallow water port battle herc, requin metas, The open sea was 50% dlc ships at the start. Looked like that around La torte atleast. 

We are almost at the level where crafting of the actual ship makes very little difference. Time consuming is the kit on it, not hull. Whether that is right or not is another flavor decision for the game but my entire point is that you can keep up with building Agas vs Rats (provided the teak/wo supply is addressed) hulls. Hulls is all you get from the DLC.

For all I care, regular ships could be redeemables too but a little bit of crafting and hauling is ok, perhaps even more than now, as long as the crazy times we had don't come back. Keeping up under the old system would be tiring, I agree completely (in fact, I stopped playing because there was no fix in sight for it). 

I don't understand how you can say you are getting worn down now (by the current crafting system) when you have survived the old full blown carriages and fittings frenzy? Yes you don't have to haul at all for DLC ships but convenience is the idea behind premium ships, in other games anyway. I don't think it really makes a difference in here if you craft or pay cash, the DLC ships either stand on their own merit on combat or they don't. At least in case of the Rat you can pretty much say it is a reskin of the Aga, and if you like that you'll sail her.

Getting stats wrong is bad for any ship, silver or $$.

 

[Njord]

2 hours 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

A oak ship still costs more than literally nothing and also what kind of idiot would waste time and resources to build a oak ship in order to fight T/W or LO/WO ships that cost nothing but 2 seconds of clicking? I don't think you get it, mate... DLC ships in rare woods are the norm, while the good crafted ships are locked behind a ever increasing grind wall to promote the DLC ships. You are basically forced into buying the DLC ships to stay economically competitive on the war server, while at the same time the sandbox element with economy, trading and crafting becomes more and more obsolete and pointless with every new DLC ship entering the game.

[HachiRoku]

18 minutes ago, PYR said:

(If you own all DLC you gain a gameplay advantage since you only need to craft cannons and repairs. Basic mods are enough to pvp. The more DLC you own the more ships you can redeem a day. I would like to see some capable of crafting 1 herc, 1 requin, 1 rat, 1 herm a day).

I am not against that dlc ships be crafted. But, in my opinion, this argument is limited by the fact that you can craft comparable or even better ships and that those ships are more readily avalable (regardless the wood type… but again….)… but maybe I simply dont understand it

Well i see you on the ow soon all. it is true that i am not playing a lot these days. Dont forget to have fun!

no its not because that is not my argument. My argument is that DLC ships have no effect on the economy. I never said anything about them being better ships ingame. By your logic it would be ok to release all ships as 24 hour redeemable as long as they are smaller than the santi. That would mean in theory you could release the ocean and victory as DLC tomorrow with no consequence to RVR. 

[Barbarosa]

Defending DLC ships looks like applying the following saying to marriage.

"There is no need to feed a cow at your door. Just go and buy some milk from the shop when you need it"...

Edited April 7, 2019 by Barbarosa

[Sella]

DLCs were implemented the wrong way. It should have been like: "We have the HMS Trincomalee in-game, a very nice looking frigate but we also have the HMS Unicorn which is the same class but has some cool extra features. A different stern and some other minor details that makes it look cooler". Even the Wapen could have been a DLC ship since its age and performance cant affect the current line up of ships and it looks great in my opinion.

 This would have been the frendliest way to ask people to give more money and not upset the balance of the game. Now, i understand why the DLC ships we have today have been introduced, their uniqueness makes them more profitable but we had to address their performance multiple times ruining the reputation of those DLC ships and labelling them as P2W.

Plus, spawning ships out of thin air is just wrong. Everything has to be craftable.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Sella22

[HachiRoku]

1 minute ago, Snoopy said:

We are almost at the level where crafting of the actual ship makes very little difference. Time consuming is the kit on it, not hull. Whether that is right or not is another flavor decision for the game but my entire point is that you can keep up with building Agas vs Rats (provided the teak/wo supply is addressed) hulls. Hulls is all you get from the DLC.

For all I care, regular ships could be redeemables too but a little bit of crafting and hauling is ok, perhaps even more than now, as long as the crazy times we had don't come back. Keeping up under the old system would be tiring, I agree completely (in fact, I stopped playing because there was no fix in sight for it). 

I don't understand how you can say you are getting worn down now (by the current crafting system) when you have survived the old full blown carriages and fittings frenzy? Yes you don't have to haul at all for DLC ships but convenience is the idea behind premium ships, in other games anyway. I don't think it really makes a difference in here if you craft or pay cash, the DLC ships either stand on their own merit on combat or they don't. At least in case of the Rat you can pretty much say it is a reskin of the Aga, and if you like that you'll sail her.

Getting stats wrong is bad for any ship, silver or $$.

 

That is simply not true about the kit on the ship. Many players I engage in patrol areas do not have good mods. The mods they have on their ships are of very little quality. Hulls are all that matter. You can fight a battle with no mods and only a ship. I have yet to see someone fighting a battle without a ship. There are actually alot of cheap good basic mods that get the job done.

I never liked crafting snoppy. I never hauled anything. Of all the players in the game I should be the least likely to fight a crafters battle here on the forums. I know one thing for sure. Crafters that spend hours and hours building ships DESERVE to be rich and have the control they have. Besides that there are enough issues with eco. Just cause ECO is bad doesn't give the DLC model to break the fundamental core game mechanic the sandbox has had since day one. 

[HachiRoku]

Even if @Snoopy was right about the kit costing more than the ship. The Devs intention was always to be the other way around. Ship>Kit. You have a point and honestly your argument is the only one in defence of the DLC. I wouldn't consider it a good one since I still think your attitude is kind of "The ECO is crap so it doesnt matter" The ECO and the DLC ships cannot coexist so in order to start fixing the ECO the DLC ships need to change. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by HachiRoku

[HachiRoku]

12 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Stay respectful.

The moderation team.

I missed that response so pm me and I will own your argument in PM. 

[Mr. Doran]

1 hour ago, HachiRoku said:

The evidence is there man and there is no debate about it. 

 

I believe I would have no choice but to use the Ratt it if the ROE became playable again. The non-risk to absurd reward of capping other peoples crafted ships is too strong to pass up. Only at the initial purchasing cost of the in+out commission of some stock brokers too. If there were groups of people using this ship regularly, which there will be, it is paramount to suicide and a waste of time to me to do other. 

[Teutonic]

Honestly it is a shame.

There is finally a DLC ship that will negatively affect deep water port battles, and now people are upset.

DLC ships were wrong from the very start. Bypassing the economy when an MMO is basically built via an economy is unfortunately the worst way to ruin the game, and yet we somehow did it so easily.

[mikawa]

45 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

DLC ships were wrong from the very start. Bypassing the economy when an MMO is basically built via an economy is unfortunately the worst way to ruin the game, and yet we somehow did it so easily.

It's only to make money. They set up all requirements for ship building 2x or even 3x and then put out DLC ships.

I have nothing against making money. After 3 years it's understandable. But not in this way. And the progress over the years was indeed very slow. Instead of promoting Crafting & PVP by lowering the requirements ... it's really a shame.

[Njord]

1 hour ago, Koveras said:

The problem atm is the current iteration of 'rare' woods.. We've all seen what the 'fine' woods did to the playerbase, now the outrage was focussed on the xp, craft xp broken promise but that doesn't mean there won't be a reaction to the 'fine' *cough* sorry, rare woods once/if the game goes live.

I don't even know what the point of this could be other than promoting DLC ships... ? Did anyone ask for woods to be even harder to get? Anyone ever said: "Oh boy, if only NA was more grindy and time consuming, I really don't know what to do with all this lifetime of mine!" ? Claiming DLC ships are good for the game because they bring more PvP and allow players to PvP without grinding economy.... but at the same time making crafting and economy more grindy. Sounds about right.

[The Banned Sailor]

And what about Painter DLC ?

Devs got a nice opportunity with paints to add some trading content between players (trading dyes and fabrics from different regions and locations to get some colors etc) and they just added old paints system into DLC ... and for few ships (for the moment).

Please, sink deeper and never resurface ...

Edited April 7, 2019 by The Banned Sailor

[HachiRoku]

23 hours ago, Tom Farseer said:

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...

This is what makes me really angry about the community. When it's only 6th rates it's no problem but 4th rates is were we draw the line. Why? Broken game mechanics are broken game mechanics. I'm just quite curious when @admingives us a justified response about this serious problem. He has been avoiding this discussion but it needs to be discussed in depth. 4 days in a row I am the highest rated commenter on the forums. People seem to be agreeing that ships should be crafted. The only arguments we are having is if would be possible by law. 

[HachiRoku]

19 hours ago, mikawa said:

It's only to make money. They set up all requirements for ship building 2x or even 3x and then put out DLC ships.

I have nothing against making money. After 3 years it's understandable. But not in this way. And the progress over the years was indeed very slow. Instead of promoting Crafting & PVP by lowering the requirements ... it's really a shame.

And if the dlc ships were only permits from the start Noone would buy them? They would have sold the exact same amount. Most players would have never questioned why they had to craft them. 

The best way to have done it from the start was to sell people 5 ship permits for 10 euro for the Herc for example. The ship would be capturable and tradable. This would have been worse for sales at the start but after those 5 permits were used up people might buy more. People would go as far as buy permits just to sell ingame. Good for devs and not that bad for eco since it's only permits.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

On 4/6/2019 at 7:16 PM, HachiRoku said:

When the community asked to be able to craft ships and you said yes. When you released 30 ships instead of the 10 ships that were promised noone thanked you for the extra ships. NOONE  made a steam violation tread saying you released 20 more ships than promised.

so true.

People love to bath and soil themselves in negativity. It's a human habit, and discouraging at times.

[mikawa]

It's time to get a real currency warehouse where to auction things. 😛

No, definitely not. Joke aside. I guess a game mechanic all can live with would be to get the permit of crafting a ship per DLC, not the ship itself. (Don't know if steam allows changing that for already deployed DLC though).

I personally would love to concentrate on a few ships I like and craft them to sell ingame or to enter PVP with.

For these few ships, lets say light frigate Surprise, heave frigate Diana and maybe 3th rate Bellona I would pay money to get a redeemable ship permit, once for use until you craft, not sellable ingame. Let the mechanics ingame be as is, so players who dont want to pay can get them per CB. Make permits for all ships buyable per DLC from outside the game. So everybody has the freedom to choose, the ingame eco remains untouched. Stupid grind for CB is osolete, but can be done if wanted.

This is a good way to cover costs for additional ships (add as many as our devs like to build) and get a fee back for the long time period this game took to develop.

[Vizzini]

Always been of the view, to be able to bypass the crafting by paying money is fine, by me IMHO. We also need to be able to spend the time to create the same item, even if expensive and time consuming in game ( to a degree , not as it is right now ... a RNG praying exercise)

Cosmetic dlcs.... totally cool with anything like that

Boats that can WTFPWN others in it's class >> not cool

 

Prices look a little high also, no way I would pay anything higher than I paid for the base game ( which was on a sale at steam )

Naval action shouldn't start resembling a slot machine. At present it is my choice to not pump any more coins into the slot, the minute people start thinking they are being forced into it ( real or imaginary ) they will vote with their feet and possibly feel cheated

 

my 2c

[kae]

I started playing two months ago, I've seen how the game has been deteriorating for the rookies. If the plan of the devs is to sell the game in pieces and turn the game into a kind of grinding of boxes and other "points" as it seems that it will be, I give the "game" a disastrous future.

In addition 4ª boat every 24 hours leaves the game completely broken and without sense in the server of "p2vp".

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, HachiRoku said:

This is what makes me really angry about the community. When it's only 6th rates it's no problem but 4th rates is were we draw the line. Why? Broken game mechanics are broken game mechanics.

It's a problem at 6th rate but a small one because it only effect those ships, then when it hits 4th rate we look down and realize we're frogs in a boiling pot of water. The line was drawn at DLC ships, once that was crossed there's no more line to be drawn.

DLC dropped too suddenly it seems, we had no discussions prior to how it should be done or what it will do down the line. If there were 20 threads on the topic of DLC ships before they were released I'm positive we would've reached a conclusion that redeemable ships  in this form could be very detrimental to the game.

Like if there was a thread asking what will DLC in this form look like a year down the line, we would've predicted today's controversy and could've steered clear from the backlash being faced now. Right? I don't remember any community polls or discussions on what's the best way to do DLC ships if we're do it. We had not time to figure it out.

Lack of foresight then has us thinking in hindsight. Effects of an idea is what we talk about most in suggestion threads is it not? How did we not see this coming? Only one explanation, the community had not the adequate time to discuss and reach consensus on DLC before it was added. Otherwise we would've avoided this mess all together.

[Slim McSauce]

3 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

Always been of the view, to be able to bypass the crafting by paying money is fine

Explain, because if you sell the economy away then you have no more economy, and how can you have an open world MMO without economy? Personally you may prefer to not do crafting, and rather buy ships for real money, but have you stopped to think what that may do to crafters when people stop buying their ships in game. Say if half the people in your country stopped paying taxes then programs are going to start falling apart, no?