Port Investments: The problem and a solution

[Teutonic]

By Now we've just about all experienced the new port investments in both good and bad ways. I think they are great - but there are clearly a number of issues and questions that need some answers and solutions. I'll start with the possible problems and questions:

1. A Nation with no investments or captured ports to invest in, is likely to lose and not gain any ground to recover. How does a Nation/Group "actually" recover? This is a real question RIGHT NOW for Denmark and possibly the US soon.

2. The ability for some ports to have all ship crafting investments at max level AND for a dedicated group to monopolize it is unfortunately oppressive and game-breaking.

3. Investments cost way too much for smaller groups, but they investments are also "too good" not to have which causes large frustrations when not having access.

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

From my view, Port investments need a seriously adjustment and we need to keep three things in mind:

1. Port Investments need to be Easier to build for everyone

2. Port Investments need to continue to be "worth it." An unnecessary nerf could mean no one cares to invest anymore and we also don't want that

3. Point costs and Point amounts in ports should be adjusted to clearly give players defined choices on what they want/need. No one should be able to have it all.

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

My Proposed solutions and adjustments to give a clear role and a more "balanced" game for investments. I want to be clear here that this is my opinion, I have those who agree and disagree with this proposal - but everyone seems to agree something needs to change.

A. All ports will have a new MAXIMUM Point pool. The adjustment would be as follows
55 Port - 30
45 Port - 25
35/25 Port - 20
15 Port - 15

B. All Ship Crafting Investments "Point" Cost to be doubled.
Level 1: 1 -> 2 points
Level 2: 2 -> 4 points
Level 3: 3 -> 6 points
Level 4: 4 -> 8 points

C. Rare Wood Investments to be slightly adjusted:
Caguarian, Sabicu, Mahogany, and Bermuda - Reduce Point cost from 15 to 10.

D. Reduce ALL Investment Costs by 25-50%. One example:

Sugar Plantation
Doubloons: 20,000 to 15,000
Victory Marks: 20 to 15
Tools: from 1,000 to 500

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

Reasoning

My Reasoning for these proposals is to insure that Port Investments stay Useful while not blatantly killing all gameplay. These Changes will make it easier for all players and groups to Invest into their port faster, but force everyone to make decisions on how they want to personalize their port bonuses. No Port would ever be able to have all ship bonuses to level 5, but you could have 1 bonus to max level and have a secondary at a lower level, or you mix and match the bonuses to suit your needs.

Example of a port like San Juan with 30 points and its investments:

Sailing Bonus 4 (20 points)
all Forts and Towers invested (4 points)
Hull Bonus 2 (6 Points)

The Point is NOT to nerf the bonuses, but to limit how many you can have. Groups in nations will still aim to invest in resource or port bonuses because it gives them nice advantages, but opposing nations and groups can account for these bonuses instead of just realizing they are flat out worse in every way.

Please ask questions if something is not clear and I will try my best to better articulate my thoughts. Feedback is appreciated.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Teutonic

[van der Clam]

I like the ideas and we are most likely thinking the same thing. IMO, no port should be able to produce more than 2 maxed out bonuses. Make people choose what bonus combinations they want rather than basically being able to have them all. We should also be able to have all forts and towers built while still having the ability to build these ship bonuses.....as long as these forts and towers are actually useful, like placed near enough to capture circles to make a difference in PBs, otherwise there's no reason to build them. So basically,

Regional Capitals could have

• 2 forts & 2 towers strategically placed
• 2 maxed out shipbuilding bonuses, or any combination that would reach those points
• 3 resource investments, i.e. iron mine, white oak farm, cotton plantation

Regular ports should have

• 1 fort & 2 towers strategically placed
• 1 maxed out shipbuilding bonuses, or any combination that would reach those points
• 2 resource investments, i.e. coal mine, hemp plantation

I have no idea how the point system would work out, so I would just put a hard cap on these things. Also, definitely the Tools cost required and Long Guns required need to be lowered. Why in the hell would a fort require 200 42 pounders when there is no way in hell 200 guns are fired from a fort? Makes no sense.

 

[admin]

Port investments will be rebalanced with upgrades
The points will be limited and will force the ports to specialize. 

These changes will be deployed very soon. (hopefully this week)

[James Thomson]

Hmm those newplayer shipbuilders are still in awkward position to start their trade if they dont have access to build ships that are competitive. I mean not all have time and interest to do politics or interaction with people to get access to the bonuses. Standard ships still aint worth selling.

How would you balance that out? 

[jodgi]

6 hours ago, Teutonic said:

1. A Nation with no investments or captured ports to invest in, is likely to lose and not gain any ground to recover. How does a Nation/Group "actually" recover? This is a real question RIGHT NOW for Denmark and

Ye, and it's one thing to recover as far as RvR goes...

I may be weak minded, but as a DA-NO player it's been rough with motivation lately. It's beyond the scope of possibility for me to organize people to capture a port. To properly play the game I would have to reroll to another faction which in itself is a lot of trouble to go through. I'm also aware DA-NO will have a zerg after release and then someone else will suffer.

Sigh, I actually think this wargame shouldn't be made to suit my flimsy disposition. It does give me the blues, tho.

[James Thomson]

37 minutes ago, Rickard said:

I hope that we can all agree that such players have to do at least a bit of politics and interactions with other players. otherwise, shipbuilding and gathering resources might become to easy in regards to mass production by clans/well-organised groups, right?

Isnt it so already? Mass production in clans is old news. 

 

I don't think devs want to lose majority of steam customer revenue to advertise that game has no solo player content. They are those who dont have 8hrs a day to grind port. They can do little econ and maybe one good combat mission at evening. They have work and families. 

If that is the case i bet most currently playing are to be burnt out quite soon aswell. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by James Thomson

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

NA is a game for teamplayers only. Players who prefer to do everything on their own should play something else.

Are you gunning for the position of NA recruitment officer?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, admin said:

Port investments will be rebalanced with upgrades
The points will be limited and will force the ports to specialize. 

These changes will be deployed very soon. (hopefully this week)

i hope that we dont need 5 shipyards in different ports.

 

the best ist when you have 10 points.

with the 10 points you can mix your ship build.