• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 153
Posts: 153   Pages: 6   [ First Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 74254 times and has 152 replies Next Thread
Gorillabuddy

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Posts: 321
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I think that there shouldn't be two factions but 3. Look at how Plannetside 2 works. This helps prevent 1 side from getting too strong. Thats just my little input


I like the idea in theory but I think in practice you run the risk of 1 of the factions being hopelessly weak compared to the other 2, for example with Pokemon Go. Unless the devs are able to buff/nerf certain factions, I think it could naturally drift into that type of situation.
----------------------------------------
Pliskin of Cerulean

Avatar by Cattrin
[Feb 2, 2017 9:55:16 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Faulkston

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 23182
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Three factions? Perhaps Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. :-D
----------------------------------------
Avatar by Carribean
[Feb 2, 2017 6:33:46 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/search [Link]  Go to top 
awright

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 31, 2010
Posts: 767
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I like the idea of 3 factions. It will keep the game more competitive.

I'm also seriously curious as to how they will be adjusting commodity spawns, and if they will create some added benefit for the faction controlling the island. We need to create incentive through something other than dropping shoppes. Otherwise we'll just end up with waning incentive over time.
----------------------------------------
-barcium

Original Huntard
[Feb 4, 2017 7:18:00 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Yanojr

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 25, 2012
Posts: 100
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I dont really see how 3 faction is better than 2.. you will have one thats almost pointless... At least with two its really a wildcard one flag could go inactive for a few weeeks changing power to the other faction... But 3 one is always in a huge disadvantage..
[Feb 4, 2017 7:32:02 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    Hidden to Guest [Link]  Go to top 
marren362

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 11, 2006
Posts: 60
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I'm unsure if anyone had touched on this yet, but what will the game do if one of the factions has majority of players? The majority I've spoken with feel the "Dark Side" is where they'd be setting up home. By having the two factions even if someone wanted to be in the opposing one eventually they'd migrate to the busier faction, for jobbers, for cheaper clothing etc kind of how currently players are migrating to Emerald.

At that point is it worthwhile having two factions? As say on a normal run on interarch if the opposing faction outnumbers you significantly you could be getting pvp'ed constantly, while if you're the busy faction you're almost having a free run, that and access to more jobbers while the other side gets very little. I've never played the blockade game myself but from what I've read on forums and by common sense, numbers greatly contribute to victory hence the dislike to flags just pay warring to win an island.

So if one side has 2000 users and slowly more are gravitating towards it while the other has 300 would the blockade then be terribly one sided? Or will you be implementing something like WoW do with battlegrounds, in that there will be a cap on amount who can enter the blockade?

I like Gurndigan's suggestion about paying a sum of money to pvp so that the attackers aren't just sailing with nothing and taking others Poe with little risk to themselves. As even though it would be fun to sink, boat turn around could be quick and eventually jobbers would get bored with zero financial gain for their efforts.
----------------------------------------
Tevez
Captain of The Midnight Society
[Feb 6, 2017 11:11:05 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
mysteryman64

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Quick and dirty thoughts that I would love to elaborate more on if I get the time:

1. Neutral Ground - Absolute must. We're going cut-throat here. Crews and Flags ARE going to have themselves destroyed to the nubbins. It's not a question of if, but when. And when they happens, there needs to be space for players to retreat to and lick their wounds. That being said, it should be BAD TERRITORY for everything except shops. No one should ever want to be in the neutral area except for a couple of reasons:

  • To buy items that are too expensive in their faction territory
  • To sell items at a premium to those hiding in neutral territory or to undercut other faction shopkeeps
  • They're a new player
  • They're horsing around with friends from the other faction


To that end, neutral ground should have nothing but stalls and taxes should be as high as they can possibly go. Maybe make it non-sinking PvP for the factions as well with a vastly increased cap on stealing hold goods to encourage a blockade running sort of mentality or game. It probably shouldn't spawn anything but the very weakest of brigands, if that.

2. Two factions - A lot of people like to throw around the idea of three factions thinking that the weaker two will often gang up to help control the third. Having played many games using that balance mentality, I find what usually happens is that the two stronger factions ignore each other to hold down the weakest third. Keep it to two factions and then provide incentives or bonuses to those joining the weaker side.

3. Shop Deeds - It needs to be understood that Shop Deeds are one of, if not THE most valuable prize for blockading. I'm going to stress this over and over and over, but if Dark Seas doesn't include a way for a victorious flag to EASILY take some plots from someone (against their will even!), then the ocean is going to fail without some major revisions to how flags can generate money from their islands. The attackers don't have to get any of the stock, but that plot of land is their prize and the ability to sell it or award it to a crew/flag member of other backer is incredibly important for the politicking and financing that this ocean seems to be attempting to encourage.

4. Strategic Resources and Economic Conflicts - Due to the lack of interaction between the potential two halves of the ocean, there are some very, VERY interesting conflicts that could be setup utilizing resource spawns. Imagine one side taking control of all the Lorandite on the ocean. Suddenly, that's a massive deal for the other side! They have to take that back now or pay a premium for those resources. Additionally, now it's potentially super profitable to catch someone shipping a load of lorandite around as well! These sorts of conflicts shouldn't be avoid, but should be encouraged! There should be hot spot islands that should nearly always be fought over because your side needs the commodities! You can even further encourage it by allowing governor's to levy a commodities tax that sets a price per unit extracted that must by paid to the governor's mansion to help encourage internal strife as well!

tl;dr - We need to be looking at the various cooperative systems in the game and see how they can be twisted to allow groups to help their factions by helping themselves. How can the game be changed so that both factions are balanced in their decision on whether to take resources from the other faction or from a "teammate".
----------------------------------------
The Devil's Advocate
[Feb 6, 2017 11:37:42 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
mysteryman64

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I'm unsure if anyone had touched on this yet, but what will the game do if one of the factions has majority of players? The majority I've spoken with feel the "Dark Side" is where they'd be setting up home.


That's just going to take some careful writing to create factions that are equally enticing to play. My hope is that Grey Haven doesn't just go with Standard Light vs Dark themes, because I think you're right, most people will just go with the "dark" theme.

Both factions are going to need to have their shades of grey and bit of darkness.
----------------------------------------
The Devil's Advocate
[Feb 6, 2017 11:41:15 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Yanojr

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 25, 2012
Posts: 100
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Im going light side... Also cades wont really matter what side you are as you can job for either side same as it can be battle of dark vs dark for an island... Factions will be auto war, which gives more initiative to pvp. But people still would think twice before engaging. Not all navers have that kind of skill.
[Feb 6, 2017 2:36:36 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    Hidden to Guest [Link]  Go to top 
Yanojr

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 25, 2012
Posts: 100
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 


4. Strategic Resources and Economic Conflicts - Due to the lack of interaction between the potential two halves of the ocean, there are some very, VERY interesting conflicts that could be setup utilizing resource spawns. Imagine one side taking control of all the Lorandite on the ocean. Suddenly, that's a massive deal for the other side! They have to take that back now or pay a premium for those resources. Additionally, now it's potentially super profitable to catch someone shipping a load of lorandite around as well! These sorts of conflicts shouldn't be avoid, but should be encouraged! There should be hot spot islands that should nearly always be fought over because your side needs the commodities! You can even further encourage it by allowing governor's to levy a commodities tax that sets a price per unit extracted that must by paid to the governor's mansion to help encourage internal strife as well! ".



+1
[Feb 6, 2017 2:52:06 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    Hidden to Guest [Link]  Go to top 
MtEverest

Member's Avatar


Joined: Apr 25, 2010
Posts: 162
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

One issue that keeps cropping up is how to keep an incentive to blockade if you can't pave etc. My suggestion is caveated by the fact I know nothing about island governing or shopkeeping. However...

What if a small quota of shops were available, which a flag inherited when it wins an island. Inventory items are immediately returned to the previous owners if possible (e.g. clothing) with other commods returned to the market, but the original owner gets a filled bid ticket for those commods. There is no need for shoppe rents as the reward for taking the island is the trade of the shoppes.

To replace these taxes, why not have 'harbour/port taxes'. X amount of a ships restocking booty when porting would be taken by the governor to pay for the ship's safe mooring (might need to make restocking min 5% rather than 0%).This would require a bit of game redesign, e.g. Making it impossible to split the booty until a ship is ported at an inhabited island. I'm not quite sure what would happen to ships abandoned at uninhabited islands... Potentially a whisk to the nearest inhabited island and a doubling of the tax take to account for retrieving the vessel?

Just an idea anyway!
----------------------------------------
Epo

Founding member of the SPC.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 7 times, last edit by MtEverest at Feb 6, 2017 3:31:02 PM]
[Feb 6, 2017 3:22:01 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Huskytool

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 29, 2010
Posts: 15
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Very interesting idea. Having played YPP since '05, very interested in trying this out.

Any rough idea when the new ocean will be rolled out or when you will at least be taking name reservations?

Will there be an ocean similar to Ice rolled out where current players can help test for release?

Super excited!
----------------------------------------
Tournus of Meridian
--
Formerly Yester of Midnight
Formerly Losttoday of Viridian
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Huskytool at Feb 6, 2017 5:02:11 PM]
[Feb 6, 2017 5:01:07 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
majestrate

Member's Avatar


Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Posts: 3958
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Very interesting idea. Having played YPP since '05, very interested in trying this out.

Any rough idea when the new ocean will be rolled out or when you will at least be taking name reservations?

Will there be an ocean similar to Ice rolled out where current players can help test for release?

Super excited!

You'll be able to reserve your name when the ocean is released

In the original thread Forculus wrote that they are anticipating that the ocean will be released later in 2017. Best guesses, I believe, are Sep or later.
----------------------------------------
#TeamEvil
Marto wrote: 
We can't rely on majestrate he yells at people


Avatar by the gracious and wonderful Phaerie <3
[Feb 6, 2017 5:14:49 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    first_majestrate    majestrait [Link]  Go to top 
xelto

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 5707
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
In the original thread Forculus wrote that they are anticipating that the ocean will be released later in 2017. Best guesses, I believe, are Sep or later.

Given how programming usually goes (you spend the same amount of time on the first 90% as you do on the other 90%), I'll be surprised if it's before November.
----------------------------------------
Gurndigarn on Emerald Ocean
"Oh, come on. You jobbed onto a ship called the Cursed Isle Raider and you expected *refined*?"
[Feb 7, 2017 4:05:43 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Gunnerfreak

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 12, 2011
Posts: 436
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Yanojr wrote: 
mysteryman64 wrote: 


4. Strategic Resources and Economic Conflicts - Due to the lack of interaction between the potential two halves of the ocean, there are some very, VERY interesting conflicts that could be setup utilizing resource spawns. Imagine one side taking control of all the Lorandite on the ocean. Suddenly, that's a massive deal for the other side! They have to take that back now or pay a premium for those resources. Additionally, now it's potentially super profitable to catch someone shipping a load of lorandite around as well! These sorts of conflicts shouldn't be avoid, but should be encouraged! There should be hot spot islands that should nearly always be fought over because your side needs the commodities! You can even further encourage it by allowing governor's to levy a commodities tax that sets a price per unit extracted that must by paid to the governor's mansion to help encourage internal strife as well! ".



+1

+1x2 :P It's really an interesting concept!
ETA poster's names.
----------------------------------------
Gunnerfreak on Cerulean <- Home ocean.
AKA Gunnerfreak on Obsidian (new ocean!), Ice, Emerald, Opal, and Jade,
Gunnerfreak-East on Emerald,
Gunnerfreak-West on Cerulean, and
Gunnergunner on Meridian.
Also a Respe-ranked YPPedia-wiki freak.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Gunnerfreak at Feb 7, 2017 5:07:23 AM]
[Feb 7, 2017 5:03:58 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
majestrate

Member's Avatar


Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Posts: 3958
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
In the original thread Forculus wrote that they are anticipating that the ocean will be released later in 2017. Best guesses, I believe, are Sep or later.

Given how programming usually goes (you spend the same amount of time on the first 90% as you do on the other 90%), I'll be surprised if it's before November.

*uses fingers* July, August, September, October, November...

Sep or later, still accurate

</snark>
----------------------------------------
#TeamEvil
Marto wrote: 
We can't rely on majestrate he yells at people


Avatar by the gracious and wonderful Phaerie <3
[Feb 7, 2017 4:15:08 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    first_majestrate    majestrait [Link]  Go to top 
Empatheticly

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 12, 2011
Posts: 686
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Just throwing this out there upon reading some other comments and the release earlier this week; Is it possible to cap blockade pay to 999 a seg or at least to half of what it is now at 4,999? I find it ridiculous that blockades these days are so expensive to do for such little gain (that gain being who controls the charms on the dock). It used to be fun blockading, but because it's so expensive smaller flags cannot try and the hefty entry actually draws more illegal trading within the game for PoE to play. I say this also considering poker is going to be limited there, and if so, let's adjust other limits?
----------------------------------------
I do what I can, when I can.

- Empathetic,
Still playing, here and there.
[Feb 8, 2017 1:30:51 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
mysteryman64

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Just throwing this out there upon reading some other comments and the release earlier this week; Is it possible to cap blockade pay to 999 a seg or at least to half of what it is now at 4,999? I find it ridiculous that blockades these days are so expensive to do for such little gain (that gain being who controls the charms on the dock). It used to be fun blockading, but because it's so expensive smaller flags cannot try and the hefty entry actually draws more illegal trading within the game for PoE to play. I say this also considering poker is going to be limited there, and if so, let's adjust other limits?


That may or may not be necessary with the drop in the highest levels of poker and the potential introduction of a rake for poker (and maybe even all table games). In theory, part of the reason why blockade pay got that high is due to the nature of poker to concentrate most of the money into the hands of a few individuals (either directly through those individuals, or indirectly through teams of poker players pooling money together).

If blockade pay starts creeping up to that level of pay again, to me, that's more a symptom of either massive wealth inequality forming again or run away inflation. Additionally, putting too low of a cap on could take us back to the bad old days of having to create paymasters who monitor who is jobbing for their side and send out payments. Having been in that role before, I'd rather not ever see it come back. It's not fun.

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

That, however, makes me thing of a completely different topic. Which is the Y!PP economic system. I obviously don't have the economic numbers, but I would imagine that, like most video game communities, Y!PP tends to run a slightly inflationary economy with more PoE coming in than going out.

Seems to me it's worth running a thought experiment here to think through the implications of changing that. I'll put down my thoughts, but other people should absolutely comment if they think of something else or think my logic is faulty. What happens to the game if more sinks are introduced and the game economy fluctuates between inflationary and deflationary? What happens if it's just strictly deflationary? How do these impact how players interact with each other on an economic and political level? How does it impact the various economic "class" of pirates? How do all of them impact the prices of dubloons and does the encourage, discourage, or not impact the direct sale of dubloons for GH?

To start, let's look at what happens in a game where inflation is the norm.

The purchasing power of PoE decreases as general wealth goes up. If this is controlled well, that decrease in value can be kept almost negligible by instead pulling on the levers of supply and demand or through sinks to keep growth minimal, but over the course of a decade, is going to inevitably result in wealth concentrations as the longest active players accumulate their section of the fountain for a long, long time and turn relatively cheap PoE from early on into ships, shops, and goods which can't easily be taken from you but which retain value relative to the economy. This also has the additional benefit of increasing the value of dubloons (assuming consistent dubloon supply and demand) over time, encouraging the purchase by new players in order to kickstart their PoE income and discourages buying them with PoE due to higher costs. Whether this benefits new players or not depends on where the bulk of the income is coming from. If it's anything but pillaging, it probably needs to be adjusted.

My Analysis: Inflationary economies benefit obsessive players over casual players, early adopters over later ones, and those selling dubloons rather than those buying them. It encourages you to buy items (non-dusting, transferable ones, like ships and shops especially), since the value of PoE is generally going to go down, but the value of an item should stay similar to the overall economy. It's a good model for GH for monetization (people are incentive to buy dubloons with cash and it encourages item sales (with their associated delivery costs), but does that make up for the potential economic stagnation? If not, are there methods of keeping the benefits of a generally inflationary economy but with extreme taxation at certain levels of networth? Some form of rent that limits the ability to turn PoE into long term assets?


What about deflationary?

Well, that has its own problems. First, it's going to be real tough to achieve an economy that's always deflationary in a game without making everyone real mad. It means that the overall trend of the game is to move towards there being 0 PoE, and the only way to do that is by destroying PoE (in the form of taxes or trading them for vanity/non-exchange/destructible items). This means that in a deflationary economy, a large(r) part of your costs are going to come from PoE destruction (taxes, increased material costs, rakes). Additionally, you can't be assured that your items will retain value, as their value is going to be determined by how far the economy is from it's "resting point" of there being zero money in the game. We then get into the human condition and it's unpredictability. Does this result in the creation of "waves" where people don't buy anything until prices fall enough? Does people just ignore it and continue to purchase things whenever they want anyway? Or does it do what it does in the real world where it makes people hesitant to ever spend any money at all? How does the fact that the money isn't real and you don't need it to survive impact player consumption habits?

My Analysis: Would love to see the practical applications of this in a game economy. It would be absolutely AMAZING data to have. You could probably convince some Academic Economists to help you with planning just for the theoretical data you could derive from this. That being said, that being said, lots of unknowns. Would only choose this if GH decides they want to really push the vanguard in video game economic research.

Finally a mixed economy that flops between deflationary/inflationary trend based on pirate activity and wealth concentrations.

I saved this one for last, because this (I think) is the most beneficial, but also the hardest to pull off and is also possibly the most difficult/impossible to implement depending on how GH has economic systems setup/monitored. It would require GH to establish "baselines". If we have X players putting in Y hours of play, then there should be roughly Z amount of PoE in circulation. PoE Sinks and payouts would shift dynamically based on these running variables to either attempt to remove excess PoE or to dump more PoE out into the greater economy. It also needs a system in place to encourage players to spend their money, rather that hoard it. For those with real long memories, maybe this means a return of the bank system (in some fashion).

My Analysis: The benefit of this is that it creates a more dynamic economy, allowing folks to possibly gain advantage from realizing situations are changing. For example, a bunch of new players come in, they're all playing a lot, baseline raises, and suddenly pillaging is much more valuable since the faucets get cranked to pump PoE in.

Meanwhile, if things are quiet, you're probably just bobbing back and forth across the equilibrium line with it occasionally making more sense to go out and pillage (and get a chunk of new cash) or instead use money to make money (and get a larger chunk of the current cash since it's shrinking overall).

Anyway, that's enough wall of text. Hope some people find this interesting or can bring up possible criticisms so that the framework can be better refined.
----------------------------------------
The Devil's Advocate
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by mysteryman64 at Feb 8, 2017 8:38:26 AM]
[Feb 8, 2017 8:33:29 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Ironsouls



Joined: Jan 21, 2015
Posts: 2
Status: Offline

Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Sorry in advance for the long post.

Sinking PvP's:
Gurndigarn's suggestion about paying a sum of money to PvP is counterproductive. This will further dissuade people from engaging in PvP's. The solution to making PvP's more viable and common is to have both vessel deeds up for wager when a sinking PvP takes place. This means that if there is a grapple, the team that wins the fray also gets control over the opposing team's ship. This has the benefits of:

1. Making a PvP financially interesting for the attacker since there is actually something to gain and not just the prospect of ruining someone's day. As of right now you can take all of the opponent's stock if you win a fray, but this usually isn't much. Throwing in a vessel deed makes sinking PvP's potentially very lucrative to a skilled crew.

2. Making sinking PvP's interesting for the defender. As of right now the defender has no incentive to fight it out, so sinking PvP's aren't as much fights as trying to catch someone that's running away. If the defender has the prospect of a vessel deed on the line they will be more inclined to stay and fight. This actually has the potential to work, unlike shrinking the map which does no change the dynamic of a PvP in any way.

3. Opens up for counter-attacks. If a crew takes a ship they have to spread out over two vessels. This will leave both vessels undermanned-ish and very juicy targets to attack. A crew that loses a battle could take revenge right away and would have an easier time doing so against slightly undermanned ships. This creates a snowballing effect that would lead to a lot more PvP's.

4. Decreases the affectional value of ships. If one is able to get more ships just by PvP-ing and without paying a lot of money for them, people would be more willing to risk them in sinking environments. This will lead to people being more prone to sinking PvP-ing since each ship becomes a tool, rather than a sum of cash that floats.

5. Increases the value of being a skilled navigator. As of right now, if you want to get rich quick you need to be a carouser. Essentially the clique with the majority of the cash in the game never leaves port, this is quite strange for a pirate game. The ability to capture ships at sea would give a significant reward for being skilled at non-carousing puzzle, and possibly make PvP the most profitable thing in the game to be good at.

Shoppe destruction:
It seems like a lot of people are against shoppe destruction, mainly because they're land-loving herbivores that wouldn't set foot on a boat if their life depended on it, yet still want the new PvP-centered ocean to cater their exact tastes and wishes. To the people who don't want to play on an ocean with shoppe destruction, don't. Stay on your oceans and continue milking that 100k a month revenue that you cherish so much.

To the developers, disregard these suggestions. Shoppe destruction gives so many positive trickle-down effects and so fundamentally changes the dynamic of the game that it has to be implemented. It's definitely one of the most important aspects of a PvP-centered ocean.

1. People are asking about more benefits for a governor. The benefit of (almost) completely controlling the trade on the island is not to be taken lightly and gives further incentive to own islands. As a by-product of this, people will be more inclined to blockade, and people that do blockade will earn more money that will obviously be re-invested into more blockades. Since blockades are the endgame of PvP interaction and Obsidian seems focused on this, this should be nurtured and encouraged.

2. The political spin-off effects. Gifting a shoppe to allies for support, or getting support from the shoppe owners on your island since they're at risk of being destroyed if the attacker wins. This gives a political tool for the defender that to some extent offsets the attacker's advantage that right now is pretty damn overpowered. This is just one example, but an enticing one. The dynamics of the political game will be far more interesting with this increase.

3. Forcing defenders to actually defend. As of right now, a defender can choose not to defend and just come back next week as attackers, since attacking is a lot easier than defending. A lot of times we've seen people only playing as attackers to bleed the funds of the opponent, since attacking is more financially efficient than defending (need less jobbers to win, lose less ships). If not defending is punished by your and all your allies' shoppes being destroyed, people will be forced to defend more often. This will lead to a higher percentage of blockades actually being contested.

4. Keeping islands pretty. This is pretty secondary, but it needs to be said. In the current state islands have an expiration date. Creating all these new graphics for Obsidian and not ensuring that islands can be kept non-paved is completely brainless. Especially newer pirates actually walk around the islands, check out the artwork and explore the shore that way. It's just depressing to watch these overpaved islands with 16 Vanguard memory tailors or 12 Aiplaeso wuz here furnishers. Give us the chance to keep the islands clean.

5. New flags won't have shipyards. This could seem like a bad thing, but on the contrary it will make outposts more heavily contested. To build frigates, you need to have a shoppe. To have a shoppe, you need to have an island (or be allied with someone that does, so that they give you one). It's well known that frigates are an essential part of a blockading fleet, so to be able to build a fleet, the sensible thing for new flags would be to have an outpost. This makes the outposts a lot more valuable.

It's pretty obvious that these general benefits outweighs anyone's complains about not being able to build a small profit over a 6 year period. Furthermore, it's absolutely essential that it's a virtually instant destruction process. If there's a week destruction delay or something like that, you don't get the benefit of point 3. Too much things in this game requires the player to wait for things, make this a thing that's instant. The people who are saying "but what if my shoppe dusts without me knowing with all the stuff in it" haven't thought this through. They probably won't have a shoppe. The only people who will have shoppes are those who are active in the blockading game, and they'll have enough foresight, sense and presence that they'll be able to clear out the hold when there's a blockade. If not, tough break you just lost 500k worth of stuff. Hopefully, sugarcane and hemp down the drain won't be reason enough to stop progress.

3 factions to balance the game:
This won't work. If anything, it'll be counter-productive since there'll always be 2 ganging up on the 1. Why? The game always breaks into two sides. In the 10 years I've played, on every ocean, there has always been the battle between two sides. When one flag dies, another rises to take its place continuing the pattern. It will automatically align itself like this, and when one side gets weaker, skilled people will flock to this side and auto-adjust the political climate, since the players who love being underdogs generally are the most skilled players as well (who would've thought). Any attempt at hard-coding in ways to control the power balance is wasting their time, focus your efforts on things that matter instead.
One thing that needs to be pointed out is that if one side has the majority of players, they'll probably also have a lot more ships out at sea. With a herbivore mentality, this is of course a lot more ships that might PvP you (OH NO), but the way I see it, there are more ships for me to hunt. Given the implementations of deed-wagers in sinking PvP's, this makes being on the smaller side equal to being able to take a lot more ships. This too, will auto-balance the power distribution.

Neutral ground:
I guess this might be necessary, but if this is implemented it needs to come with disadvantages of sailing here. One thing that comes to mind is the sinking vs nonsinking payouts in flotillas. Battles against bots in safe territories yields significantly less booty than in a sinking territory. Also all SMH-charts should connect to a sinking territory.

Porting while at war
The new update is a really good one, it ticks a lot of boxes that makes owning islands and being at war more viable. One issue with it is that the cost is too low right now though. Firstly, this needs to be raised considerably. Secondly, how about having a hidden modifier like "fear", that is calculated from the PvP wins/losses of the flag. A flag with a lot of PvP wins and not a lot of losses would have a high "fear"-level. A high fear level would mean that the dockworkers would be less inclined to be bribed, and thus would require a larger bribe to allow the ship to port. This would incentivize PvP-ing and also make being at war with a flag more noticeable.

Also, ships shouldn't auto-port at islands they're at war with. Make it so it gets moved to the nearest friendly island if a ship auto-ports. This would mean that a flag trying to swabby a blockade fleet onto a hostile island would have to pay a fee to get the ships into port, providing more incentive to hold islands, and another "buff" for defenders.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by Ironsouls at Feb 9, 2017 2:59:24 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 2:27:27 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
cmdrzoom

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Posts: 7328
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Just throwing this out there upon reading some other comments and the release earlier this week; Is it possible to cap blockade pay to 999 a seg or at least to half of what it is now at 4,999?


Won't help. Cap auto-payment at any amount, and flags can/will still offer higher rates via workarounds ("see the paymaster for the rest of yer wages").
----------------------------------------
Starhawk of Mad Mutineers, Azure
Catalina of Twilight's Sabre, Cobalt
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by cmdrzoom at Feb 9, 2017 3:53:31 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 3:52:16 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
xelto

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 5707
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Sinking PvP's:
Gurndigarn's suggestion about paying a sum of money to PvP is counterproductive. This will further dissuade people from engaging in PvP's. The solution to making PvP's more viable and common is to have both vessel deeds up for wager when a sinking PvP takes place.
<stuff removed>
4. Decreases the affectional value of ships. If one is able to get more ships just by PvP-ing and without paying a lot of money for them, people would be more willing to risk them in sinking environments. This will lead to people being more prone to sinking PvP-ing since each ship becomes a tool, rather than a sum of cash that floats.

I see this as a problem. I'm one of the people who spends a lot of time decorating my ships. I know a number of people who enjoy collecting the limited edition ships. Decreasing the risk factor was one of the reasons they spent time developing the whole ship-in-a-bottle thing for sunken ships-- so that people who like blinged-out ships don't have to leave them in port most of the time.

Even people who don't fancify their ships get sentimental attachments to them... and that's part of what you want: those happy memories sailing on the Boring Fishname.
----------------------------------------
Gurndigarn on Emerald Ocean
"Oh, come on. You jobbed onto a ship called the Cursed Isle Raider and you expected *refined*?"
[Feb 9, 2017 4:19:40 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Gunnerfreak

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 12, 2011
Posts: 436
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Ironsouls wrote: 
Porting while at war
The new update is a really good one, it ticks a lot of boxes that makes owning islands and being at war more viable. One issue with it is that the cost is too low right now though. Firstly, this needs to be raised considerably. Secondly, how about having a hidden modifier like "fear", that is calculated from the PvP wins/losses of the flag. A flag with a lot of PvP wins and not a lot of losses would have a high "fear"-level. A high fear level would mean that the dockworkers would be less inclined to be bribed, and thus would require a larger bribe to allow the ship to port. This would incentivize PvP-ing and also make being at war with a flag more noticeable.

This, imho, would likely be difficult to code and probably won't get implemented. It would also screw up any means of keeping score of average Bribe costs.

I'm currently trying to get info for Bribe costs for each Ship size so I can edit YPPedia's Ship articles to include the costs.

If the Bribe costs fluctuates due to PVPs..... It just won't make it easy to input the costs.

Sorry for rambling, lol...
----------------------------------------
Gunnerfreak on Cerulean <- Home ocean.
AKA Gunnerfreak on Obsidian (new ocean!), Ice, Emerald, Opal, and Jade,
Gunnerfreak-East on Emerald,
Gunnerfreak-West on Cerulean, and
Gunnergunner on Meridian.
Also a Respe-ranked YPPedia-wiki freak.
[Feb 9, 2017 4:40:26 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Jcmorgan6

Member's Avatar


Joined: Feb 5, 2015
Posts: 414
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Gunnerfreak wrote: 
Ironsouls wrote: 
Porting while at war
The new update is a really good one, it ticks a lot of boxes that makes owning islands and being at war more viable. One issue with it is that the cost is too low right now though. Firstly, this needs to be raised considerably. Secondly, how about having a hidden modifier like "fear", that is calculated from the PvP wins/losses of the flag. A flag with a lot of PvP wins and not a lot of losses would have a high "fear"-level. A high fear level would mean that the dockworkers would be less inclined to be bribed, and thus would require a larger bribe to allow the ship to port. This would incentivize PvP-ing and also make being at war with a flag more noticeable.

This, imho, would likely be difficult to code and probably won't get implemented. It would also screw up any means of keeping score of average Bribe costs.

I'm currently trying to get info for Bribe costs for each Ship size so I can edit YPPedia's Ship articles to include the costs.

If the Bribe costs fluctuates due to PVPs..... It just won't make it easy to input the costs.

Sorry for rambling, lol...


It probably wouldn't be too hard to work out, since I imagine it would be done directly by the PvP ranking system .

I also agree with what Ironsouls originally wrote. 50 PoE is simply way too low for a sloop, at the current rates it's not really worth having. I'd propose making this atleast 20 times higher, 1,000 PoE would be the minimum I would suggest for a sloop.
----------------------------------------
Jjc & Jice on Emerald
CI booty division stats
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Jcmorgan6 at Feb 9, 2017 5:10:37 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 4:55:05 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Gunnerfreak

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 12, 2011
Posts: 436
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Jcmorgan6 wrote: 
Gunnerfreak wrote: 
Ironsouls wrote: 
Porting while at war
The new update is a really good one, it ticks a lot of boxes that makes owning islands and being at war more viable. One issue with it is that the cost is too low right now though. Firstly, this needs to be raised considerably. Secondly, how about having a hidden modifier like "fear", that is calculated from the PvP wins/losses of the flag. A flag with a lot of PvP wins and not a lot of losses would have a high "fear"-level. A high fear level would mean that the dockworkers would be less inclined to be bribed, and thus would require a larger bribe to allow the ship to port. This would incentivize PvP-ing and also make being at war with a flag more noticeable.

This, imho, would likely be difficult to code and probably won't get implemented. It would also screw up any means of keeping score of average Bribe costs.

I'm currently trying to get info for Bribe costs for each Ship size so I can edit YPPedia's Ship articles to include the costs.

If the Bribe costs fluctuates due to PVPs..... It just won't make it easy to input the costs.

Sorry for rambling, lol...


It probably wouldn't be too hard to work out, since I imagine it would be done directly by the PvP ranking system .

I also agree with what Ironsouls originally wrote. 50 PoE is simply way too low for a sloop, at the current rates it's not really worth having. I'd propose making this atleast 20 times higher, 1,000 PoE would be the minimum I would suggest for a sloop.

Ah, I see what ye mean.
----------------------------------------
Gunnerfreak on Cerulean <- Home ocean.
AKA Gunnerfreak on Obsidian (new ocean!), Ice, Emerald, Opal, and Jade,
Gunnerfreak-East on Emerald,
Gunnerfreak-West on Cerulean, and
Gunnergunner on Meridian.
Also a Respe-ranked YPPedia-wiki freak.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Gunnerfreak at Feb 9, 2017 9:52:59 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 5:28:40 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
mysteryman64

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Sinking PvP's:
Even people who don't fancify their ships get sentimental attachments to them... and that's part of what you want: those happy memories sailing on the Boring Fishname.


With all due respect, Dark Seas does not strike me as an ocean that is going to be particularly kind to sentimentality. Obviously, it's too early to say anything for sure, but Dark Seas strikes me as an attempt to move Y!PP more in the direction of a high risk, high reward sandbox, ala EVE Online.

That being said, I don't see any reason why the Ship in a Bottle functionality should go away. If you really do want to put a ton of money into making what's essentially a palace ship, go nuts. Just realize you're probably going to be paying to get it rebuilt fairly often.

 
I also agree with what Ironsouls originally wrote. 50 PoE is simply way too low for a sloop, at the current rates it's not really worth having. I'd propose making this atleast 20 times higher, 1,000 PoE would be the minimum I would suggest for a sloop.


While we don't want to make it too low, you also don't want to make it too high. If it's too high, people are going to start searching for exploits and work arounds to keep costs down.

Don't forget you need to have boats at an island to blockade it decently.
----------------------------------------
The Devil's Advocate
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by mysteryman64 at Feb 9, 2017 6:21:43 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 6:18:34 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Ironsouls



Joined: Jan 21, 2015
Posts: 2
Status: Offline

Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 

I see this as a problem. I'm one of the people who spends a lot of time decorating my ships. I know a number of people who enjoy collecting the limited edition ships. Decreasing the risk factor was one of the reasons they spent time developing the whole ship-in-a-bottle thing for sunken ships-- so that people who like blinged-out ships don't have to leave them in port most of the time.

Even people who don't fancify their ships get sentimental attachments to them... and that's part of what you want: those happy memories sailing on the Boring Fishname.

This is, in it's essence the same argument as the one about shoppe destruction. People are very attached to their belongings and that's understandable.

However, it is not reasonable to create a thriving PvP environment without "breaking some eggs". For me to be able to win something, you need to be able to lose something. If you do not want to lose it, you may keep it in port, or on a safe route.

I have many memories from the game, but none of them are tied to specific ships. If you feel differently, maybe a PvP centered ocean is not for you.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Ironsouls at Feb 9, 2017 7:35:04 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 7:34:43 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
patgangster

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 26, 2006
Posts: 584
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Here's my suggestion on this: Taking over a ship strips it of all its cosmetics, giving the new owner a brand new sloop with the stock/booty chest of the old one, and a new name (Maybe a slightly unique name, having adjectives like "stolen" or "plundered").

Then the old owner gets a "decoration plan" item, in which they can insert a sloop deed to transform that sloop into their old boat - similar to how you'd get a sunken sloop back from a ship in a bottle.

...Maybe people could be required to "insure" their boats for this to happen (quick imaginary numbers: 5k 5dubs for a week, 15k 15dubs for a month maybe?), otherwise the boat gets taken over as normal.


Also I think that doing it the way trading a deed on a regular ocean would isn't gonna work properly unless the furniture aboard would also be transferred to the new owner - otherwise the old owner can hit that "reclaim" button... and now the new owner has a named, most likely painted boat which is stripped of its furni? That makes little sense to me.


Edit because people are talking about it:
The "bribes" to port are indeed extremely low. An x10 or x20 would be fair.
----------------------------------------
TriplePat, Emerald.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by patgangster at Feb 9, 2017 9:42:25 AM]
[Feb 9, 2017 8:03:54 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Jcmorgan6

Member's Avatar


Joined: Feb 5, 2015
Posts: 414
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

mysteryman64 wrote: 


Jcmorgan6 wrote: 
I also agree with what Ironsouls originally wrote. 50 PoE is simply way too low for a sloop, at the current rates it's not really worth having. I'd propose making this atleast 20 times higher, 1,000 PoE would be the minimum I would suggest for a sloop.


While we don't want to make it too low, you also don't want to make it too high. If it's too high, people are going to start searching for exploits and work arounds to keep costs down.

Don't forget you need to have boats at an island to blockade it decently.


You can already leave ships to auto-port for 15mins. I'd imagine paying the tolls is only really for Pillagers/SMH runners.
----------------------------------------
Jjc & Jice on Emerald
CI booty division stats
[Feb 9, 2017 8:35:11 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
BobJanova

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 5008
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

If you're the kind of person who plays the game as Ship Decoration Online, maybe a PVP focused ocean isn't really for you. The idea of being able to take the loser's ship - or scuttle it, if you don't want to re-crew it? - is an excellent one. Though you'll still be able to have that floating palace docked up to show people, and being the kind of person that takes a blinged out ship out when it's at risk will make them even more status symbols than they are today.

On which note, one update which would be excellent would be for the hull paint to be visible on the ship icon on the high seas and in battle. Let us paint sails, too, and show them. Let everyone see that a ship is blinged. (This could be applied to the existing oceans too.)

Good point about island ownership needing to have value within the week after you take it, so the losers can't just come back and take it all back with no loss. I'm not sure complete dusting should be able to happen in one week though - there are times you just can't defend a blockade and permanent loss of all assets for that might be a bit steep. Look at Eve's reinforcement mechanics for structures - even there, you can't just take down a structure in one go.

People love EVE because the things you undock are at risk and so fights mean something. That's what Dark Seas should be.
----------------------------------------
Bobjanova on Viridian and Malachite
Shops and stalls with fair and profitable wages for all: Jubilee, Napi, Chelydra
Stripped/Barely Dressed (Malachite)
Phantasm/Reign of Chaos (Viridian)
[Feb 9, 2017 3:16:11 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
xelto

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 5707
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
If you're the kind of person who plays the game as Ship Decoration Online, maybe a PVP focused ocean isn't really for you.

I play the game as more than just ship decoration, thank you. And I figured out that this ocean wasn't for me, anyway, back when it was first announced. But I've come across people who like the decorating aspect (or more frequently, the collecting aspect) of the game, who I suspect will also like the PvP aspect of the new ocean. Why cut them out of half the fun?

Which is actually why I suggested needing battle flags, at one point. Captured flags could be turned in for either ransom or kept in your collection, satisfying both types of players.

But whatever GH does, whether it be PoE, ships, banners, or whatever else, there needs to be some incentive for the defender want to accept engagements, rather than run from them.
----------------------------------------
Gurndigarn on Emerald Ocean
"Oh, come on. You jobbed onto a ship called the Cursed Isle Raider and you expected *refined*?"
[Feb 9, 2017 3:35:52 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
patgangster

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 26, 2006
Posts: 584
Status: Offline
Re: Dark Seas: FAQ update Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of the PVP-based ocean and will definitely be playing there. That doesn't mean I don't also enjoy Ship Decoration Online and like using LE or otherwise decorated/renamed ships for my adventures. I don't mind risking or paying more to use these, but losing the entire boat (and in the case of a rename, not even being able to re-acquire the boat the way you had it) will only mean any sort of decoration on boats might as well not exist at all, because people won't use it (see: what happened on the main oceans for SMHs and such before we got ships in bottles)
----------------------------------------
TriplePat, Emerald.
[Feb 9, 2017 3:51:21 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Posts: 153   Pages: 6   [ First Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2020 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates