The Economy (and other things)

[GeekSqueak]

Age of Sail Assessment

 

The primary reason I look forward to this game is realism. I run a gaming clan, and we're also looking forward to the realism. One of the things we discussed was that it'd be great to see a player with a first rate and have to flee. Or to lose everything because you didn't check your instruments and sailed into a storm. If you look at the most popular open-world multiplayer realism games in the PC gaming market, they are all incredibly challenging and require significant amounts of time and effort to progress in.

Case studies

Case one: DayZ. I spent six hours with my clan looting and gathering equipment. Then we ran out of food. Two died from starvation, and one shot the three remaining of us and took our food. This was neither a rewarding nor an enjoyable experience, but the fact that I could lose everything because my friend wanted my beans was incredibly attractive. The adrenaline in a firefight is real, and the reward of passing through a town unscathed is what makes people become addicted to the game. The game is almost entirely PvP oriented, as the only AI threat are the zombies (which are trivial at best). DayZ is one of Steam's biggest sellers.

Lesson learnt from DayZ: The player needs to be able to lose everything. All of it. Trading in the Caribbean was a risky venture, and that should be reflected in the game. The goals must also be player defined, and there should be no artificial restrictions on people. If that guy wants to turn his expensive first rate into a fireball and sail it into a port (destroying a load of people's hard work in the process by sinking their ships and cargos) they should be able to. The risks should be real and the limitations not imposed by leveling systems and artificial scripts, but by actual mechanics. It’s something I call dynamic progression – the player can go back as well as forwards.

Implementation: I can attack anyone at any time. Things that require licences can be bought and trafficked, and laws are enforced by players. I will concede an artificial guild for something like the British Empire, or France, but a human must run it and people must be able to politic their way to the top. There must be no non-economic or non-physical limitations on goods (eg, you must be at least rank admiral/level x to move these goods, or complete quest xyz, or unlock this). Perhaps allowing in-game users to invest in technological advances (updates) through gold or other capital would be useful. The game must have a fully functioning and responsive economy based around supply and demand. If my trading consortium is big enough, I should legitimately be able to manipulate the price of wood.

 

 

Case two: ArmA II and III. Some of the most popular PC shooting games. The first thing the community did with ArmA? Make it more realistic. For ArmA II, there was the ACE and ACRE modpack. This added things like backblast, bullet & wind dynamics, overheating guns, blackouts, deafening. It also removed the ability to be shot and survive. Observe now ArmA III. AGM (advanced gameplay modification) and CSE (combat space environment) added bleeding out, along with wind ballistics and realistic body armour that made most guns a one-hit kill.

Lesson learnt from ArmA: Gamers are sticklers for detail. We love things like dry rot in the masts or damp sails interfering with gameplay.

Implementation: Fevers, dry rot, a need for appropriate paint jobs, other advanced mechanics. Users should have the opportunity to make daft mistakes or plan ahead and run risks. If I want to skimp on the waterproof wax because I reckon we’ll have good weather on the voyage, I should be allowed to make that choice and run that risk. To make it easier for new players, you could spend some money hiring a skipper or dockhand to make the decisions for you (AI).

 

 

Case three: Skyrim. One word: Immersion. Mods like FrostFall and "Realistic Needs and Diseases" make that game a struggle to survive in, and are still some of the most popular mods. Being overpowered is boring. Aside from boobs and butt physics (yeah, Chesko, I'm looking at you), realism mods are the most popular. There is a reason for this. If everyone is a special magical warrior destined for greatness, then the greatness is significant. If there's one thing people love more than winning, it's winning when there’s a challenge.

Lesson Learnt from Skyrim (modding community especially): Achieving an arbitrary rank that gives you nothing more than a new decal or skill is terribly dull after a while. Surviving against the odds to rise to the top, however, is great fun.

Implementation: If my ship gets lost and my crew die or mutiny, it should be clear that I did something wrong and must try better next time. This will add an actual value to in-game skills such as inventory management, cartography and navigation. People love using their skills and learning new ones.

 

 

Case four: Elder Scrolls Online. Behold! Open world game with guilds and vast player interaction, bringing every previous map from gaming's most iconic continent together in the series' most iconic era. This may be the most important case study for this game. On paper, this game looked like a godsend to Bethesda. It bombed. More people play with Skyrim RN&D or Frostfall than actually bought TESO. There's a very good reason for this, and that is there was mechanical rank progression (meaning that skill was less important than simply grinding your way to the top), a lack of unique leveling, and artificial guilds. Sure, you could be a mystical warrior travelling the world with heroic armour and battling giants with your friends, but receiving XP and arbitrary rewards (such as a special cloak or "unique" dagger) killed that game. The thing was, there was no risk. If you died, what did you lose? Nothing, you'd just have to endure a long and boring walk back to your friends whilst contemplating failure in your long and boring challenge to reach an arbitrary level. This means that the goals the game set were meaningless.

Lesson learnt: Arbitrary levels kill games. Goals must depend on actual physical mechanics, not linear progression. If my friend is an admiral in a large navy, it makes sense he might fast-track me onto a first-rate. I shouldn’t have to wait until level 20. Quests must be player-set and goals player-defined.

Implementation: Allow players to make the decision about investment, ranks, and progression within clans. I’d like to be able to buy ten tonnes of iron and pay a player’s cargo ship to take it from port in New Guinea to my factory in Jamaica. I’d also like this player to be able to decide to disappear with the goods. This mechanic shouldn’t be guided by quest markers, and the player shouldn’t be forced to sell it to the factory in Jamaica. The element of risk and trust, as well as possible retribution from other clans, should be enough.

 

 

Case five: Mount and blade. The community there is self-sustaining. They buy servers, and in order to pay for the servers recruit individuals. It is not unknown for people to spend large amounts of money buying copies of the game in order to bring new recruits in. This is a fantastic business model. The reason it works is because the game has no artificial leveling systems. If a player wants to have a line of infantry to command in an event, the task is simple. He must recruit, train and provide for every single real human. There are no artificial structures, because everything is based around in-game and interpersonal skill. If we replace Mount & Blade regiments with ships or fleets, we will see the same patterns reflected. Clans will die, go bankrupt, overthrow their managers, and the in-game politics and feuding will be real.  

Lesson Learnt: You can’t simulate real-world interactions through scripts and user interfaces. So don’t try.

Implementation: Provide a visual mechanic for clans, such as a unique flag. Allow clans to form strong identities by giving them powerful tools to do so.

 

 

 

The Economy

 

Economy concept: The majority of goods required in the game are mineable by players. Resources should be limited or difficult to obtain. EG, a list of resources for a cannon:

Iron (for the cannon itself, and cannonballs)

Wood (maybe oak or teak)

Black Powder (made from sulphates, saltpeter, and charcoal)

All of the ingredients named should be part of the wider economy. These resources should be mineable, and sold on wider stock exchanges. See the Runescape stock exchange for a proof of concept of functioning in-game economies. Supply and demand should and must be at the core of any game set in the golden age of free market capitalism. Say my cannon foundry in Cuba is running low on iron, I could increase the buying price of iron. Players will naturally go and find more iron to sell to me. This will be reflected in the cost of cannons.  
 

Further economy ideas

Shipbuilding yards must also exist. These will take resources and produce ships over a given time. At first, these could be run by a moderator, but over time players may start to use them.

Concept resource list:

·         Stone (maybe different varieties later on)

·         Glass (windows etc)

·         Metals (and their ores)

·         Cloth (and the raw materials behind it)

·         Woods (eg, teak, mahogany, oak, pine)

·         Foods (of various types)

 

A chemical industry could prove valuable, especially since this would allow players to control the production of waxes, paints, gunpowder, and various other things.

 

Investment in companies and consortiums through a virtual stock exchange might be a great way to earn profit and encourage divestment of funds. For complicated industries such as gunpowder factories or shipyards, the barriers of entry and costs will be high, but profits significant. Therefore, players may invest in someone’s shipbuilding enterprise by buying shares for certain values. This era was the birth of the modern stock market for a reason.

 

Economies are useful because they encourage players to regularly play the game. They add immersion, dynamic progression, risks, rewards, and a goal for many players that will allow communities and consortiums to stick together. Of course, many players may not wish to risk everything to deliver that expensive cargo though pirate-infested seas. This is perfectly acceptable and understandable, and actually benefits the game. As the owner of a consortium, I can simply pay ten people to carry a cargo with their ships. They do their job, I do mine.

 

I’m working on a more detailed concept as I find out more about the game and read into planned features. I’m also working on a concept for a community hub, if people are interested. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by GeekSqueak

[Mulcaster]

There are some good ideas here, but a lot depends on the focus of the game, i.e. what role do players have.  If we are captains (and a few admirals) then much of the economy and higher level politics (e.g. war and peace) would be decided by national governments and therefore would be "out of our hands."  I would see guilds or clans as representing trading companies or squadrons of the navy.  That would mean that the AI (or moderators), representing the King, would decide, for example, that Britain makes peace with France and declares war on Spain. As captains we do our duty and fight the King's enemies.  The economy would give players more scope, but this was the age of mercantilism and therefore had many restrictions on who one could trade with.  A big part of the game's economy and crafting will, of necessity, focus around providing ships and equipment but if the game is to be historical, the engine of the economy will be sugar.  In the 18th century sugar was like oil is now--everybody wanted it and only a few places had it.  Control of the sugar islands was the focus of most of the warfare in the Caribbean, and therefore should be much of the focus of the game.

[William the Drake]

A splendid synopsis and much to touch on, good show!

 

Case 1 Reply: Agreed; leave a basic level system behind. I do believe that we should be able to lose almost everything when defeated/captured, however I believe completely restarting/deleting the character is a bit much. Now, setting the character back as far as possible in terms of resources, money, or otherwise, I do like (perhaps even get "marooned" on an island).

The "attack anyone at anytime" is already sort of in-game, as you can pretty much attack anyone, bit it will result in you turning pirate (and pirate on pirate violence is not, and should not, be punishable, except perhaps by a player-based pirate tribunal)

Player run, managed, and built guilds? Yes. Player run/managed nations? No. I only say this because I fear the idea of a single player holding sway (more or less) over an entire faction. The Nations should be AI led and managed. The reason for this is that, also, there are those players who wish to play the game without excessive player interaction (even in an MMO) i.e. the same types of players who wish to go it alone rather than join a player-based guild.  Keep the base factions AI led and managed, but the ability to start player-based factions as well (via coordination between large guilds?)

As for limitations on trade, you are somewhat contradicting your own statements:

 

The risks should be real and the limitations not imposed by leveling systems and artificial scripts, but by actual mechanics. It’s something I call dynamic progression – the player can go back as well as forwards

[...]

There must be no non-economic or non-physical limitations on goods (eg, you must be at least rank admiral/level x to move these goods, or complete quest xyz, or unlock this). Perhaps allowing in-game users to invest in technological advances (updates) through gold or other capital would be useful. 

 

Why limit goods or trade based on rank, if you with that rank/xp not be an issue? (unless I misunderstand the point you are trying to make)

Case 2 Reply: Realism vs. Game-Mechanic practicality has long been a heated discussion here. For my own example, I argued that there should be no live map in the open world. This, however, would request a whole set of navigation mechanics, that could otherwise be worked around by simply viewing Google Maps (as pointed out repeatedly in the discussion). Overall I agree; more realism would lead to more dynamic gameplay, but one man's immersion is another's boredom. Some aspects like provisions for long voyages could get tedious, for example. 

 

Case 3 Reply: "And when everyone's super, no one will be." -Syndrome. Little to add to this section, only how about actually penalize the player for things like mutinies? Hits to valor/honor would show that you didn't think things through, thus would make thinks like say, recruiting crew or buying a ship, or getting a mission from the admiralty after a mutiny would be rather difficult (so a player couldn't bounce back immediately after a mutiny back in full swing).

 

Case 4 reply: 100% agree. In fact, I agree a lot; Not only allow the player decide how they want to play and let them work towards their own end-game.

 

NOTE: 

Implementation:  This mechanic shouldn’t be guided by quest markers, and the player shouldn’t be forced to sell it to the factory in Jamaica. The element of risk and trust, as well as possible retribution from other clans, should be enough.

 

While I like the idea of relying (and suspecting) others, I would ask that you take a short look into the game ArcheAge. In it, there is a mechanic of Trade packs: you craft a trade pack, and then bring it to any number of NPC traders across the world. The type of trade pack you make, and the distance you travel to trade it, all determine it's value (a trade pack that can only be crafted with materials found in area A will fetch a hefty amount of coin in area B, all the way across the map on the other continent, which also happens to be the enemy's home turf). Trade runs are dangerous due to the default enemy players from the other faction, "Reds". However, the player atmosphere there is very toxic (at least the EU server Kyprosia), to the point where no one even thinks of reaching out for help: it is far more uncommon for someone to help out; Team killing and stealing packs is the norm, and almost everyone just takes it as fact. So just be aware that things that look good and exciting on paper can go from bad to worse when trolls are introduced to the system.

 

Case 5 Reply: Agree again. Give Guilds/Clans almost free roam as far as management, guild housing, etc. Flags, sails, ships, guild houses, perhaps even Guild founded/run ports. Allow guild leaders to customize their guild's rank/permission structure as much as possible. Guild warehouses, wallets, and salary systems.

 

Economy: Pirates of the Burning Sea had a good initial idea that failed in the long run: an almost exclusively player-run economy. Everything from the mining of raw materials to the final product of a ship was handled by players. Items listed in the auction house, from ships, to ammunition, to manufactured goods were all placed their by players for their price. only when the game ran low on players (and after Portalus re-vamped the economy, making almost everything previous obsolete) did teh system fail. Portalus did implement AI auction house listings, but only on some low-end materials for higher prices than they would (normally) be listed for by players. 

Unfortunately, the lack of a player-base to supplant the old economic system saw the whole thing crash, and now inflation has run rampant: good ships are hard to come by, and prices have increased almost 400% in some cases. Things like "premium" and "Partner" ships also didn't help.

 

Great work on your synopsis and an enjoyable read, keep up the good work!

[GeekSqueak]

There are some good ideas here, but a lot depends on the focus of the game, i.e. what role do players have.  If we are captains (and a few admirals) then much of the economy and higher level politics (e.g. war and peace) would be decided by national governments and therefore would be "out of our hands."  I would see guilds or clans as representing trading companies or squadrons of the navy.  That would mean that the AI (or moderators), representing the King, would decide, for example, that Britain makes peace with France and declares war on Spain. As captains we do our duty and fight the King's enemies.  The economy would give players more scope, but this was the age of mercantilism and therefore had many restrictions on who one could trade with.  A big part of the game's economy and crafting will, of necessity, focus around providing ships and equipment but if the game is to be historical, the engine of the economy will be sugar.  In the 18th century sugar was like oil is now--everybody wanted it and only a few places had it.  Control of the sugar islands was the focus of most of the warfare in the Caribbean, and therefore should be much of the focus of the game.

 

Very true! I suppose national politics could be managed by moderators. But lower down the scales, different trading companies would naturally have differing relations with each other. And people within those trading companies will have internal relations too. The trading companies will have their dirty fights. It should be up to authorities within the nations to prevent restrictions on trade being broken - with outlawed cargo being confiscated by navy ships controlled by players. And as for sugar demand, perhaps have an artificial "Europe demand" feature for goods like sugar?

[GeekSqueak]

William, when I said

 

"There must be no non-economic or non-physical limitations on goods (eg, you must be at least rank admiral/level x to move these goods, or complete quest xyz, or unlock this). Perhaps allowing in-game users to invest in technological advances (updates) through gold or other capital would be useful."

 

I meant that being a certain level/rank to buy the goods would be bad. This was an example of a limitation I didn't want to see. 

 

"(and after Portalus re-vamped the economy, making almost everything previous obsolete) " - don't revamp the economy. That will destroy everyone's progress. If the player base drops too low, have a base number of AI that start trading when there's x amount of captains, and keep scaling it. 

 

"While I like the idea of relying (and suspecting) others, I would ask that you take a short look into the game ArcheAge. In it, there is a mechanic of Trade packs: you craft a trade pack, and then bring it to any number of NPC traders across the world. The type of trade pack you make, and the distance you travel to trade it, all determine it's value (a trade pack that can only be crafted with materials found in area A will fetch a hefty amount of coin in area B, all the way across the map on the other continent, which also happens to be the enemy's home turf). Trade runs are dangerous due to the default enemy players from the other faction, "Reds". However, the player atmosphere there is very toxic (at least the EU server Kyprosia), to the point where no one even thinks of reaching out for help: it is far more uncommon for someone to help out; Team killing and stealing packs is the norm, and almost everyone just takes it as fact. So just be aware that things that look good and exciting on paper can go from bad to worse when trolls are introduced to the system." Well, if someone runs off with your cargo, they're disreputable. If ports have a system where you can check if someone is disreputable or not, then you can backcheck them. Reputable players will earn valuable commissions easily, disreputable ones risk being hunted down by bounty hunters?

 

Premium ships would be an utter disaster. But I'd happily pay a membership fee for a decent simulation system, such as the one I envisage. The membership fee would almost certainly keep trolls out, too. 

[jodgi]

...Premium ships would be an utter disaster...

Yet the first one is already in the game and more are promised. I'm very glad there will be prems I can't lose, and I will pay through my nose for them provided they're not shit. From the looks of it, prems will be my go-find-some-action-don't-care-if-I-die playthings

...But I'd happily pay a membership fee for a decent simulation system...

I'm glad they won't go for a sim system but rather a more accessible game where pretty much anyone can come and fill up the servers. And they've already stated it will be purchase game, play forever, buy bling if so inclined.

...The membership fee would almost certainly keep trolls out, too. 

As things stand today, along with most potential players as well.

I guess we just disagree, but I get what I want.

[Mulcaster]

A mercantile economy would create lots of opportunity for gameplay.  There could be a strong European demand for sugar and a few other commodities, while Europe would be a major source of manufactured goods.  Rather than an abstract auction house, these cargoes should have to be transported "off map" to and from Europe,creating lots of opportunity to escort and raid convoys.  Similarly, each port should have its own market-place (with its own supply and demand) so goods and commodities would have to be transported.  Trading companies could develop ports into their own bases, taking over production as well as transport.  While guild-based trading companies belonging to the same nation would be on the "same side" they would certainly engage in economic warfare with each other (and open war with companies of enemy nations).  They might even bribe pirates to harass a competitor.  And a by-product of mercantilism (and later Napoleon's continental system) was to create an enormous black market.  Smuggling would be a big part of the game for pirate and company alike, while companies and navy squadrons would establish patrols to try to enforce their monopolies.

[SueMyChin]

Your points are great and I think many would welcome lots of the suggestions.

 

1. The arbitrary ranking system based on XP is overdone and turns a game into one long grind just to pad the whole experience out. Obviously, within navies and societies there would be ranks based on merit but outside of these, cant we just play the game for profit, possession and fun?
    
2. The harshness of the game, the loss and reward has long been debated on these forums too. As you mention the recent success in prema-death games like DayZ should be showing developers that players want to feel that risk of knowing one mistake and you're back to square one. I've already seen players advocating the loss of a durability to teleport somewhere as "they have been sailing days and never lost one durability yet so I still have 5" (to paraphrase) this is hardly the feeling of loss that get hearts pumping in battle.
    
3. The economy has to be the driving factor within the game, finance must motivate every action as it promotes a fairer game and the degradation features referenced in your point 'case two' would heighten that motivation. I see no reason why ship/module degradation with use should not be implemented, but it doesn't sound like it will be.

 

I think overall this comes down to a developers philosophy. GL seem to have a penchant for over simplifying aspects of the game (IMO). People may disagree but maritime warfare in the Age of Sail was harshand very technical, I don't think it should be any different in game. Adding arbitrary ranks to pirates, 1-10 rating systems on cannon, ship durabilities and the like remove that technicality and 'harshness' from the game, to it's detriment for me.

 

Some of the most technical games in their genre are also some of the most popular. Look at games like counter strike that currently have around 100x the player base of call of duty and battlefield.. EVE can/will have more players online at any one time than all but the top 5 games on steam... there is a demand, especially on PC for technical games and those that want and understand them are the ones with the money in their pockets, not the kids who can't work them out.

[Jack Feathersword]

I personally think that aside from navies, gold should be the key deciding factor that guides actions. Want more crew? pay for them, want to get someone to move your stuff for you? pay for it, want a different ship? build it or pay for it.

 

I hate fake systems that try to control what players can and cant do.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Jack Feathersword

[Redroostah]

I am a long running EVE Online player myself and believe that the loss of your hull and the cargo you carry is critical in making sure the economy is managed properly. If I spend several hours/days at sea killing, looting and hoarding riches it should be a risk for me to enter a port where I could be gangked by pirates.

 

With this being said I also believe there should be a salvage classed ability present in the game where players can find lets say powder barrels, rum barrels, or crates floating on the water where a ship sank, cast some nets and depending on skill salvage some of the wreck. Salvaging and exploration are huge parts of PVP driven games. The ability to pass intelligence on to others with the effect of changing the player comfort level is needed to keep the game dynamic and engaged.

 

For instance, lets say that you know a clan is running a major campaign somewhere along the coast of the Texas Federation and they are receiving supplies from the Bahamas to support their efforts. You do some basic sailing with a fleet and discover they aren't using a normal trade route to get supplies there. Hiring an explorer to discover this route and help to setup an ambush to interrupt the supply chain would add a level of realism to the game that exists in a few others. In Texas you stop receiving supplies because of a compromised trade and hauling route, now perhaps someone you called a friend quickly becomes someone easy to take over for their existing supplies and resources. This will help with an evolution process that will prevent the game from becoming stagnant.

 

Commodities are a question for me as well. There are many resources needed for crafting, and feeding the troops. I have not tasted the waters of the open world yet but I am hoping that resources are more than just wood, metal, stone, etc.... Many of the most valuable things moved on ships back then were Rum, Salt, Sugar, and Livestock. I am certain that a game publicly sold on Steam will not trade in slaves, but that was a highly sought out commodity as well in the early America's, will these be replaced with prisoners?

 

Food for thought,

 

Red

[James Blei]

Economy should be build on historical facts. Sugar, Tabac, Cottons, Rum, Labour for the Planations, Iron, Coal, Zinc, Silver, diff. Wood, diff. Stones., Clothes, Coffee etc.

The Plantations

The West Indian islands offered the lure of high profits. These were realised through the plantation system, which was begun by the Spanish and developed by the Dutch and French. Britain took it a step further with large-scale production of tobacco, coffee, cotton and sugar cane. Pioneering smallholdings in the West Indies were amalgamated into bigger plantations, perhaps following the practice of enclosure developed in Britain from the 17th century..

 

Also Players and Guilds can invest Money in the economy of a City to become a greater Production outcome. Politic become a great Role. For Example: A good Traderoute , Sugar from Guayama to Charlestown brings the best Profit. And if u a French and France are in War with England u cant sell it in Charlestown without risk your Ship and Cargo when a British Warship attacks you. On the other Way the Price for Sugar will raise in Charlestown. (supply and demand).

 

It can be awesome in my oppinion.

Whats the plan for the Economy and Politics System in NA ?

[tatannn]

Hi everyone, I come to explain an other idea after my previous thread about « politic »

 

I would like to know what is planned for economy in NA ?

 

I play an other MMO, Eve , this sandbox is one, maybe the best game about economy, because economy is made by players for players.

I wish a system like this one to NA, let's explain my view.

 

Economy is made by players :

Players have to collect ressources ( I read that this is planned ) out of the harbor and have to bring them to a city. Here they can sell it or use it, if the city don't have factories the player have to carry in a merchant boat to an other harbour, here he can craft some modules / items and if the harbour don't have shipyard he have to bring them to a shipyard to built his one ship ( he took real time, like 2h for a snow, 1 day for a Belle-poule and 4 days for a first rank) (time are just examples)

then he can sell the ship or use it, but items which are in market don't teleport, you have to bring them at the place their where sold. The thing I like in this system is it will have lot of interaction beetween players they have to communicate, buy and sell, hire people to protect for a convoy, have pirates waiting for prey, etc..

 

if you have more idea for economy, let's debate

 

 

 

Bonjour a tous, je viens a nouveau proposer une idée après mon précédent post sur la « politique »

 

je voudrais savoir qu'es ce qui est prévu pour l'économie pour NA ?

 

J'ai joué a un autre MMO, Eve, ce sandbox étant un des meilleurs voir le meilleur au niveau de l'économie car il est entièrement gérer par les joueurs.

 

J'aurais souhaiter un système qui s'en inspire dans NA, je vous explique donc ici ma vision :

 

L’économie est gérer par les joueurs

les joueurs doivent aller chercher leurs ressources (apparemment hors des ports) et doivent les ramener a dans la ville, de la ils peuvent les vendre sur le marché. Ils doivent ensuite les déplacer avec leurs lourd bateaux de commerce vers une ville ou est présent un arsenal de la il fabrique leurs modules/pièces intermédiaires. Si un chantier naval n'est pas présent il faut a nouveau déplacer ses objets vers un chantier naval la ou tout les pièces sont réunis on commence a produire le bateau ( 2h pour un snow, 1j pour une belle poule et 4j pour un first rank) (temps arbitraire) de la il peut mettre en vente sont bateau ou alors l'utilisé. En tout cas les objets ne doivent pas se téléporter, on doit aller les chercher la ou ils ont été mis en vente. Ce que j'aime dans se système c'est qui va favoriser la communication et les échanges entre les joueurs il va avoir des convois pour protéger les bateaux de transport, vente et achat de pièces , collecte de matière premières..

 

Voilà si vous avez des idées supplémentaires pour l'économie

 

ps : J’espère que ça ne seras pas un système d’économie gérer par l'IA, ou les bateaux sont vendu par des PNJ et on vend/achète des objets a des PNJ..)

[William_Headrick]

Great post, OP.

 

I am of the opinion that the gameplay should be as laissez faire as possible. Allow players to control as much of the game as is reasonable. (An exception to this would be, as William the Drake pointed out, the economy; placing the entire burden onto players' shoulders could cause the whole thing to crash, if done too soon, to too small of a player base).

 

Generally, though, I say let the players dictate what does and doesn't happen. That's one of the most exciting and tantalizing aspects of NA, in my opinion - to see gamers work together, or come into conflict with one another, on their own terms.

[Principe]

I just wish admin would at least reply to this, it feels like this wonderful idea is getting ignored.

[admin]

I just wish admin would at least reply to this, it feels like this wonderful idea is getting ignored.

 

we read everything and keep note of good posts. When the time comes we will bring it up for discussion again.

[teatrader]

I compared my choices in this poll with what the majority picked and they do not match anywhere. im worried

[Scorpio Shirica]

Funny enough, the choices I picked all match exactly what's in the poll. XD 

[Gortex]

I chose pretty much the same as what others voted on which is interesting.

 

I do think the AI involvement is important as the economy is constantly changing, and especially with player predictors focusing on AI traders which of course would effect the local ports supply should said predictor be sinking or capturing these ships of that said flags nation. It would then encourage the defense of said shipping lanes by battle ships of defending flag nation. 

 

It would also encourage the involvement in trade as you would be able to make great gains from successful deliveries but also run the risks of losing cargo or profit.