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

  • Round Table: Ship Recipes and Ships

    What is a "Round Table" thread?

    A Round Table thread is slightly different from other official threads on the Pirates of the Burning Sea forums. They are designed to be a way for us to talk over ideas in a very directed way with you, our players.

    Each round table discussion will be open for approximately one week. At the end of the week it will be locked, and then a few days later we'll kick off the next discussion. We might re-visit some topics down the road as things evolve.

    Each thread has its own topic. The topic will revolve around either a change we are in the process of planning (i.e. it hasn’t been implemented yet) or a subject that is clearly in the community's mind as reflected in feedback gathered during the previous week.

    Round Table threads will be moderated slightly more than normal threads, as we don't want to get off topic. Our aim is to have useful conversations with our players as we work to improve the game.

    Disclaimer: Ideas discussed in Round Table threads, even ones we express interest in, may very well never end up in the game.


    Round Table 8: Ship Recipes and Ships

    The work on the San Fernando and Centurion allowed me an opportunity to devote more time to a detailed analysis of the current state of the ships in game. The start of the analysis was intended to determine the placement of the San Fernando and Centurion in relation to other ships but the overall goal of the analysis was to determine what, if any changes might be needed to accommodate several new features we have planned for upcoming milestones.

    I’d like to say that everything looked good and that only a few minor tweaks here and there were needed to accommodate upcoming changes but that wasn’t what was found. What was found was an unacceptable number of inconsistencies that have crept into the game over the past 3 years along with some logical fallacies that are completely incompatible with our future direction. These issues will have to be corrected before we can move forward with our plans. We know that some of these changes are very significant as far as their impact on the game and that is why we have selected this as our next round table discussion in order to gather some player feedback on the subject.

    Issues:

    The issues are numerous enough that it is difficult to list all the individual correction points and still make for a workable discussion in this format. We can however boil them down to a few overreaching concept issues that encompass the vast majority of the corrections needed as points of discussion which include but are not limited to:

    • Inconsistencies exist in the number of ships created per recipe run. Currently they range from 1-8 with 1 being by far the most common. To correct this issue all recipes would be set to building a single ship per run.

    • There are inconsistencies in the way resources are categorized in ship recipes. For example some same poundage cannons are listed as one size in one ship’s recipe then as another size in different ship’s recipe. To correct this issue as shown in the example the same poundage cannon would be the same size in all ships. This change would affect the cost of some ships.

    • 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).

    • There are logical issues regarding the material costs for some recipes and their run results. For example there should be a greater difference between the materials needed to create a medium hull compared to a small hull. Currently they are too close and to correct this either the smaller hull needs to use less resources or the medium hull needs to use more. In conjunction with future plans we believe that in this case the medium hull needs to use more.

    • 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.

    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. We do not see any practical method of introducing a number of our systems in development without first correcting the issues. What we are looking for from you the players is feedback regarding the problems these changes are likely to create while the game settles into the new systems. Some of the problems we believe are certain to arise are the following:

    • 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. This is a particularly concerning problem for us as we feel prices in the game are already too high. In order to combat this we are looking at removing the blind auction system for the 2.9 build and allowing some time for increased competition to drive prices down to more reasonable levels.

    • 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. We don’t have a good gauge on the likely effect in this part of the game regarding these changes so we have some concerns. We feel one of the systems we would like to have in conjunction with these corrections may mitigate any negative effects on the overall game but it is a difficult one to predict so feedback is helpful.

    • 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.


    As one final note, we didn't include outfittings in this discussion as we see them as their own discussion topic. We are aware of how they affect a ship's performance but for the purpose of this discussion we are talking about the basic ship - no outfittings. Discussing outfittings before understanding what work is going to be done regarding the numbers outfittings modify is putting the cart before the horse from our perspective. Most likely we'll have a discussion about outfittings after we've addressed the issues being discussed in this round table.


    We look forward toward your feedback and as usual please try to keep the discussion civil. We’ll allow some latitude with this one regarding “on topic” since the scope of this discussion is basically to gather feedback on virtually anything that involves ship construction, ship tuning and ship game play. We do ask however to try to refrain from getting too deep into why a particular ship needs adjustments while this other one doesn’t need any. These changes affect EVERY ship so the ships you are often comparing to may not retain the stats you are concerned about (those stats may be part of the problem we’re trying to address).

  • #2
    I never really looked into the possible inconsistencies that might arise from certain ship recipes. However, it looks like you are evaluating the current recipes based on an acceptable reason: to make the game more accurate. As such I wouldn't have a problem with your proposed change in recipes.

    I do think, though, that if you make ships more expensive to build while requiring more hauling, they necessarily have to cost more. Econ is such a pain to begin with. Trying to skim off our profit margin seems a little out of whack with your proposed changes. You've already stated that there has been rampant inflation with the doubloons entering the game. That's why we saw you nerf the payouts for the dailies. Why cut into our profit margins?

    As a shipbuilder, I loathe hauling. However, the occasional cross-ocean sail does give me time to take stock of my warehouse inventories and plan the next production runs accordingly. I don't mind the current level of hauling now; but increasing this amount seems painfully unnecessary.

    As a role-playing priv, I salivate at the notion of convoy after convoy of fully loaded leviathans braving the red zones while I sit and wait in my stealthed out frigate. Now, if you could just make it possible for privs to take command of ships...

    All in all these proposed changes sound fine, although I am a little hesitant about the removal of the blind auction. We will have to see how that affects the game. I think it would put amateur shipbuilders like myself out of business while the full time, multi-account lvl 50 FT's with advanced structures in ports with maxed out infrastructure would dominate. Please consider that you have a wide base of producers, and many of us will simply turn to fleeting SC if our profit margins are driven too far down by the proposed overt AH listings from the economic juggernauts.

    Can't wait to see what you come up with!

    Comment


    • #3
      This sounds very far-reaching...

      Does this mean you will be rebalancing most, if not all, ships combat stats?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
        • Inconsistencies exist in the number of ships created per recipe run. Currently they range from 1-8 with 1 being by far the most common.
        1 is the most common? Really? 4th rates put out 2 per run. 3rd rates are the only ones I can think of that put out 1 per run. How is that the most common?

        Are you talking about refits? Sleek, Heavy, Mastercraft? They only put out 1 per run but you have to already have a ship deed to make one. That's a different animal entirely.

        Anyway, I'm all for the changes. I've found that econ changes are of the greatest benefit to the players who can adjust to them most quickly, and major econ players can adjust more quickly than anyone.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow! What a lot of stuff.

          However, my immediate first thought is why are you doing this?
          Of all the things in the game I would never have picked ship recipes as needing change unless you wished to return to the pre-1.12 ingredients (on which I am pretty neutral) or structures (a retrograde step in my opinion).

          I'll confine this reply to the econ points. I might pick up on the ship stats bullet points later.
          Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
          I’d like to say that everything looked good and that only a few minor tweaks here and there were needed to accommodate upcoming changes but that wasn’t what was found. What was found was an unacceptable number of inconsistencies that have crept into the game over the past 3 years along with some logical fallacies that are completely incompatible with our future direction.
          Inconsistencies that have 'crept into' the game?
          I have recipe lists going back to build 1.4, and by 1.6 I was mangling Monthar's spreadsheet to suit my own shipbuilding. Very little has 'crept in' since then. There have been changes, sure. Oddities perhaps, such as the Vengeance being a recipe rather than a refit ship, the MoVs (now removed) for the Dauntless, the LSB for the Macedon refit, but in my opinion these added more to variety than anything else.
          Some inconsistencies appear to have always been there, but these are mostly associated with the Careening Camp (why can't you make any of the Dolphyns? Why of all the Hermeses can you only make the Mastercraft?) but these are not desperately important.

          Logical fallacies there may be, but this is a game. Previous devs seemed to have been keen to balance the costs of ships and used recipe tweaks to do this. Sounds reasonable enough to me even though they sometimes ignored the need to adjust hours as well, but with F2P hours aren't nearly so important.

          Apart from anything else, the biggest logical fallacy I know of in shipbuilding is that ships require Provisioning to build but never any more to keep the crew fed during what by now might be nearly four years of sailing.

          • Inconsistencies exist in the number of ships created per recipe run. Currently they range from 1-8 with 1 being by far the most common. To correct this issue all recipes would be set to building a single ship per run.
          I'm with Maibec here. I would think that 90% of the ships I have ever built have been in multiple output quantity recipes, but then I have often concentrated on lower level ships. In fact the only single recipe ships are Sleeks/Heavies/MCs (where you need a ship deed to start with) and LSB ships - and even then the SMTG recipe makes two of the things.
          Edit: Actually, a quick count on my fingers reveals there are just four single-output ship recipes that don't use a ship deed: 'Couronne' Galleon, 'Poseidon' Fourth Rate, 'Valiant' Third Rate, 'Wenden' Third Rate.
          Four out of seventy-two.
          • There are inconsistencies in the way resources are categorized in ship recipes. For example some same poundage cannons are listed as one size in one ship’s recipe then as another size in different ship’s recipe.
          It's a game! But tweak away if you want to.
          Of more concern to more players are ship models which have the wrong size or number of guns drawn for the game stats.
          In fact if you want to change this it would seem to make more sense to adjust the recipe to match the model rather than the game stats. I don't know where this would leave heavies and mastercrafts though.

          [I'll omit the bullet point on guns and capacity for the moment]

          • There are logical issues regarding the material costs for some recipes and their run results. For example there should be a greater difference between the materials needed to create a medium hull compared to a small hull. Currently they are too close and to correct this either the smaller hull needs to use less resources or the medium hull needs to use more. In conjunction with future plans we believe that in this case the medium hull needs to use more.
          This only becomes a problem because you want to change all ship recipe output quantities to 1. In general, the smaller the ship, the more deeds are produced, so smaller hull and rig costs are indeed cheaper per ship than larger hulls and rigs.

          [Bullet point of ship sailing characteristics based on recipe omitted in this post]

          • 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. This is a particularly concerning problem for us as we feel prices in the game are already too high.
          er.....so don't do it then.
          In order to combat this we are looking at removing the blind auction system for the 2.9 build and allowing some time for increased competition to drive prices down to more reasonable levels.
          You have my support over removing the blind auction system, but you won't drive down prices that much.

          • 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. We don’t have a good gauge on the likely effect in this part of the game regarding these changes so we have some concerns. We feel one of the systems we would like to have in conjunction with these corrections may mitigate any negative effects on the overall game but it is a difficult one to predict so feedback is helpful.
          As I pointed out on another round table, hauling is now probably the most important limiter for econ. Since the game went Live it has been pretty much ignored apart from the 1.12 changes which were something of a sledgehammer. Hauling could well do with the attention to fine tuning that prices have had.
          How your proposed econ changes will affect it and whether this is good bad or neutral we probably could not say without some actual recipe proposals.

          I'm looking forward to the discussion on Outfittings. These would benefit far more from an overhaul than ship recipes, and I'll probably return to the points I have missed tonight.
          Last edited by Remus; 11-19-2011, 12:52 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I can honestly state I don't like most of these changes and in some cases I think you could have chosen the opposite point of view.

            I would add that up until recently I made ships in a small and medium shipyard but have recently stopped to switch production, albeit I might return to ship production again.

            Firstly single deeds from production: I take it is still going to take the same amount of labour and materials as previously so those multi deed low level ships have increased by 400-800%? Now if you increase the production cost then it follows the auction house price increases in a similar pattern. You have already removed civilian ships this is a further nail in the coffin that makes the game more difficult for the new player.

            I too like Maibec was surprised you believe 1 deed is the most common when producing ships and yes I have used a large shipyard in the past.

            Space usage: If some ships appear to have too many guns for their space, does it equally follow that others have too few? Are you going to offer the alternative - over gunned haulers that might actually be able to attemp to protect themselves?

            Increased hauling: I can see some growing annoyance from those that are going to have to haul more, possibly the only bonus might be the greater usage of the much under used buy order system.

            Blind auction system removal: I might be alone but I'm a big fan of the blind aution system and I do not look forward to it being removed. The reason I think the replacement system will fail is because it punishes the player that logs in first. For example lets say player A logs in, makes 1,000 iron ingots and lists them at 200 doubloons it naturally follows that player B who logs in an hour later cranks out his 1,000 iron ingots and lists them at 199 and so on. Player B gets all the sales at the expense of player A.

            Hull size and respective materials: To my mind it is not unreasonable that a medium hull and small hull are not too different after all the height would have more effect on the level of materials than the length but even if you decide that the materials would differ greatly you could of course decreased the materials in a small hull rather than increasing the materials of the medium.

            Please could you elaborate on ship movement at present my only gripe regarding the performance of ships is the speed differential between scouts and warships I'm not sure I understand to what you are eluding to here, some examples would help.

            Overall I think the changes you propose again favour the multi-accounting player, dual boxing players and to my mind encourage further cross teamed spam accounts for economy at the expense of the "normal" casual player.

            For example I will give you the circumstances of two of my fellow society colleagues, neither of which I try to compete with in the true sense of the word but hopefully their economies demonstrate what I'm trying to get accross: Firstly there is in our society in my mind probably our most valueable player, generous to a fault his economy is set up like a machine to achieve his production levels he has several accounts, produces virtually everything himself and spends significant times hauling. Secondly a second player who when I offered to help him haul informed me that he didn't need any help as he was "quad-boxing". I certainly have no problems with the way they play but it is not rocket science to see the advantage they have over the 10 lot player. It is a good thing that both of these players are generous to a fault, neither run their economy to drive the rest of us out of business but they could easily do so if they so wished.

            Please take the time to rethink this through before implementing these changes.

            Comment


            • #7
              On a side note but first of all, I'd like to say that all those subjects don't seem important compared to others that have already been pointed out by players on these forums - parenthesis closed.

              Overall, I feel that you are trying to get closer to "reality". It's good but it's difficult to see the purposes because we aren't aware of all those "future plans" that seem to drive all those concerns.

              The problem created by changing the ships characteristics depending on their construction is a balance problem. But I didn't understand if you want to let the characteristics depend directly on the construction, or just tune a bit. And as long as we don't know how exactly you would change the characteristics, it's dificult to give more feedback.

              You said too much or not enough. A little bit less hauling would be appreciated though

              Comment


              • #8
                The only point that could be interesting would be adapted ship weights so if an arcadia is trying to t-bone your macedon you just push it away or you just cut it in 2 arcadias. Don't know if collission damage is possible but it would be fun i think. The only problem i see is that this could be abused by crossteamers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I like the blind auction house removal, myself - since it enables competition without having to "kludge" around the blind AH house by doing things like buying on an alt, and so on.

                  People simply will not try to buy a ship in a port where the last displayed price is, eg. 120.000 dbl if they know that in PR it is 80.000, even though I maybe listed it for 75.000k. That said, a huge price drop is not that likely to happen. The ships I personally sell for 90-ish K cost 40K to make "at cost", and about 50K to make when you buy a part of the materials on the AH. Selling for below 60K would make the whole business far too unprofitable to conduct.

                  Once you drop the blinds off, the system will find some equilibrium by itself.

                  One deed per run might turn out to be a decent thing if the material and labour requirements go down to compensate - else, however, ships will become more expensive rather then less.

                  As for the cargo weight vs combat capability, I would like to point out a few things:
                  - for every ship people expect to use in combat, they would rather have as little weight as possible if it is a factor in ship balance. You are either fighting or hauling. If you reduce the combat ability of a ship because it has 100m3 or 200m3 more then the other ship, then this ship becomes worthless.

                  - Freetrader refits would take a huge hit, leaving the FT without useful PVP refits at all. This is nonsensical.

                  The problem is that you either haul or fight. If a hauler is not combat capable, then it will not risk pvp at all. If you want to do this, then you must decide which ships will be worthless for combat completely and make them designated haulers, and which ships will be worthless for hauling and make them dedicated combat ships.

                  You cannot have "a mix", because it doesn't work, that would just produce more useless ships in the game - and if you look at actual used ships, you will notice many are rarely if ever used, on account of being, well, worthless. It is currently worth it to ship a few vanillas and most of the refits/bundleboats (with the exception of San Mateo Heavy and such), the other ships are at the moment a waste of database space. I only ask not to create more ships which are a waste of database space.

                  (Fixing weights so arcadias/etc don't push other ships around would be a nice touch)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There are a few issues that I can see popping up:

                    I'm all for fixing irregularities, but you do need to keep in mind the complexity of the economy in this game. Most people are already swayed away from building ships due to the sheer amount and variety of materials you need, and if you increase the amount of goods needed for recipes, you're going to drive most of the ship production even further into the hands of societies that are set up to do it.

                    While I understand this is an MMO and people should, y'know, play with other people, the money from those things is rarely seen beyond the ship builder. Sure, the society members may get things at cost, but it's very much a "screw everyone else" situation. To put things into perspective, the last time I tried to buy a Mediator cutter on the AH, a level 12 boat that costs around 4000 doubloons to make, the cheapest one available anywhere was 25000 doubloons. Now people can make a profit off their work, but 525%? Give me a break. Unfortunately, people can charge that, because the economy is so complex that you have very few ship builders. This is one of the reasons people didn't want the civilian ships removed - they were cheap, and most player made ships from the AH are not.

                    In short, if you aren't very careful about how you handle an increase in recipe costs, you're going to drive more people to the pirate faction, and you will have even less people building boats and less competition in the marketplace.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'd personally appreciate the removal of the "blind" auction house bidding and if possible i'd even display in what numbers the good is offered at the best price (maybe just display that number in brackets behind the price).
                      That would probably also have the side effect of slightly reducing OS hauling because the following situation would occure less often:

                      - I want to buy 3900 copper ore (a full leviathan load on my FT) and i see the best price is offered in Puerto Carbezas. I buy from PC for as cheap as possible with "accept partial orders" enabled and get 1400 copper ore, but the second best price in the port is significantly higher than the price i bought the 1400 ore for, so i decide to buy the remaining 2500 somewhere else.
                      If quantities were displayed along with the best price i might have bought somewhere else for slightly above the Puerto Carbezas offer and gotten a full load instead at once.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The tragic thing is that you can't be sure they are for 25K without checking first, and people who buy newbie ships (newbies) don't understand how it works, anyway. I sold the first 7-8 Mediators priced for 10K for 18K because nobody tried for less.

                        On the other hand, I have huge trouble selling some ships (level 50 ships) without buying them on an alt first because people just see the last price and then go to PR, which is the defacto trade hub for ships on Roberts, and buy there, without checking.

                        However, yes, if ships start costing more material to build since now you produce 1 deed, then material click & labour costs should go down. Hauling will be doubled then (which is the real limitation on how much a player can build, anyway), without making ships more expensive.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                          What is a "Round Table" thread?

                          A Round Table thread is slightly different from other official threads on the Pirates of the Burning Sea forums. They are designed to be a way for us to talk over ideas in a very directed way with you, our players.

                          Each round table discussion will be open for approximately one week. At the end of the week it will be locked, and then a few days later we'll kick off the next discussion. We might re-visit some topics down the road as things evolve.

                          Each thread has its own topic. The topic will revolve around either a change we are in the process of planning (i.e. it hasn’t been implemented yet) or a subject that is clearly in the community's mind as reflected in feedback gathered during the previous week.

                          Round Table threads will be moderated slightly more than normal threads, as we don't want to get off topic. Our aim is to have useful conversations with our players as we work to improve the game.

                          Disclaimer: Ideas discussed in Round Table threads, even ones we express interest in, may very well never end up in the game.


                          Round Table 8: Ship Recipes and Ships

                          The work on the San Fernando and Centurion allowed me an opportunity to devote more time to a detailed analysis of the current state of the ships in game. The start of the analysis was intended to determine the placement of the San Fernando and Centurion in relation to other ships but the overall goal of the analysis was to determine what, if any changes might be needed to accommodate several new features we have planned for upcoming milestones.

                          I’d like to say that everything looked good and that only a few minor tweaks here and there were needed to accommodate upcoming changes but that wasn’t what was found. What was found was an unacceptable number of inconsistencies that have crept into the game over the past 3 years along with some logical fallacies that are completely incompatible with our future direction. These issues will have to be corrected before we can move forward with our plans. We know that some of these changes are very significant as far as their impact on the game and that is why we have selected this as our next round table discussion in order to gather some player feedback on the subject.

                          Issues:

                          The issues are numerous enough that it is difficult to list all the individual correction points and still make for a workable discussion in this format. We can however boil them down to a few overreaching concept issues that encompass the vast majority of the corrections needed as points of discussion which include but are not limited to:

                          • Inconsistencies exist in the number of ships created per recipe run. Currently they range from 1-8 with 1 being by far the most common. To correct this issue all recipes would be set to building a single ship per run.

                          • There are inconsistencies in the way resources are categorized in ship recipes. For example some same poundage cannons are listed as one size in one ship’s recipe then as another size in different ship’s recipe. To correct this issue as shown in the example the same poundage cannon would be the same size in all ships. This change would affect the cost of some ships.

                          • 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).

                          • There are logical issues regarding the material costs for some recipes and their run results. For example there should be a greater difference between the materials needed to create a medium hull compared to a small hull. Currently they are too close and to correct this either the smaller hull needs to use less resources or the medium hull needs to use more. In conjunction with future plans we believe that in this case the medium hull needs to use more.

                          • 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.

                          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. We do not see any practical method of introducing a number of our systems in development without first correcting the issues. What we are looking for from you the players is feedback regarding the problems these changes are likely to create while the game settles into the new systems. Some of the problems we believe are certain to arise are the following:

                          • 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. This is a particularly concerning problem for us as we feel prices in the game are already too high. In order to combat this we are looking at removing the blind auction system for the 2.9 build and allowing some time for increased competition to drive prices down to more reasonable levels.

                          • 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. We don’t have a good gauge on the likely effect in this part of the game regarding these changes so we have some concerns. We feel one of the systems we would like to have in conjunction with these corrections may mitigate any negative effects on the overall game but it is a difficult one to predict so feedback is helpful.

                          • 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.


                          As one final note, we didn't include outfittings in this discussion as we see them as their own discussion topic. We are aware of how they affect a ship's performance but for the purpose of this discussion we are talking about the basic ship - no outfittings. Discussing outfittings before understanding what work is going to be done regarding the numbers outfittings modify is putting the cart before the horse from our perspective. Most likely we'll have a discussion about outfittings after we've addressed the issues being discussed in this round table.


                          We look forward toward your feedback and as usual please try to keep the discussion civil. We’ll allow some latitude with this one regarding “on topic” since the scope of this discussion is basically to gather feedback on virtually anything that involves ship construction, ship tuning and ship game play. We do ask however to try to refrain from getting too deep into why a particular ship needs adjustments while this other one doesn’t need any. These changes affect EVERY ship so the ships you are often comparing to may not retain the stats you are concerned about (those stats may be part of the problem we’re trying to address).
                          Of all the pressing topics, why this one, which isn't IMHO.

                          Or is this a case of resources v reality...
                          Last edited by Henry Courtney; 11-19-2011, 05:11 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This looks like a precursor to fixing something else, but by only hinting at it, Fodderboy has left the thread dangling somewhat. He probably isn't supposed to talk about future changes in the pipeline, but it's going to be impossible to provide informed feedback without a clear idea as to why this is happening.

                            Now on the surface I can see that this will make the economy simpler, more streamlined and more *intuitive*; the last of which is reason enough to do it in my opinion. But when it comes to things like "potential balance problems caused by future changes; what is your opinion", we can't have any opinion worth having without knowing what those changes might be.

                            The only other thing I'd mention at this point is to be aware, because it often gets lost in economic theorycraft, that what you sell on the AH is mostly labour. That is both lot labour and personal time labour. Increasing materials not only increases the base cost, but the amount of structure time to produce. In addition it will take longer to haul, longer to click out, and at the end of the day you might not even sell anything because someone later on can undercut you by 1db.

                            That's a pretty massive disincentive to produce ships. I often undercut people by 30-40% on the AH because I don't want to gouge people and prefer a quick sale, but if someone can just nudge prices down 1db at a time it'll put people off selling AND it will drive prices down at a somewhat non-precipitous rate.

                            There is also an inherent clumsiness that arises from how the AH is designed if you change it from blind auction. Say I list 100 Carpenters at 1400dbs, paying my 1400db listing fee. Now someone comes and lists 100 at 1399db like in my above scenario. Not only am I penalised for getting goods up early, *if I want to change it I have to sail to the port, delist, relist at a new price and pay another fee! And after that the person can simply undercut me again in a vicious cycle that ends when one of us says "screw it" and stops producing carpenters anymore because it is not worth the time in our eyes.

                            Any non-blind system would necessitate a redesign of the AH to include a "list" price and a minimum "reserve" price that you won't sell below; and an automated system that will reduce your list price down to be the cheapest, or until your reserve, if someone undercuts your list price. Not sure you have the resources for that one tbh.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fodderboy View Post
                              What is a "Round Table" thread?

                              A Round Table thread is slightly different from other official threads on the Pirates of the Burning Sea forums. They are designed to be a way for us to talk over ideas in a very directed way with you, our players.

                              Each round table discussion will be open for approximately one week. At the end of the week it will be locked, and then a few days later we'll kick off the next discussion. We might re-visit some topics down the road as things evolve.

                              Each thread has its own topic. The topic will revolve around either a change we are in the process of planning (i.e. it hasn’t been implemented yet) or a subject that is clearly in the community's mind as reflected in feedback gathered during the previous week.

                              Round Table threads will be moderated slightly more than normal threads, as we don't want to get off topic. Our aim is to have useful conversations with our players as we work to improve the game.

                              Disclaimer: Ideas discussed in Round Table threads, even ones we express interest in, may very well never end up in the game.


                              Round Table 8: Ship Recipes and Ships

                              The work on the San Fernando and Centurion allowed me an opportunity to devote more time to a detailed analysis of the current state of the ships in game. The start of the analysis was intended to determine the placement of the San Fernando and Centurion in relation to other ships but the overall goal of the analysis was to determine what, if any changes might be needed to accommodate several new features we have planned for upcoming milestones.

                              I’d like to say that everything looked good and that only a few minor tweaks here and there were needed to accommodate upcoming changes but that wasn’t what was found. What was found was an unacceptable number of inconsistencies that have crept into the game over the past 3 years along with some logical fallacies that are completely incompatible with our future direction. These issues will have to be corrected before we can move forward with our plans. We know that some of these changes are very significant as far as their impact on the game and that is why we have selected this as our next round table discussion in order to gather some player feedback on the subject.

                              Issues:

                              The issues are numerous enough that it is difficult to list all the individual correction points and still make for a workable discussion in this format. We can however boil them down to a few overreaching concept issues that encompass the vast majority of the corrections needed as points of discussion which include but are not limited to:

                              • Inconsistencies exist in the number of ships created per recipe run. Currently they range from 1-8 with 1 being by far the most common. To correct this issue all recipes would be set to building a single ship per run.

                              • There are inconsistencies in the way resources are categorized in ship recipes. For example some same poundage cannons are listed as one size in one ship’s recipe then as another size in different ship’s recipe. To correct this issue as shown in the example the same poundage cannon would be the same size in all ships. This change would affect the cost of some ships.

                              • 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).

                              • There are logical issues regarding the material costs for some recipes and their run results. For example there should be a greater difference between the materials needed to create a medium hull compared to a small hull. Currently they are too close and to correct this either the smaller hull needs to use less resources or the medium hull needs to use more. In conjunction with future plans we believe that in this case the medium hull needs to use more.

                              • 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.

                              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. We do not see any practical method of introducing a number of our systems in development without first correcting the issues. What we are looking for from you the players is feedback regarding the problems these changes are likely to create while the game settles into the new systems. Some of the problems we believe are certain to arise are the following:

                              • 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. This is a particularly concerning problem for us as we feel prices in the game are already too high. In order to combat this we are looking at removing the blind auction system for the 2.9 build and allowing some time for increased competition to drive prices down to more reasonable levels.

                              • 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. We don’t have a good gauge on the likely effect in this part of the game regarding these changes so we have some concerns. We feel one of the systems we would like to have in conjunction with these corrections may mitigate any negative effects on the overall game but it is a difficult one to predict so feedback is helpful.

                              • 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.


                              As one final note, we didn't include outfittings in this discussion as we see them as their own discussion topic. We are aware of how they affect a ship's performance but for the purpose of this discussion we are talking about the basic ship - no outfittings. Discussing outfittings before understanding what work is going to be done regarding the numbers outfittings modify is putting the cart before the horse from our perspective. Most likely we'll have a discussion about outfittings after we've addressed the issues being discussed in this round table.


                              We look forward toward your feedback and as usual please try to keep the discussion civil. We’ll allow some latitude with this one regarding “on topic” since the scope of this discussion is basically to gather feedback on virtually anything that involves ship construction, ship tuning and ship game play. We do ask however to try to refrain from getting too deep into why a particular ship needs adjustments while this other one doesn’t need any. These changes affect EVERY ship so the ships you are often comparing to may not retain the stats you are concerned about (those stats may be part of the problem we’re trying to address).
                              Most players in the game aren't shipbuilders, and I daresay most shipbuilders, even the roleplaying ones, don't pay that much attention to their recipes.

                              What matters to the playerbase is the ships' stats and cost. Keep those balanced and I think more than nine out of ten players would genuinely not give a damn about what you do to recipes.

                              Like HC, I have to say that this does not warrant a Round Table, IMO.

                              P.S. thanks to Elessaria's post, I've noticed the most important point which Fodderboy added as a mere footnote....personally I don't see the problem with high profit margins for shipbuilders, if I want ships produced on a nonprofit basis then I look to collectivist society production.

                              Certainly I do see the problem with the blind AH reducing competition, however, the risk is making the profit per game-hour of econ unattractive, it is inherently the most boring activity in game and should be rewarded with high profits.
                              Last edited by Georgiana Jennings; 11-19-2011, 05:27 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X