proponents of the "historical" aspect. Sadly, I think his type is getting increasingly tired of FLS's "vision".
Yeah... kinda funny how many people are referring to it as a failed historical recreation. Whether that was how it was originally billed (I don't recall any advertising to that effect, personally) or how it was perceived, they said recently in that "Vision Statement" devlog that they're not after historical accuracy, but rather a "romanticized" Golden Age of Piracy/Age of Sail naval combat MMO.
The niche for PvP games is small enough as it is. Maybe there's a direct correlation between the increase of "romanticism" (that is, fantasy-inspired elements more common to sword-and-sorcery themed games) and the slow but steady increase of new subscribers they've benefited from since August or so. Of course, if that's the case then it must also be so that there's a correlation between the increase of "romanticism" and the continuing departure of "old hands" who don't like the direction things are moving in. Can't please everyone.
Romanticized I think they can accept. But "magical", with buff and debuff spells, and fluffy clothing, no. Think about it: It's the year 1720, three nations are at war, the scourge of piracy makes things tougher, the battles will be fought on the seas of the Caribbean. But trade continues to make men and women rich, legally or not. Will you succeed in trade, in the profession of arms, or as a shady character? What is your fate on this continent?
Such a great premise. Then faction imbalance came in, then the design decisions hit you in the face, such as those red circles and that 45-minute map.
If they ever consider making an expansion, I'd suggest they make the map very very vast, no instancing, and PvP everywhere except along coasts (and only if a red circle doesn't spring up). (And throw in a PvE server just for the cash, you know...) Make insurance available but voluntary (i.e. you have to opt in, perhaps at a token fee) on all ships captained by a player past level 15 or 20. Supplies required on board -- food, rum, cannonballs (no low-grade balls). False flags, but only available after a player has captured a player ship of another nation, and only as long as the player using the false flag isn't sunk or captured; then he has to get another one. Weather effects that can damage or even sink you. Expanded trade not just limited to shipbuilding. And so on, and so on.
But I don't think we'll ever see that.
Bah, any sort of historic realism went out of the window a long time ago. It is clearly visible in the basic game design, chracter outfits for example span 1600 - 1800 and so on and so forth. The recent addition of yet another secret villanous society to the game (Dead Apostles?) reminds me of bad comicbooks and old black and white movies where villains with black top hats and pointy moustache cackle while tying a girl to the train tracks.
As for PvP... Well, guild based pvp seemed as a great idea and definitelly more history flavoured then an all out, semi magical war at sea with speedboats flying the flags of historic european naval powers.
I hoped for historic to be a bit more existant but I honestly doubt FLS got any sort of professional advisor, not even a high school history teacher. As the things stand now nothing really changed, few more chairs have beens shuffled on the deck of a wrecked ship and that is about it.
Still no exploration, meaningful economy/crafting, balanced PvE or even blaanced PvP (still anchored on good old no crying in the red circle idea).
All in all methinks Russell Williams has similarities with Brad McQuaid, Richard Garriott, Gaute Goadger and others. POTBS was, and to an extent still is, an overhyped product with not enough delivery.
proponents of the "historical" aspect. Sadly, I think his type is getting increasingly tired of FLS's "vision".
Yeah... kinda funny how many people are referring to it as a failed historical recreation. Whether that was how it was originally billed (I don't recall any advertising to that effect, personally) or how it was perceived, they said recently in that "Vision Statement" devlog that they're not after historical accuracy, but rather a "romanticized" Golden Age of Piracy/Age of Sail naval combat MMO.
The niche for PvP games is small enough as it is. Maybe there's a direct correlation between the increase of "romanticism" (that is, fantasy-inspired elements more common to sword-and-sorcery themed games) and the slow but steady increase of new subscribers they've benefited from since August or so. Of course, if that's the case then it must also be so that there's a correlation between the increase of "romanticism" and the continuing departure of "old hands" who don't like the direction things are moving in. Can't please everyone.
Romanticized I think they can accept. But "magical", with buff and debuff spells, and fluffy clothing, no. Think about it: It's the year 1720, three nations are at war, the scourge of piracy makes things tougher, the battles will be fought on the seas of the Caribbean. But trade continues to make men and women rich, legally or not. Will you succeed in trade, in the profession of arms, or as a shady character? What is your fate on this continent?
Such a great premise. Then faction imbalance came in, then the design decisions hit you in the face, such as those red circles and that 45-minute map.
If they ever consider making an expansion, I'd suggest they make the map very very vast, no instancing, and PvP everywhere except along coasts (and only if a red circle doesn't spring up). (And throw in a PvE server just for the cash, you know...) Make insurance available but voluntary (i.e. you have to opt in, perhaps at a token fee) on all ships captained by a player past level 15 or 20. Supplies required on board -- food, rum, cannonballs (no low-grade balls). False flags, but only available after a player has captured a player ship of another nation, and only as long as the player using the false flag isn't sunk or captured; then he has to get another one. Weather effects that can damage or even sink you. Expanded trade not just limited to shipbuilding. And so on, and so on.
But I don't think we'll ever see that.
Still no exploration, meaningful economy/crafting, balanced PvE or even blaanced PvP (still anchored on good old no crying in the red circle idea).
All in all methinks Russell Williams has similarities with Brad McQuaid, Richard Garriott, Gaute Goadger and others. POTBS was, and to an extent still is, an overhyped product with not enough delivery.
Patch 1.12 is due in a couple of weeks or so that is a long overdue adjustment to the economy to streamline production free up slots & 1/2 the labor time so not too long to wait.
Russel Williams, Rusty is a man of wealth & integrity having had a previous senior position in Microsoft.
He has admiration for the longterm Eve business model ; he reminds me more of Dr Eyjol Gudmondsson of CCP.
FLS is a privately owned company which means it is not accountable to investors demanding immediate returns on their money, so for all of those that think Potbs has finished it is more like it has just started!
Besides, no game is EVER balanced. You could go to the World of Warcraft forums right now and read about how one class or another is "OP". Go to the EVE forums and read about how one fitting or another is "OP".
I just logged in again earlier today after six months, courtesy of the Winback programme. And it just looked empty.
Rackham is where my level-45 Freetrader is still parked. I asked in nation chat (I was in Grenville) whether there was anyone out there, and apart from a gold seller (whom I'd swear just got started after I typed it, so glad he was that someone was there), there was no response.
So I went to Blackbeard, where my level-25 Naval Officer is, and there were a few people there. But I find that port battle time windows on the North American servers don't really suit me, so I'd probably have to sail over to the Australian server (I usually play on Oceanic servers because of my schedule), but based on what I'm reading there are not many Frenchies around (except Gyrus maybe).
And to be honest, as soon as I logged back in, it all struck me again: The boredom. The ceaseless hauling of ships with cargo. The dead economy (I still have to look it up, since it's my main point of interest). The grind -- I've just quit WoW (which I picked up in November) because of the grind. Open sea aggro. Returning has just made me wondering how I managed to keep on playing the game for five months.
Apart from the occasional group PvP maybe, there's nothing I really feel like doing in there, except maybe sail around and enjoy the (very good) music. And port battles, if I could be bothered to grind for contention points.
Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
... based on what I'm reading there are not many Frenchies around (except Gyrus maybe). ... Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua.
And I haven't logged in since.
I was going to try playing a Rat and retest the economy tutorials to see if they are still broken... but...
I really just can't be bothered TBH. Same feeling as you. I guess I will log in to give my stuff away but I am at the end of my rope with this game.
Want to see what happens - but certainly not prepared to pay an ongoing sub to see.
I downloaded Tabula Rasa last week for a look and that game is better than PotBS I think - I am still in the Honeymoon period of play though.
Then again, I think TR shares the same problem with this game in that they are both closer to Single Player Games than MMOs?
Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
FLS populations slumped during the av-com revamp, it was always my intention to re-sub but I needed evidence that FLS were going to address some of the key issues to do with balance & the economy.
Don't have the slightest interest in going back to WoW mêlée or elf type games as there are now too many of that kind around including the more recent Lotro, Tabular rasa, Age of Conan, War, Runes of Magic & Darkfall which are still all basically hack-n-slash or spell related.
With the soon to be released excellent R1.12 patch that will give incentives for production & the lower populated nations it was enough to make me want to play again on the strength of the excellent ship combat & player driven economy.
So far i'm still enjoying Potbs & would recommend it but more end game features like port governors will increase player retention.
Originally posted by Gyrus Originally posted by Vetarnias ... based on what I'm reading there are not many Frenchies around (except Gyrus maybe). ... Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua. And I haven't logged in since.
You say this...
Then you say this:
Originally posted by Gyrus Then again, I think TR shares the same problem with this game in that they are both closer to Single Player Games than MMOs?Will post more on this subject in a week or two.
How long ago did you move your toons to Tiggy, after which you haven't logged in since? To be fair, it sounds like you played on an empty server for so long and now that you're on a populated server, you haven't really given it a chance yet.
Now, stuff like Vetarnias said I can understand; I don't like hauling, myself. I'd much rather spend every minute PvPing, but for me, if there was no time investment or effort in being able to have a PvP ship, the PvP wouldn't be fun.
I also understand that every person isn't going to like every thing - that's something that I don't think many gamers realize. Everybody who posts on a forum seems to think their opinions are facts and other peoples' facts are opinions, and that their own opinions represent the opinions of the vast majority of gamers everywhere. A rational, lucid post can be difficult to find.
In Vetarnias's case, I think a PART of the issue is that many of us now, after playing various MMOs for years, are just tired of grind in general - no matter what game it's in. I say PART of the issue 'cause I'm sure there may be other things about the game he's not thrilled with. Unfortunately for players like us, there has not been anyone to really discover a 100% grind-free formula for MMO gaming. God bless the man who does, he'll be a billionaire.
In your case, Gyrus, I can't say anything about Tabula Rasa - I never played it, but I'm not sure how many people they've still got playing, since everyone knows they're shutting down in February (I'd find it difficult to get into that, but that's just my opinion). But if you're on Antigua, there's no reason PotBS should have a single player feel unless you're just being anti-social? I read a blog last month some time where this WoW player was talking about how she's generally shy, wallflower type person and really, really appreciates when random players will stop to do something helpful and friendly (she cited an example where she pulled more aggro than she could handle and a random passing shaman stopped to give heals and chat for a bit), but said that she's unlikely to just stop and talk to strangers for whatever reason.
I can relate to that, I have my moods where I'm very outgoing, but I spend most of my time in-game hunting solo by choice, whether my soc has a 6-fleet going or not.
But again, everything ain't for everybody. So if you and Vetarnias can't find a way to stay interested in PotBS, that's unfortunate, but I appreciate that you can both talk calmly about why it's just not 'grabbing' you, rather than post some kind of silly /ragequit thread about how you got ganked or something (as has happened a couple of times this past month on the official forum :P)
A question, though - how was the econ tutorial broken? It all worked fine when I did it... just curious.
Fair questions Havohej so I will attempt to answer;
How long ago did you move your toons to Tiggy, after which you haven't logged in since? To be fair, it sounds like you played on an empty server for so long and now that you're on a populated server, you haven't really given it a chance yet.
Three days... and yeah can't disagree with your point. ... In Vetarnias's case, I think a PART of the issue is that many of us now, after playing various MMOs for years, are just tired of grind in general ... there has not been anyone to really discover a 100% grind-free formula for MMO gaming. God bless the man who does, he'll be a billionaire. All true - although I don't mind grind in small doses. I work a two week on - two week off roster so I have regular breaks from game grind anyway. In your case, Gyrus, I can't say anything about Tabula Rasa - I never played it, but I'm not sure how many people they've still got playing, since everyone knows they're shutting down in February (I'd find it difficult to get into that, but that's just my opinion). But if you're on Antigua, there's no reason PotBS should have a single player feel unless you're just being anti-social?... No. I was referring more to the general game design. The game plays like a single player game - a lot like Sid Meier's Pirates! ... A question, though - how was the econ tutorial broken? It all worked fine when I did it... just curious. http://archive.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42605
After they introduced the fix where you could re-buy the deed I re-tested.
Yeah, you can re-buy the deed IF you know you can re-buy the deed AND if you can remember where to do that.
Fine for an experienced player... but tutorials are for n00bs.
Oh... and BTW it was a mistake for me to transfer off Invincible.
I initiated the process on Dec 21st - and got a month of credit to SOE from that date... that gives me three days left.
So, I will roll a Rat on Invincible till it shuts down I think.
based on what I'm reading there are not many Frenchies around (except Gyrus maybe).
...
Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua.
And I haven't logged in since.
You say this...
Then you say this:
Originally posted by Gyrus
Then again, I think TR shares the same problem with this game in that they are both closer to Single Player Games than MMOs?
Will post more on this subject in a week or two.
Everybody who posts on a forum seems to think their opinions are facts and other peoples' facts are opinions, and that their own opinions represent the opinions of the vast majority of gamers everywhere. A rational, lucid post can be difficult to find.
This is true however its only natural that players put over their own opinions as a personal fact & most readers realize it does not apply to all, catering for all play-styles can be almost impossible as it conflicts with individual peoples interpretation of the FLS vision of the game.
It's good to see FLS are now working toward more PvP or its original vision by streamlining production to make it a little easier & quicker to build ships.
Of course there are those that only want high risk & feel everything should be hard so for me Potbs is a good compromise, not too easy like WoW & not so hard that nobody will play it.
Having said that there is a long learning curve where some players that have played the game for 6 months are still learning the best way to PvP; i'm still learning different tactics so for me that is what makes the game interesting.
Strange forum section. Either it's quiet for days at a time, or you come back a few hours later and it's full of new posts.
To GB-DJXeon: I must admit I don't quite follow you at times. In some posts you go out of your way to defend the game (the fact Rusty might be "a man of wealth & integrity" doesn't make PotBS a good game), and in your latest you just say that you're no longer subscribed, while singing the praises of the next build.
Also I'd like to know more about the population slump after the avcom revamp.
To Gyrus: I too am tempted to try out Tabula Rasa before it's gone; not because I've ever been interested in it (even less so now that its days are numbered), but because it could come in handy to keep up the forum punditry for years to come ("oh, but TR had this and that") instead of relying on second-hand information.
To Havohej: I think you're right. This past year alone, I've been through PotBS (five months, level 45), AoC (six weeks, level 40), WAR (a week, can't remember which level), and WoW (six weeks, level 46). So yes, I'm tired of grinding. And even in single-player games, I have always been notorious for rarely finishing them; hence my interest had slowly shifted to open-ended sandbox games like SimCity or games where a scenario wouldn't take more than a few hours to complete.
I've been getting a lot of flak in the WoW section for calling that game a "treadmill", and even accused of being incapable of commenting on the game because I hadn't made it to level 80. Even by a guy who had just started another thread in which he complained that the level-80 endgame was to grind for gear. (Here I'm reminded of one of those old posts by Isildur in which he said he couldn't stand WoW because the good stuff was "locked behind arbitrary dull activities". Particularly ironic since PotBS suffers from the same problem, but since I never made it to 50 in PotBS, please don't start throwing tomatoes.)
I'm getting to the point where I think that the journey to a destination in MMO's cannot be forgiven its dullness by citing how rich the destination is supposed to be -- hence why I've always disliked the "level" aspect of PotBS and, more egregiously, WoW. (Hell, maybe I should try EVE after all; it's the only game I hear about in which levels aren't an issue.)
I do remember something Jonathan Blow (creator of "Braid") said about WoW-type games: they're unethical. A game should be fun to play, not "grind till you reach the top". He mentioned Puzzle Pirates as a good game because the process is as interesting as the result.
And these days I'm playing a very good single-player game called Mount & Blade, which I had heard about almost by accident, and which works very well on a rather el cheapo budget. In it, the individual battles are just as fun as the larger military campaign. Oh, it does have its weaknesses, such as the brilliant idea to sometimes make you lose reputation by refusing a quest, which detracts from all the questing aspect of the game, which a few critics called disconnected from the great battle system. But how refreshing, a medieval game without magic, elves, Armors of Uberleetness or insane levelling.
And to return to subject, yes, there have been many other things that have bothered me with PotBS, some of which I mentioned in this thread (that part about false flags, etc). I think PotBS is a case of missed opportunities; a great setting which could have completely ignored its latest iteration with J. Sparrow, and gone instead to something older -- Errol Flynn, Hornblower and Patrick O'Brian blended together?
I too am puzzled by Gyrus's claim that it feels single-player. I would say it feels more like something you'd play with a few friends, but not an MMO -- that's the curse of instancing. Yet WoW is worse, with its single-player questing outside of battlegrounds, dungeons and raids. I too am waiting for one big instanceless world where you can do what you damn please. But Darkfall, based on the scanty information available, is a travesty of all that; if it ever releases, we should find that out very quickly.
Strange forum section. Either it's quiet for days at a time, or you come back a few hours later and it's full of new posts. To GB-DJXeon: I must admit I don't quite follow you at times. In some posts you go out of your way to defend the game (the fact Rusty might be "a man of wealth & integrity" doesn't make PotBS a good game), and in your latest you just say that you're no longer subscribed, while singing the praises of the next build. Also I'd like to know more about the population slump after the avcom revamp.
ugh? I said i was enjoying the game so am currently subscribed, do you really think I would start this thread if I didnt want to promote it?
Yes there was a period where FLS went a mile off track for several months as the av-com revamp was done at a particularly bad time; players were thinking FLS had lost interest so left themselves, The new av-com is a big improvement but is not strictly the reason why many players left.
I am glad to say that this is not the case & the upcoming patch 1.12 addresses most of my concerns; you were also observant to point out that it was first economic devlog not posted by Isildur, a good omen perhaps.
I like to tell things for what they are, good or bad; Potbs is not out of the woods yet although there appears to be a upturn of new players this year.
OK, thanks for clarifying things. And I'm really curious as to why it wasn't Isildur's name on that devlog, considering that the economy was his baby. Care to speculate?
Sure, Isildur is the Lead designer & his strengths are in designing not necessarily setting priorities or balancing the in-game systems, saying that he murdered the economy with insurance was not the best thing to say.
He has plenty of work putting together port governors etc so is happy to let developers Lum or Tealorn do the much needed balancing.
These are only my opinions & may in no way reflect those of FLS.
OK, thanks for clarifying things. And I'm really curious as to why it wasn't Isildur's name on that devlog, considering that the economy was his baby. Care to speculate?
Sure, Isildur is the Lead designer & his strengths are in designing not necessarily setting priorities or balancing the in-game systems, saying that he murdered the economy with insurance was not the best thing to say.
He has plenty of work putting together port governors etc so is happy to let developers Lum or Tealorn do the much needed balancing.
These are only my opinions & may in no way reflect those of FLS.
Still, Rusty was next to Isildur, I believe, when they conducted that interview in which Isildur said he had murdered the economy. It's not as though he hadn't been coached as to what to say and what to avoid saying.
With the exception of That Infamous DrewC Quote, however, most of the legendary moments of PotBS quotability came from Isildur. Consider: The Next Big Failure, the Tripod, Murdering the Economy.
I recently ended up reading a bunch of old posts by Keline, where he all but asked for Isildur's head on a platter. Without going that far, I have to ask: Can Isildur's absence from the recent devlog be interpreted as a repudiation of his economic model?
There have been a lot of things said that are best forgotten, like water under the bridge.
The new FLS producer Misha is now steering the Potbs ship in the right direction; I'm hopeful that given time & developer resources things will recover.
Originally posted by Vetarnias Without going that far, I have to ask: Can Isildur's absence from the recent devlog be interpreted as a repudiation of his economic model?
You know, that thought crossed my mind as well, but I really don't think so.
The overall economic model really isn't changing. It's being tweaked, and heavily sure, but it's still labor -> raw mats -> labor -> manufactured -> labor -> ships -> consumer (be it via AH, direct trade, or closed society econ loop).
If I've understood all I've read correctly, at launch there were ships but no insurance - losing a ship was a money sink. Then, they added insurance and dailies (not at the same time, and maybe not in that order? Not trying to mince details, here, just talking general ideas so bear with me). Adding what basically amounts to free money removed the money sink of ship loss or made it so that there was so much new money that the little bit still being sunk in PvP was insignificant.
Now, they'll be halving the insurance paid out on LSBs, so there will be a bit more of a money sink on bundle ships when they go down, and since they're in effect doubling the labor of each econ structure and streamlining to remove some of the steps, there will be more product potentially on the market but - in my opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices for the end consumer. As long there's a ton of cash coming into the market and not an equal amount of cash going out of the market, the market will have inflation.
I think a good end compromise would be to keep the 50% insurance on LSBs and keep the insurance on green perm outfittings but get rid of all other insurance. That'd increase the amount of cash sunk out of the market while still leaving a cushion for those who lose really, really expensive boats. But I'm getting carried away - I just meant to illustrate that the basic economic model is still the same, and is still missing the ever-more-important money sinks that it was supposed to have from the start. I DO like how when insurance was first introduced, they said it was to be a temporary thing and while this new development isn't entirely removing it, it's dialing it back. To me, that says, "We haven't forgotten all that stuff we said. We know now that to just remove it altogether at this point would be as destructive as leaving it go on, but we're looking for ways to get this thing where we want it to be."
Also, you may have noticed that the original devlog said they're removing LSB insurance altogether, but that it was then dropped back to 50% - a compromise that said "We ARE paying attention and are not above listening to our effected audience regarding important changes." A lot of folks may disagree with some of the things they've done or will do, but I think we can agree that game development and design isn't done by Joe Player on the forums - if it were, we'd all be getting paid to post!
One last thing before I conclude this novella: Just because one dev's name is on a devlog, I think it would be a mistake to assume that that's the only guy who has anything to do with working on that game mechanic. As GB reminded us, Isildur does still have the Lead Designer hat so I'm sure everything passes his desk as well as Misha's and Rusty's. And who knows how many people worked with Lum to put together these ideas to begin with.
Without going that far, I have to ask: Can Isildur's absence from the recent devlog be interpreted as a repudiation of his economic model?
You know, that thought crossed my mind as well, but I really don't think so.
The overall economic model really isn't changing. It's being tweaked, and heavily sure, but it's still labor -> raw mats -> labor -> manufactured -> labor -> ships -> consumer (be it via AH, direct trade, or closed society econ loop).
If I've understood all I've read correctly, at launch there were ships but no insurance - losing a ship was a money sink. Then, they added insurance and dailies (not at the same time, and maybe not in that order? Not trying to mince details, here, just talking general ideas so bear with me). Adding what basically amounts to free money removed the money sink of ship loss or made it so that there was so much new money that the little bit still being sunk in PvP was insignificant. Exactly. Nothing has changed here, and "streamlining" the economy won't change much. I still predict that the AH will remain empty; the closed societies will just cut back on production instead of risking that it doesn't sell.
Now, they'll be halving the insurance paid out on LSBs, so there will be a bit more of a money sink on bundle ships when they go down, and since they're in effect doubling the labor of each econ structure and streamlining to remove some of the steps, there will be more product potentially on the market but - in my opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices for the end consumer. As long there's a ton of cash coming into the market and not an equal amount of cash going out of the market, the market will have inflation.
I think a good end compromise would be to keep the 50% insurance on LSBs and keep the insurance on green perm outfittings but get rid of all other insurance. The problem here is that it would penalize every user of non-"elite" items in the game, including (and especially) newbies who just as likely won't have one or the other. A better system would gradually reduce the percentage paid out by insurance, from 100% for a level 10 ship, to 80% for a level-25, and so on. And at the highest levels, I'd do exactly the opposite: Keep insurance on non-bundleboat models and reduce that on bundleboats to almost nothing. That'd increase the amount of cash sunk out of the market while still leaving a cushion for those who lose really, really expensive boats. But I'm getting carried away - I just meant to illustrate that the basic economic model is still the same, and is still missing the ever-more-important money sinks that it was supposed to have from the start. I DO like how when insurance was first introduced, they said it was to be a temporary thing and while this new development isn't entirely removing it, it's dialing it back. To me, that says, "We haven't forgotten all that stuff we said. We know now that to just remove it altogether at this point would be as destructive as leaving it go on, but we're looking for ways to get this thing where we want it to be."
Also, you may have noticed that the original devlog said they're removing LSB insurance altogether, but that it was then dropped back to 50% - a compromise that said "We ARE paying attention and are not above listening to our effected audience regarding important changes." The problem is that it also seemed desperate and also made it look as though the initial plan wasn't really thought out, same thing for the alternative. That the only reason why they backed down was because they didn't want to alienate another part of their subscriber numbers. Compare that with the Superganks, where everyone told them what would happen under such a scheme -- even before it hit testbed -- and yet they went ahead and implemented it. It was only after they noticed first-hand what happened that they backed down. A lot of folks may disagree with some of the things they've done or will do, but I think we can agree that game development and design isn't done by Joe Player on the forums - if it were, we'd all be getting paid to post!
One last thing before I conclude this novella: Just because one dev's name is on a devlog, I think it would be a mistake to assume that that's the only guy who has anything to do with working on that game mechanic. As GB reminded us, Isildur does still have the Lead Designer hat so I'm sure everything passes his desk as well as Misha's and Rusty's. And who knows how many people worked with Lum to put together these ideas to begin with. Agreed.
Valid point about the superganks, I agree, they should never have implemented that. I'm glad I wasn't around for a period of time where 6 groups were afraid to attack other 6 groups for fear of having up to 20 people to fight (9 at a time). But I can't agree with calling it desperation to compromise on the LSB insurance in response to what I suppose is legitimate outcry from those players with the 1st-2nd Rate SOLs.
You say the Supergank decision was a mistake, and it was.
Now we have a similar situation, where they say "Hey guys, we're going to do this." And the guys say, "Don't do that!?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo /vader :(:(:(" So they say, "Hmmm. Okay, well, how about this?"
To me, that's FLS learning from a previous mistake. But if doing the "right" thing is going to result in them being criticized and called desperate, but NOT making any compromise would've resulted in them being criticized for ignoring their players (again, ala Supergank)... damned if they do, damned if they don't? You guys like calling me a fanboi, but damn, let's be fair at least...
(I put right in ""s because I would've preferred completely removal of LSB insurance personally :P)
Valid point about the superganks, I agree, they should never have implemented that. I'm glad I wasn't around for a period of time where 6 groups were afraid to attack other 6 groups for fear of having up to 20 people to fight (9 at a time). But I can't agree with calling it desperation to compromise on the LSB insurance in response to what I suppose is legitimate outcry from those players with the 1st-2nd Rate SOLs. You say the Supergank decision was a mistake, and it was. Now we have a similar situation, where they say "Hey guys, we're going to do this." And the guys say, "Don't do that!?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo /vader :(:(:(" So they say, "Hmmm. Okay, well, how about this?" To me, that's FLS learning from a previous mistake. But if doing the "right" thing is going to result in them being criticized and called desperate, but NOT making any compromise would've resulted in them being criticized for ignoring their players (again, ala Supergank)... damned if they do, damned if they don't? You guys like calling me a fanboi, but damn, let's be fair at least... (I put right in ""s because I would've preferred completely removal of LSB insurance personally :P)
The mistake in this case was for FLS to have covered lineship bundles in the first place, after several players pointed out that it would just force everyone to grind to have one because they'd never be drained out of each nation's arsenal through attrition.
And we must also debate whether the idea to make them so expensive in comparison to other ships was wise, in light of "hardcore" MMO players rushing to get to the endships anyway, meaning casuals get shut out of the game and sometimes blamed for showing up in port battles with a non-bundleboat vessel. Also, in this game, the problem was that the bundleboats didn't really seem to justify their cost from a construction standpoint. It's just more timber and iron, nothing justifying a First Rate being what, 50 times the price of a Fourth?
Either bundleboats should have had prices in line with ships below them, or they should not have been in the game.
So even their learning from a previous mistake came from trying to correct a mistake they made while trying to correct a mistake. When the history of this game is written, I think this will be the salient point.
Either bundleboats should have had prices in line with ships below them, or they should not have been in the game.
I totally agree with this statement & have said so on the official forums in different words.
One of the games main issues has always been game balance imo although FLS claim to have evidence it was more to do with av-com. It would seem the Russians agree balancing is the key too:
It's all good publicity as it is only when players lose interest & never come back is when nothing can be done. In your case you still have a valuable contribution to make to Potbs so I hope you might consider re-subbing someday.
The next patch R1.12 is a revelation as it the first patch in months that deals directly with game balance, horah!
Been talking to many shipwrights they all welcome the proposed streamlining of production as they have a waiting list of players wanting Sols & other ships so it will help them produce much faster so that players are not so hesitant to risk their ships in PvP.
Closed societies will always produce for their own needs & nothing will prevent that but with increased populations & incentives it should see an upturn of players willing to stock the auction houses for the more casual player as was the case shortly after release. The only difference this time around is that with dailies & insurance there is much more cash coming in the game to pay for them.
Comments
Yeah. Thanks.
Problem is...many of us can't transfer.
For the attention of:
Gyrus & any others stuck on Invincible,
FLS have reason to believe that Bigpond transfers are now working.
They are very concerned if that is not the case & ask you to post on the official FLS forums without quoting any previous official correspondence.
Even if your subscriptions have expired there are still sections of the forums you can post in.
The proper place to post is here quoting any ticket numbers you may have.
Hope this helps.
i like such games. but it is sometimes hard to play. but a too easy game isn't a good game. i'll keep going on it to win the caribbean.
Yeah... kinda funny how many people are referring to it as a failed historical recreation. Whether that was how it was originally billed (I don't recall any advertising to that effect, personally) or how it was perceived, they said recently in that "Vision Statement" devlog that they're not after historical accuracy, but rather a "romanticized" Golden Age of Piracy/Age of Sail naval combat MMO.
The niche for PvP games is small enough as it is. Maybe there's a direct correlation between the increase of "romanticism" (that is, fantasy-inspired elements more common to sword-and-sorcery themed games) and the slow but steady increase of new subscribers they've benefited from since August or so. Of course, if that's the case then it must also be so that there's a correlation between the increase of "romanticism" and the continuing departure of "old hands" who don't like the direction things are moving in. Can't please everyone.
Romanticized I think they can accept. But "magical", with buff and debuff spells, and fluffy clothing, no. Think about it: It's the year 1720, three nations are at war, the scourge of piracy makes things tougher, the battles will be fought on the seas of the Caribbean. But trade continues to make men and women rich, legally or not. Will you succeed in trade, in the profession of arms, or as a shady character? What is your fate on this continent?
Such a great premise. Then faction imbalance came in, then the design decisions hit you in the face, such as those red circles and that 45-minute map.
If they ever consider making an expansion, I'd suggest they make the map very very vast, no instancing, and PvP everywhere except along coasts (and only if a red circle doesn't spring up). (And throw in a PvE server just for the cash, you know...) Make insurance available but voluntary (i.e. you have to opt in, perhaps at a token fee) on all ships captained by a player past level 15 or 20. Supplies required on board -- food, rum, cannonballs (no low-grade balls). False flags, but only available after a player has captured a player ship of another nation, and only as long as the player using the false flag isn't sunk or captured; then he has to get another one. Weather effects that can damage or even sink you. Expanded trade not just limited to shipbuilding. And so on, and so on.
But I don't think we'll ever see that.
Bah, any sort of historic realism went out of the window a long time ago. It is clearly visible in the basic game design, chracter outfits for example span 1600 - 1800 and so on and so forth. The recent addition of yet another secret villanous society to the game (Dead Apostles?) reminds me of bad comicbooks and old black and white movies where villains with black top hats and pointy moustache cackle while tying a girl to the train tracks.
As for PvP... Well, guild based pvp seemed as a great idea and definitelly more history flavoured then an all out, semi magical war at sea with speedboats flying the flags of historic european naval powers.
I hoped for historic to be a bit more existant but I honestly doubt FLS got any sort of professional advisor, not even a high school history teacher. As the things stand now nothing really changed, few more chairs have beens shuffled on the deck of a wrecked ship and that is about it.
Still no exploration, meaningful economy/crafting, balanced PvE or even blaanced PvP (still anchored on good old no crying in the red circle idea).
All in all methinks Russell Williams has similarities with Brad McQuaid, Richard Garriott, Gaute Goadger and others. POTBS was, and to an extent still is, an overhyped product with not enough delivery.
Yeah... kinda funny how many people are referring to it as a failed historical recreation. Whether that was how it was originally billed (I don't recall any advertising to that effect, personally) or how it was perceived, they said recently in that "Vision Statement" devlog that they're not after historical accuracy, but rather a "romanticized" Golden Age of Piracy/Age of Sail naval combat MMO.
The niche for PvP games is small enough as it is. Maybe there's a direct correlation between the increase of "romanticism" (that is, fantasy-inspired elements more common to sword-and-sorcery themed games) and the slow but steady increase of new subscribers they've benefited from since August or so. Of course, if that's the case then it must also be so that there's a correlation between the increase of "romanticism" and the continuing departure of "old hands" who don't like the direction things are moving in. Can't please everyone.
Romanticized I think they can accept. But "magical", with buff and debuff spells, and fluffy clothing, no. Think about it: It's the year 1720, three nations are at war, the scourge of piracy makes things tougher, the battles will be fought on the seas of the Caribbean. But trade continues to make men and women rich, legally or not. Will you succeed in trade, in the profession of arms, or as a shady character? What is your fate on this continent?
Such a great premise. Then faction imbalance came in, then the design decisions hit you in the face, such as those red circles and that 45-minute map.
If they ever consider making an expansion, I'd suggest they make the map very very vast, no instancing, and PvP everywhere except along coasts (and only if a red circle doesn't spring up). (And throw in a PvE server just for the cash, you know...) Make insurance available but voluntary (i.e. you have to opt in, perhaps at a token fee) on all ships captained by a player past level 15 or 20. Supplies required on board -- food, rum, cannonballs (no low-grade balls). False flags, but only available after a player has captured a player ship of another nation, and only as long as the player using the false flag isn't sunk or captured; then he has to get another one. Weather effects that can damage or even sink you. Expanded trade not just limited to shipbuilding. And so on, and so on.
But I don't think we'll ever see that.
Still no exploration, meaningful economy/crafting, balanced PvE or even blaanced PvP (still anchored on good old no crying in the red circle idea).
All in all methinks Russell Williams has similarities with Brad McQuaid, Richard Garriott, Gaute Goadger and others. POTBS was, and to an extent still is, an overhyped product with not enough delivery.
Patch 1.12 is due in a couple of weeks or so that is a long overdue adjustment to the economy to streamline production free up slots & 1/2 the labor time so not too long to wait.
Russel Williams, Rusty is a man of wealth & integrity having had a previous senior position in Microsoft.
He has admiration for the longterm Eve business model ; he reminds me more of Dr Eyjol Gudmondsson of CCP.
FLS is a privately owned company which means it is not accountable to investors demanding immediate returns on their money, so for all of those that think Potbs has finished it is more like it has just started!
Besides, no game is EVER balanced. You could go to the World of Warcraft forums right now and read about how one class or another is "OP". Go to the EVE forums and read about how one fitting or another is "OP".
That's just 'how it is...'
I just logged in again earlier today after six months, courtesy of the Winback programme. And it just looked empty.
Rackham is where my level-45 Freetrader is still parked. I asked in nation chat (I was in Grenville) whether there was anyone out there, and apart from a gold seller (whom I'd swear just got started after I typed it, so glad he was that someone was there), there was no response.
So I went to Blackbeard, where my level-25 Naval Officer is, and there were a few people there. But I find that port battle time windows on the North American servers don't really suit me, so I'd probably have to sail over to the Australian server (I usually play on Oceanic servers because of my schedule), but based on what I'm reading there are not many Frenchies around (except Gyrus maybe).
And to be honest, as soon as I logged back in, it all struck me again: The boredom. The ceaseless hauling of ships with cargo. The dead economy (I still have to look it up, since it's my main point of interest). The grind -- I've just quit WoW (which I picked up in November) because of the grind. Open sea aggro. Returning has just made me wondering how I managed to keep on playing the game for five months.
Apart from the occasional group PvP maybe, there's nothing I really feel like doing in there, except maybe sail around and enjoy the (very good) music. And port battles, if I could be bothered to grind for contention points.
Maybe I should apply the advice I gave GB to myself as well -- time to move on. But it's a tug-of-war between my complete lack of interest in playing the game and my fascination for seeing first-hand what happens to it.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua.
And I haven't logged in since.
I was going to try playing a Rat and retest the economy tutorials to see if they are still broken... but...
I really just can't be bothered TBH. Same feeling as you. I guess I will log in to give my stuff away but I am at the end of my rope with this game.
Want to see what happens - but certainly not prepared to pay an ongoing sub to see.
I downloaded Tabula Rasa last week for a look and that game is better than PotBS I think - I am still in the Honeymoon period of play though.
Then again, I think TR shares the same problem with this game in that they are both closer to Single Player Games than MMOs?
Will post more on this subject in a week or two.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
FLS populations slumped during the av-com revamp, it was always my intention to re-sub but I needed evidence that FLS were going to address some of the key issues to do with balance & the economy.
Don't have the slightest interest in going back to WoW mêlée or elf type games as there are now too many of that kind around including the more recent Lotro, Tabular rasa, Age of Conan, War, Runes of Magic & Darkfall which are still all basically hack-n-slash or spell related.
With the soon to be released excellent R1.12 patch that will give incentives for production & the lower populated nations it was enough to make me want to play again on the strength of the excellent ship combat & player driven economy.
So far i'm still enjoying Potbs & would recommend it but more end game features like port governors will increase player retention.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua.
And I haven't logged in since.
You say this...
Then you say this:
How long ago did you move your toons to Tiggy, after which you haven't logged in since? To be fair, it sounds like you played on an empty server for so long and now that you're on a populated server, you haven't really given it a chance yet.
Now, stuff like Vetarnias said I can understand; I don't like hauling, myself. I'd much rather spend every minute PvPing, but for me, if there was no time investment or effort in being able to have a PvP ship, the PvP wouldn't be fun.
I also understand that every person isn't going to like every thing - that's something that I don't think many gamers realize. Everybody who posts on a forum seems to think their opinions are facts and other peoples' facts are opinions, and that their own opinions represent the opinions of the vast majority of gamers everywhere. A rational, lucid post can be difficult to find.
In Vetarnias's case, I think a PART of the issue is that many of us now, after playing various MMOs for years, are just tired of grind in general - no matter what game it's in. I say PART of the issue 'cause I'm sure there may be other things about the game he's not thrilled with. Unfortunately for players like us, there has not been anyone to really discover a 100% grind-free formula for MMO gaming. God bless the man who does, he'll be a billionaire.
In your case, Gyrus, I can't say anything about Tabula Rasa - I never played it, but I'm not sure how many people they've still got playing, since everyone knows they're shutting down in February (I'd find it difficult to get into that, but that's just my opinion). But if you're on Antigua, there's no reason PotBS should have a single player feel unless you're just being anti-social? I read a blog last month some time where this WoW player was talking about how she's generally shy, wallflower type person and really, really appreciates when random players will stop to do something helpful and friendly (she cited an example where she pulled more aggro than she could handle and a random passing shaman stopped to give heals and chat for a bit), but said that she's unlikely to just stop and talk to strangers for whatever reason.
I can relate to that, I have my moods where I'm very outgoing, but I spend most of my time in-game hunting solo by choice, whether my soc has a 6-fleet going or not.
But again, everything ain't for everybody. So if you and Vetarnias can't find a way to stay interested in PotBS, that's unfortunate, but I appreciate that you can both talk calmly about why it's just not 'grabbing' you, rather than post some kind of silly /ragequit thread about how you got ganked or something (as has happened a couple of times this past month on the official forum :P)
A question, though - how was the econ tutorial broken? It all worked fine when I did it... just curious.
Oh... and BTW it was a mistake for me to transfer off Invincible.
I initiated the process on Dec 21st - and got a month of credit to SOE from that date... that gives me three days left.
So, I will roll a Rat on Invincible till it shuts down I think.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Nope. I moved my toons to Antigua.
And I haven't logged in since.
You say this...
Then you say this:
Everybody who posts on a forum seems to think their opinions are facts and other peoples' facts are opinions, and that their own opinions represent the opinions of the vast majority of gamers everywhere. A rational, lucid post can be difficult to find.
This is true however its only natural that players put over their own opinions as a personal fact & most readers realize it does not apply to all, catering for all play-styles can be almost impossible as it conflicts with individual peoples interpretation of the FLS vision of the game.
It's good to see FLS are now working toward more PvP or its original vision by streamlining production to make it a little easier & quicker to build ships.
Of course there are those that only want high risk & feel everything should be hard so for me Potbs is a good compromise, not too easy like WoW & not so hard that nobody will play it.
Having said that there is a long learning curve where some players that have played the game for 6 months are still learning the best way to PvP; i'm still learning different tactics so for me that is what makes the game interesting.
The PvP and RvR in this game doesn't hold my interest.
I am a WWIIoLer (if my handle didn't tip you off?;-) ) The PvP there meets all my needs.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Perhaps for you its time to move on, if ship combat is not your thing.
It's much harder & requires more preparation & planning than the average mmorpg, not for everybody as its something you grow into or reject.
Strange forum section. Either it's quiet for days at a time, or you come back a few hours later and it's full of new posts.
To GB-DJXeon: I must admit I don't quite follow you at times. In some posts you go out of your way to defend the game (the fact Rusty might be "a man of wealth & integrity" doesn't make PotBS a good game), and in your latest you just say that you're no longer subscribed, while singing the praises of the next build.
Also I'd like to know more about the population slump after the avcom revamp.
To Gyrus: I too am tempted to try out Tabula Rasa before it's gone; not because I've ever been interested in it (even less so now that its days are numbered), but because it could come in handy to keep up the forum punditry for years to come ("oh, but TR had this and that") instead of relying on second-hand information.
To Havohej: I think you're right. This past year alone, I've been through PotBS (five months, level 45), AoC (six weeks, level 40), WAR (a week, can't remember which level), and WoW (six weeks, level 46). So yes, I'm tired of grinding. And even in single-player games, I have always been notorious for rarely finishing them; hence my interest had slowly shifted to open-ended sandbox games like SimCity or games where a scenario wouldn't take more than a few hours to complete.
I've been getting a lot of flak in the WoW section for calling that game a "treadmill", and even accused of being incapable of commenting on the game because I hadn't made it to level 80. Even by a guy who had just started another thread in which he complained that the level-80 endgame was to grind for gear. (Here I'm reminded of one of those old posts by Isildur in which he said he couldn't stand WoW because the good stuff was "locked behind arbitrary dull activities". Particularly ironic since PotBS suffers from the same problem, but since I never made it to 50 in PotBS, please don't start throwing tomatoes.)
I'm getting to the point where I think that the journey to a destination in MMO's cannot be forgiven its dullness by citing how rich the destination is supposed to be -- hence why I've always disliked the "level" aspect of PotBS and, more egregiously, WoW. (Hell, maybe I should try EVE after all; it's the only game I hear about in which levels aren't an issue.)
I do remember something Jonathan Blow (creator of "Braid") said about WoW-type games: they're unethical. A game should be fun to play, not "grind till you reach the top". He mentioned Puzzle Pirates as a good game because the process is as interesting as the result.
And these days I'm playing a very good single-player game called Mount & Blade, which I had heard about almost by accident, and which works very well on a rather el cheapo budget. In it, the individual battles are just as fun as the larger military campaign. Oh, it does have its weaknesses, such as the brilliant idea to sometimes make you lose reputation by refusing a quest, which detracts from all the questing aspect of the game, which a few critics called disconnected from the great battle system. But how refreshing, a medieval game without magic, elves, Armors of Uberleetness or insane levelling.
And to return to subject, yes, there have been many other things that have bothered me with PotBS, some of which I mentioned in this thread (that part about false flags, etc). I think PotBS is a case of missed opportunities; a great setting which could have completely ignored its latest iteration with J. Sparrow, and gone instead to something older -- Errol Flynn, Hornblower and Patrick O'Brian blended together?
I too am puzzled by Gyrus's claim that it feels single-player. I would say it feels more like something you'd play with a few friends, but not an MMO -- that's the curse of instancing. Yet WoW is worse, with its single-player questing outside of battlegrounds, dungeons and raids. I too am waiting for one big instanceless world where you can do what you damn please. But Darkfall, based on the scanty information available, is a travesty of all that; if it ever releases, we should find that out very quickly.
ugh? I said i was enjoying the game so am currently subscribed, do you really think I would start this thread if I didnt want to promote it?
Yes there was a period where FLS went a mile off track for several months as the av-com revamp was done at a particularly bad time; players were thinking FLS had lost interest so left themselves, The new av-com is a big improvement but is not strictly the reason why many players left.
I am glad to say that this is not the case & the upcoming patch 1.12 addresses most of my concerns; you were also observant to point out that it was first economic devlog not posted by Isildur, a good omen perhaps.
I like to tell things for what they are, good or bad; Potbs is not out of the woods yet although there appears to be a upturn of new players this year.
OK, thanks for clarifying things.
And I'm really curious as to why it wasn't Isildur's name on that devlog, considering that the economy was his baby. Care to speculate?
Sure, Isildur is the Lead designer & his strengths are in designing not necessarily setting priorities or balancing the in-game systems, saying that he murdered the economy with insurance was not the best thing to say.
He has plenty of work putting together port governors etc so is happy to let developers Lum or Tealorn do the much needed balancing.
These are only my opinions & may in no way reflect those of FLS.
Sure, Isildur is the Lead designer & his strengths are in designing not necessarily setting priorities or balancing the in-game systems, saying that he murdered the economy with insurance was not the best thing to say.
He has plenty of work putting together port governors etc so is happy to let developers Lum or Tealorn do the much needed balancing.
These are only my opinions & may in no way reflect those of FLS.
Still, Rusty was next to Isildur, I believe, when they conducted that interview in which Isildur said he had murdered the economy. It's not as though he hadn't been coached as to what to say and what to avoid saying.
With the exception of That Infamous DrewC Quote, however, most of the legendary moments of PotBS quotability came from Isildur. Consider: The Next Big Failure, the Tripod, Murdering the Economy.
I recently ended up reading a bunch of old posts by Keline, where he all but asked for Isildur's head on a platter. Without going that far, I have to ask: Can Isildur's absence from the recent devlog be interpreted as a repudiation of his economic model?
There have been a lot of things said that are best forgotten, like water under the bridge.
The new FLS producer Misha is now steering the Potbs ship in the right direction; I'm hopeful that given time & developer resources things will recover.
You know, that thought crossed my mind as well, but I really don't think so.
The overall economic model really isn't changing. It's being tweaked, and heavily sure, but it's still labor -> raw mats -> labor -> manufactured -> labor -> ships -> consumer (be it via AH, direct trade, or closed society econ loop).
If I've understood all I've read correctly, at launch there were ships but no insurance - losing a ship was a money sink. Then, they added insurance and dailies (not at the same time, and maybe not in that order? Not trying to mince details, here, just talking general ideas so bear with me). Adding what basically amounts to free money removed the money sink of ship loss or made it so that there was so much new money that the little bit still being sunk in PvP was insignificant.
Now, they'll be halving the insurance paid out on LSBs, so there will be a bit more of a money sink on bundle ships when they go down, and since they're in effect doubling the labor of each econ structure and streamlining to remove some of the steps, there will be more product potentially on the market but - in my opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices for the end consumer. As long there's a ton of cash coming into the market and not an equal amount of cash going out of the market, the market will have inflation.
I think a good end compromise would be to keep the 50% insurance on LSBs and keep the insurance on green perm outfittings but get rid of all other insurance. That'd increase the amount of cash sunk out of the market while still leaving a cushion for those who lose really, really expensive boats. But I'm getting carried away - I just meant to illustrate that the basic economic model is still the same, and is still missing the ever-more-important money sinks that it was supposed to have from the start. I DO like how when insurance was first introduced, they said it was to be a temporary thing and while this new development isn't entirely removing it, it's dialing it back. To me, that says, "We haven't forgotten all that stuff we said. We know now that to just remove it altogether at this point would be as destructive as leaving it go on, but we're looking for ways to get this thing where we want it to be."
Also, you may have noticed that the original devlog said they're removing LSB insurance altogether, but that it was then dropped back to 50% - a compromise that said "We ARE paying attention and are not above listening to our effected audience regarding important changes." A lot of folks may disagree with some of the things they've done or will do, but I think we can agree that game development and design isn't done by Joe Player on the forums - if it were, we'd all be getting paid to post!
One last thing before I conclude this novella: Just because one dev's name is on a devlog, I think it would be a mistake to assume that that's the only guy who has anything to do with working on that game mechanic. As GB reminded us, Isildur does still have the Lead Designer hat so I'm sure everything passes his desk as well as Misha's and Rusty's. And who knows how many people worked with Lum to put together these ideas to begin with.
You know, that thought crossed my mind as well, but I really don't think so.
The overall economic model really isn't changing. It's being tweaked, and heavily sure, but it's still labor -> raw mats -> labor -> manufactured -> labor -> ships -> consumer (be it via AH, direct trade, or closed society econ loop).
If I've understood all I've read correctly, at launch there were ships but no insurance - losing a ship was a money sink. Then, they added insurance and dailies (not at the same time, and maybe not in that order? Not trying to mince details, here, just talking general ideas so bear with me). Adding what basically amounts to free money removed the money sink of ship loss or made it so that there was so much new money that the little bit still being sunk in PvP was insignificant. Exactly. Nothing has changed here, and "streamlining" the economy won't change much. I still predict that the AH will remain empty; the closed societies will just cut back on production instead of risking that it doesn't sell.
Now, they'll be halving the insurance paid out on LSBs, so there will be a bit more of a money sink on bundle ships when they go down, and since they're in effect doubling the labor of each econ structure and streamlining to remove some of the steps, there will be more product potentially on the market but - in my opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean lower prices for the end consumer. As long there's a ton of cash coming into the market and not an equal amount of cash going out of the market, the market will have inflation.
I think a good end compromise would be to keep the 50% insurance on LSBs and keep the insurance on green perm outfittings but get rid of all other insurance. The problem here is that it would penalize every user of non-"elite" items in the game, including (and especially) newbies who just as likely won't have one or the other. A better system would gradually reduce the percentage paid out by insurance, from 100% for a level 10 ship, to 80% for a level-25, and so on. And at the highest levels, I'd do exactly the opposite: Keep insurance on non-bundleboat models and reduce that on bundleboats to almost nothing. That'd increase the amount of cash sunk out of the market while still leaving a cushion for those who lose really, really expensive boats. But I'm getting carried away - I just meant to illustrate that the basic economic model is still the same, and is still missing the ever-more-important money sinks that it was supposed to have from the start. I DO like how when insurance was first introduced, they said it was to be a temporary thing and while this new development isn't entirely removing it, it's dialing it back. To me, that says, "We haven't forgotten all that stuff we said. We know now that to just remove it altogether at this point would be as destructive as leaving it go on, but we're looking for ways to get this thing where we want it to be."
Also, you may have noticed that the original devlog said they're removing LSB insurance altogether, but that it was then dropped back to 50% - a compromise that said "We ARE paying attention and are not above listening to our effected audience regarding important changes." The problem is that it also seemed desperate and also made it look as though the initial plan wasn't really thought out, same thing for the alternative. That the only reason why they backed down was because they didn't want to alienate another part of their subscriber numbers. Compare that with the Superganks, where everyone told them what would happen under such a scheme -- even before it hit testbed -- and yet they went ahead and implemented it. It was only after they noticed first-hand what happened that they backed down. A lot of folks may disagree with some of the things they've done or will do, but I think we can agree that game development and design isn't done by Joe Player on the forums - if it were, we'd all be getting paid to post!
One last thing before I conclude this novella: Just because one dev's name is on a devlog, I think it would be a mistake to assume that that's the only guy who has anything to do with working on that game mechanic. As GB reminded us, Isildur does still have the Lead Designer hat so I'm sure everything passes his desk as well as Misha's and Rusty's. And who knows how many people worked with Lum to put together these ideas to begin with. Agreed.
Valid point about the superganks, I agree, they should never have implemented that. I'm glad I wasn't around for a period of time where 6 groups were afraid to attack other 6 groups for fear of having up to 20 people to fight (9 at a time). But I can't agree with calling it desperation to compromise on the LSB insurance in response to what I suppose is legitimate outcry from those players with the 1st-2nd Rate SOLs.
You say the Supergank decision was a mistake, and it was.
Now we have a similar situation, where they say "Hey guys, we're going to do this." And the guys say, "Don't do that!?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo /vader
:(:(:(" So they say, "Hmmm. Okay, well, how about this?"
To me, that's FLS learning from a previous mistake. But if doing the "right" thing is going to result in them being criticized and called desperate, but NOT making any compromise would've resulted in them being criticized for ignoring their players (again, ala Supergank)... damned if they do, damned if they don't? You guys like calling me a fanboi, but damn, let's be fair at least...
(I put right in ""s because I would've preferred completely removal of LSB insurance personally :P)
The mistake in this case was for FLS to have covered lineship bundles in the first place, after several players pointed out that it would just force everyone to grind to have one because they'd never be drained out of each nation's arsenal through attrition.
And we must also debate whether the idea to make them so expensive in comparison to other ships was wise, in light of "hardcore" MMO players rushing to get to the endships anyway, meaning casuals get shut out of the game and sometimes blamed for showing up in port battles with a non-bundleboat vessel. Also, in this game, the problem was that the bundleboats didn't really seem to justify their cost from a construction standpoint. It's just more timber and iron, nothing justifying a First Rate being what, 50 times the price of a Fourth?
Either bundleboats should have had prices in line with ships below them, or they should not have been in the game.
So even their learning from a previous mistake came from trying to correct a mistake they made while trying to correct a mistake. When the history of this game is written, I think this will be the salient point.
I totally agree with this statement & have said so on the official forums in different words.
One of the games main issues has always been game balance imo although FLS claim to have evidence it was more to do with av-com. It would seem the Russians agree balancing is the key too:
http://www.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?p=629608#post629608
It's all good publicity as it is only when players lose interest & never come back is when nothing can be done. In your case you still have a valuable contribution to make to Potbs so I hope you might consider re-subbing someday.
The next patch R1.12 is a revelation as it the first patch in months that deals directly with game balance, horah!
Been talking to many shipwrights they all welcome the proposed streamlining of production as they have a waiting list of players wanting Sols & other ships so it will help them produce much faster so that players are not so hesitant to risk their ships in PvP.
Closed societies will always produce for their own needs & nothing will prevent that but with increased populations & incentives it should see an upturn of players willing to stock the auction houses for the more casual player as was the case shortly after release. The only difference this time around is that with dailies & insurance there is much more cash coming in the game to pay for them.