Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Round Table: Ship Recipes and Ships Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Well really all i would like too see changed is, make the Arcadia MC a level 45 ship, yes so i can get my bounty off of rageboarders and give the Khan the correct amout of gunports per side. I hate looking at my khan with only about 9 gun holes on each side
    Last edited by Christopher Moore; 11-19-2011, 12:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      For those in this thread that do not believe that things sell on the auction house I will disclose to you my sales for the day to 19:30pm, 19/11/11 on Antigua.

      My sales for this day were 184,010 and this despite my best seller being undercut. The player that undercut my best seller which I list near to 1,000 listed at 500 to achieve this and then I assume he logged in another alt to make the price make it look like the new sale price is now 4,500+. Fair play, he undercut me by 50%, this I don't object to but what I would object to would be if he undercut me by 1 doubloon (because now under your proposed sytem he will be able to.

      Hopefully to his annoyance I too have another alt and made his sale price look like the 500 it really is.

      Personally I don't believe I am over charging at close to 1,000 nor do I believe Ele is over charging too much for carpenters but under your new proposed system Ele and I will be undercut by a player that logs in 5 minutes after we log off. Now if demand did exceed supply then this would not be an issue but this is not the case. I'm really struggling to understand why only 2 players see a problem that apparently no one else believes exist.

      I play with a 10 lot economy and yes under the blind system I can make a profit but with players with multi-accounts and spamming F2P econ to compliment their supplies I can not see how I as a casual player can continue to compete.

      So I guess some are going to say go fleet, go do Orleans but guess what I like to play econ, I can't abide to fleet and I certainly don't want to do the same six missions every single day.

      I would just add that when I don't contribute my best seller to the auction house this product usually increases in sale value to 2,000.

      Comment


      • #48
        This is NOT good for my price gouging operation!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by PaulG View Post
          under your new proposed system Ele and I will be undercut by a player that logs in 5 minutes after we log off.
          Yes, you might be. On the other hand:
          (a) Your stuff might sell before you are undercut
          (b) When you place the cheapest order, you also undercut someone else

          Of course, the larger % of the day your sell order is the lowest priced order, the likelihood that you will make the sell increases. If there is a lot of competition on an item, or someone sits in port continuously undercutting (although this does rob him of 1% every time), then it may not be worth it to manufacture and sell that particular item in that port.

          Originally posted by PaulG View Post
          Now if demand did exceed supply then this would not be an issue but this is not the case.
          True, but if supply outstrips demand by a lot, then all listed items cannot be sold. This was the same before as it will be now.

          The problem you see (and I don't, and I also sell on the AH with my basic 10 slots), is one of determining what orders shall be sold. Under the new system the sell orders which have been cheapest for the longest time are ones which will be most likely to sell (assuming even player distribution during the day, but it is a good assumption for theoretical purposes).

          Originally posted by PaulG View Post
          I play with a 10 lot economy and yes under the blind system I can make a profit but with players with multi-accounts and spamming F2P econ to compliment their supplies I can not see how I as a casual player can continue to compete.

          So I guess some are going to say go fleet, go do Orleans but guess what I like to play econ, I can't abide to fleet and I certainly don't want to do the same six missions every single day.
          If the econ spammers drive prices so low that a casual cannot compete with them because it would be unprofitable to make the item with 10 slots, and prices sink to 5% over click cost like someone suggested would happen, then also every doubloon you earn buys you more of that item. This effectively makes the doubloons you, and everyone else, earns more valuable.

          If they are going to do all the econ work so I can buy a vanilla deed and outfittings for 15K (105%*click cost - insurance) then I won't complain much, and that is what Ele is suggesting will happen.

          I somehow doubt this, however.

          Comment


          • #50
            Careful of making ships MORE expensive. I'm not an Eco-Overlord, but it sounds like increased recipe requirements with less output. In addition, more hauling. VERY BAD.

            I support removal of blind AH bid system. More like a stock market. Don't be haters for me saying it: but more like Eve. Their market works well.

            Share more on the future plans so these changes make more sense please. Also, clarification on the "1" run being most common. Would help eliminate some of the noise on this topic and get folks back to discussing the benefits of a change here.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Grim DeGrim View Post
              Careful of making ships MORE expensive. I'm not an Eco-Overlord, but it sounds like increased recipe requirements with less output. In addition, more hauling. VERY BAD.
              I would assume the amount of mats needed would be reduced by half if the deeds are cut in half as well. Which will definatly throw off Remus' spreadsheet, I think he'll have to do more work than the devs on this one.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by nickdddd View Post
                I would assume the amount of mats needed would be reduced by half if the deeds are cut in half as well.
                This does not appear to be the case...

                Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                The changes in preparation for two upcoming systems are likely to make ships cost significantly more due to increased resources needed to build ships.
                I can't wait!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Time to look at the non-econ points in Fodderboy's post
                  Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                  • There are space usage issues with some ships. The space in a hull is limited and to add more guns to a space it comes at the cost of less space for other things. Several ships defy this natural relationship having far more guns than they should have for their current cargo capacities. To correct this issue the ships would need modification to find a better balance between the two or be modified more toward a specific purpose (purely hauling or fighting).
                  This is potentially a thoroughly nasty line of argument.

                  What Fodderboy writes is true enough, as far as I can tell.
                  I would guess that the 1.12 changes gave many of the large haulers excessive cargo capacities for their size, irrespective of their guns. These could have been changed back with the recipe time reversion in P&P but were not, and I certainly didn't have the heart to point out this omission.
                  That Fodderboy now brings guns into the equation is something else again. The indiamen, Couronnes and a couple of other ships seem to have more guns than fit in with their cargo capacity, although it is true that most of the cargo would be stowed beneath the waterline. But the guns need ammo and gunpowder; they also need crew, and crew need food and water, and storing these uses hold space.

                  I think we can accept the Couronnes, Indiamen and Khan have either too many guns or too much cargo capacity for their real life prototypes. But where's the real problem? Few if any of these ships are good enough for OS PvP; they are all class restricted to FTs except for the base Couronne which can also be sailed by Buccs. If FTs are to make things, they need ships to haul in. Why should an FT be expected to give up another ship slot for a hauler that he cannot even use for a bit of casual fleeting or maybe a port battle, just to be able to move his stuff around? He'll probably already have an SMTG or Levi in one slot anyway. Do you really not want econ players to have ships to fight with?

                  • The construction of many ships should not produce the sailing characteristic results they currently do. Some hulls add weight in variations of the hull but also gain speed and/or maneuverability. Others are over performing having undersized sails and rigging for the hull they are trying to move. This shouldn’t happen. In general adding weight decreases speed and/or maneuverability. Insufficient sail and rigging sizes produce slower (albeit cheaper) ships. To correct this issue ship sailing characteristics would be tightened to align better with rigging type and size, hull shape and armor as well as overall projected ship weight. The end result of this correction would be a change in some ships sailing characteristics.
                  Hang on here, aren't you putting the cart before the horse?
                  Yes, adding weight to a ship would indeed generally make it sail slower, but when comparing different ships there is also the shape of the hull, which can make a huge difference. An Arcadia uses a Large Hull, and so does a Santiago, but you would never expect them to sail remotely the same.
                  A ship's sailing characteristics ought to be determined by the ship's model. It might then be adjusted by the number of guns or cargo capacity (adding to either might make it sail slower), or rig and hull refinements or additional crew (which might enable it to sail faster, higher or with better turn or acceleration).
                  By all means adjust the recipes to suit the model, and then make further tweaks so a ship's total doubloon cost, recipe time and weight of goods that need to be hauled to make it more or less match its usefulness in the game. But don't go nerfing the San Fernando's sailing just because you decided to put a Large rather than a Huge Square Rig in the recipe.

                  Feedback Needed:

                  What we are seeking regarding these issues is feedback. This is definitely not a “should we do this?” type of round table discussion.
                  Oh dear. I seem to have fallen rather foul of this one.

                  • Prices. The changes in preparation for two upcoming systems are likely to make ships cost significantly more due to increased resources needed to build ships.
                  If you really think this is a problem, just increase mission and ship kill payouts.
                  Those of us with stashes of doubloons won't really be affected. Nor will those players currently getting through ships at about the same rate as they are obtaining doubloons to buy new ones. New level 50s will lose out though, those who have their 1.5 million to spend on their first level 50 ships who suddenly find their money doesn't go as far, but you could overcome this simply by upping the payouts about a fortnight before you change the recipes.
                  Hand-to-mouth PvPers probably get a large part of their doubloons from MoV sales. So you might need to make MoVs more valuable to match the recipe changes. Increase MoV costs of refits perhaps? I am not at all sure this would work, but I am sure someone else can think of something better.

                  In order to combat this we are looking at removing the blind auction system for the 2.9 build
                  Do make sure you sort out the interface for this before implementing it. The current buy order display is not really adequate for the far busier sales listing display.

                  • Hauling. Related to the above concern the changes are likely to either demand a greater amount of hauling to produce ships or more risk in hauling to produce ships.
                  Changing the amount of hauling is a good way of balancing the econ supply side. But why make it more risky? Why feel you need to do one or the other? In my own view, the two are only very tenuously related.

                  Players might decide not to run econ that needs hauling because of the risk. Those of us that do run econ and haul find ways of dealing with the risk, but we cannot deal with the time taken to haul. We put up with it or we give up making stuff. Make hauling take longer and some will give up - as I say, this is a way of regulating the econ supply side. Increase the risk and more may give up but, more importantly perhaps, others might not start, for where's the incentive?
                  In any case PvP in haulers is merely a form of ganking, something I thought you were trying to reduce. Admittedly it is legitimate ganking; I don't think anyone would argue that haulers ought not be attacked, but they have precious little chance of fighting back now and from the looks of things you are not going to make it any more balanced. I don't think either side would really call it fun.

                  There is no shortage of people making single port goods, Just look at the AH listings for oak goods in oak ports, or leather or sailcloth in shipbuilding ports for example. Players are happy to make things. But where are the oak goods in shibuilding ports? Where are the metals? Players will make stuff but they won't haul it. Even Grenville to Cayo seems to be a haul too far.
                  Abolishing the blind auction system might well help here, particularly if you are able to integrate listings and buy orders into a single row so people can gauge prices, quantities and demand before hauling their goods. But I still don't see the need to make it more dangerous.

                  • Comfort zone. There is always risk associated with any change made. Although this is very much a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position for us it doesn’t mean we move forward without concerns. Some players are resistant to any changes and these changes are very wide spread and likely to have a significant impact on some ships performance as well as economic set ups currently being used. The bottom line here is the game needs to evolve from its current state and it just isn’t possible to do that without making some large scale changes. I think this is one concern player feedback can be most helpful with. What is helpful is understanding how these changes might affect the way most players play so we can evaluate whether or not we’ve addressed the concerns they bring up in our designs.
                  I think Elessaria got this one right.
                  Originally posted by elessaria View Post
                  it's going to be impossible to provide informed feedback without a clear idea as to why this is happening.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by nickdddd View Post
                    I would assume the amount of mats needed would be reduced by half if the deeds are cut in half as well. Which will definatly throw off Remus' spreadsheet, I think he'll have to do more work than the devs on this one.
                    Aye, along with Maibec, I wouldn't assume anything.

                    It would be nice if the devs released a raw recipes file when they make substantial changes.
                    Updating the spreadsheet is easy enough. Spending several days on Test Server going through every recipe and transcribing them (for with the big changes in the past such as 1.12 and P&P, there have been so many changes not all made it into release notes), THAT is what takes the time.

                    To say nothing of the other spreadsheet, for many ship and outfitting stats aren't even in F1 help so I have to find them in my inventories or look through the AH (and with the AH changes I wonder if it will be so easy to find things).

                    Oh well. Maybe I'll go on holiday

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I'll offer the following to hopefully provide a bit more clarity to some issues/questions that have come up in the discussion so far.

                      Regarding recipes for one ship per recipe run and ingredients:

                      The recipe for the Halifax schooner is a good example of what we are trying to address in this regard.

                      The current recipe produces 8 ships with a single run. The ingredients needed to produce it are the following:

                      1 Anchor
                      1 Granite
                      2 Wood Tar
                      1 Sulfur
                      4 Swivel guns
                      6 Very Small Cannon
                      1 Small Hull
                      1 Small Fore and Aft Rig

                      The problem here is the cannons. When you examine the actual ship in game it has 4 swivel guns and 6 4-pounders – per ship. The current ingredients cannon wise are clearly for a single ship, not 8. To correct this issue we have two choices – reduce the ships per run to 1 to match the ingredients or increase the recipe to the following:

                      8 Anchors
                      8 Granite
                      16 Wood Tar
                      8 Sulfur
                      24 Swivel Guns
                      48 Very Small Cannon
                      8 Small Hulls
                      8 Small Fore and Aft Rigs

                      We feel the best course here is to take the first option and reduce the ships to making a single ship per run because the 1:1 ratio is the most simplistic ratio to understand and there is a conservation of work gained by this direction. Change at this level has very strong effect due it being at the very foundation of the game. These adjustments to the Halifax recipe (either way) require an evaluation of its associated labor (and changes to labor if necessary) as well as how the changes relate to ships that are supposed to be of near level and role. Those changes may necessitate others in a domino effect fashion so conservation of work is a serious concern.

                      Regarding Space Usage:

                      Yes. During the adjustment process some ships may actually gain cargo space. If space is being under utilized on the ship then we will either add more cargo space or possibly more guns. It really depends on the individual ship, how it evaluates and where its space in the world is.

                      Regarding Ship Movement:

                      As far as adjustments at this level it is predominantly an examination of the hull size to rigging size relationship. Some ships have matching sizes (e.g. large hull/large square rig) while others have mismatches (e.g. huge hull/large square rig). Greater speed is achieved by a larger rigging to hull size relationships while greater stealth is achieved by a smaller rigging to hull relationships. Depending on ship placement an adjustment to a ship could be either to the wind driven aspects of the ship or to the recipe of the ship to better match its placement in regard to its hull/rigging relationship.

                      A note on multiple account usage:

                      In conjunction with these changes there will also be an introduction of level restrictions on recipes. We don’t have any issue with players that choose to use multiple accounts in their game play but we do believe it is fair to require that those accounts require a minimum of leveling game play before they can fully participate in the economy.

                      The 2.9 build includes loss of reputation for trading with opposing nations. We want to evaluate the effect of those changes for at least one milestone before deciding if additional restrictions are necessary.

                      Regarding Listing/Re-listing fees:

                      We’ll give this some thought and it is a good point but on the surface we would regard listing/re-listing fees as one of the costs of doing business.

                      Regarding Civilian Ships:

                      Lower level ships sales did increase but not to the levels we had hoped. That however is not a reason to return civilian ship deeds to the game as we have other means of addressing issues (if they actually arise) regarding ship availability. For that reason we consider civilian ship deeds a dead issue and they will not return.

                      Regarding more detail on future plans:

                      This is more of a topic for a devlog than a round table which I’ll consider. We have been debating internally how much of what we have in work to share but have concerns about player expectations. Design can easily get ahead of development. When sharing design concepts before they have been fully evaluated by development it’s possible to create expectations that can’t be met. Round tables are specifically to address current issues or game features we have already had evaluated by development and know we can deliver.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                        I'll offer the following to hopefully provide a bit more clarity to some issues/questions that have come up in the discussion so far.

                        Regarding recipes for one ship per recipe run and ingredients:

                        The recipe for the Halifax schooner is a good example of what we are trying to address in this regard.

                        The current recipe produces 8 ships with a single run. The ingredients needed to produce it are the following:

                        1 Anchor
                        1 Granite
                        2 Wood Tar
                        1 Sulfur
                        4 Swivel guns
                        6 Very Small Cannon
                        1 Small Hull
                        1 Small Fore and Aft Rig

                        The problem here is the cannons. When you examine the actual ship in game it has 4 swivel guns and 6 4-pounders – per ship. The current ingredients cannon wise are clearly for a single ship, not 8. To correct this issue we have two choices – reduce the ships per run to 1 to match the ingredients or increase the recipe to the following:

                        8 Anchors
                        8 Granite
                        16 Wood Tar
                        8 Sulfur
                        24 Swivel Guns
                        48 Very Small Cannon
                        8 Small Hulls
                        8 Small Fore and Aft Rigs

                        We feel the best course here is to take the first option and reduce the ships to making a single ship per run because the 1:1 ratio is the most simplistic ratio to understand and there is a conservation of work gained by this direction. Change at this level has very strong effect due it being at the very foundation of the game. These adjustments to the Halifax recipe (either way) require an evaluation of its associated labor (and changes to labor if necessary) as well as how the changes relate to ships that are supposed to be of near level and role. Those changes may necessitate others in a domino effect fashion so conservation of work is a serious concern.
                        Dear Fodderboy:

                        If you cannot see it yourself, then trust your playerbase on this: you do NOT want to increase eight fold the price of starter ships.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Remus View Post
                          I think we can accept the Couronnes, Indiamen and Khan have either too many guns or too much cargo capacity for their real life prototypes. But where's the real problem? Few if any of these ships are good enough for OS PvP; they are all class restricted to FTs except for the base Couronne which can also be sailed by Buccs. If FTs are to make things, they need ships to haul in. Why should an FT be expected to give up another ship slot for a hauler that he cannot even use for a bit of casual fleeting or maybe a port battle, just to be able to move his stuff around? He'll probably already have an SMTG or Levi in one slot anyway. Do you really not want econ players to have ships to fight with?
                          I would say the following: a crossover between a hauler and a warship is a worthless waste of database space.

                          Of course, at the moment Mont Blancs & Khans see quite a bit of use, and I imagine some FTs use them to haul as well (I use the MB to haul, personally), to save on a ship slot, if they don't need the cargo space of the SMTG or the Levithian.

                          However, these ships are only used because they are potent combat ships, and are procured for this role. The ability to haul is an optional extra. If the cargo hold on these ships was slashed to 200 or so most of us would not care much, bar the few people who do not use a dedicated hauler to save on slots. If they however retained their cargo capacity but lost combat capability, they would become worthless, refit ships which can't fight well, and for hauling nothing beats a Levithian.

                          Of course, this is not realism. However, we have a arena-type 6v6 max system. One more ship with guns is not always better, convoys and escorts are not possible. And this can't be fixed without changing a huge number of things, starting with the removal of the OS as it is and move to unrestricted PvP, and that won't happen.

                          If ships are going to have cargo space or guns, most of us, because of the game mechanics or realism, would gladly drop half the cargo space of any ship intended for combat to put more guns in.

                          But, I digress. Please - don't make hybrid hauler/fighter ships. If the current Indiamen (which are all used as fighting ships first and foremost) have too many guns or too good performance for their cargo, then remove the cargo. Two dedicated level 50 hauling ships (SMTG, Levithian) is more then enough. A hybrid, on the other hand, you can very well delete and refund us the insurance money, since it will not see PVP use outside of possibly being ganked, and for hauling there are better ships then hybrid ships.

                          Freeing up a ship slot for a Levithian isn't a problem. However, losing many lovely combat ships (which happen to have large cargo space and can be used for hauling, but if this ability went away it wouldn't be a big tragedy) would be a problem.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I find it logical and welcome to make a 1:1 relationship with materials/deeds, but could we also reduce the click costs of all the materials leading to shipbuilding? Else ships will be more expensive, not less.

                            Also, another thing: players don't really give a toss if something is huge hull/huge square rig, or large hull/large square rig, they care about ship balance. The difference in cost of huge and large square rig (divided by 10, since insurance covers 90% anyway) won't justify sailing something which is trash in comparison. Let us not even mention that stealth for speed is a really rotten trade-off; speed is much much more important for actual fighting then stealth is, which has only some relevance if you are trying not to get killed solo, or gank.

                            Balance ships to have their respective purposes in combat. Nobody cares about shipbuilding materials that much, since ships which are not useful in combat do not get built anyway.

                            There are already so many ships which you never ever see on the OS.
                            Last edited by Branko_de_Brus; 11-19-2011, 03:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Georgiana Jennings View Post
                              Dear Fodderboy:

                              If you cannot see it yourself, then trust your playerbase on this: you do NOT want to increase eight fold the price of starter ships.
                              Again to clarify, we are not talking about increasing the cost of starter ships by 8 fold. My initial post stated that we already consider the price of starter level ships in the game currently to be too high. Our plan is to move prices downward first by changes to the auction system and later make the adjustments (taking into consideration the effects of the auction house changes on the live servers).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                                Again to clarify, we are not talking about increasing the cost of starter ships by 8 fold. My initial post stated that we already consider the price of starter level ships in the game currently to be too high. Our plan is to move prices downward first by changes to the auction system and later make the adjustments (taking into consideration the effects of the auction house changes on the live servers).
                                Increased competition would mechanically decrease AH prices. However, you must ask yourself this: with a decreased profit margin, will people want to produce starter ships? Will people even want to compete for shares of the starter ship market?

                                As it is, only a few newbie ports have their auction houses stocked and not with every kind of newbie ship; considering that some of these ships are listed by players who do so because they want to help newbies, I don't think profit margins in the newbie ship market are attractive at all, even with the "too high" prices. Bear in mind that newbie ports are away from hubs of level 50 activity (with an exception for the French), so the only way the starter ship market can be attractive is through higher than normal profits (per lot hour and per dubloon invested both).

                                You are here up against the limitations of a player driven economy--you can't simply take measures to adjust the prices of starter ships, and then assume that producer behaviour won't change. Since you do not want to return civillian ships to the game, I will repeat Remus' suggestion: if you feel that starter ships are too expensive, you should increase the dubloon payouts to new characters.
                                Last edited by Georgiana Jennings; 11-19-2011, 04:00 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X