There has been much confusion to potential customers about what kind of game Potbs is with no help at all from the box as to the kind or player or market FLS should appeal to which has lead to much disappointment of expectations.

It is important that players understand that PvP (player vs player) is only a small part of the game which has some great ship combat but is mainly economic. Players that buy Potbs for PvP combat only will be disappointed if they have no intention to participate in the large player driven economy allbeit in some small way.

When you are in ship combat with another player the objective is to sink or board & defeat your opponent.
The reason for this is not only to obtain some Movs & rewards or cargo for yourself which improves your wealth or ability to build or obtain another ship or fittings from the economy.
The loser in effect loses a durability point, all permanent fittings & some cargo which decreases their ability to build or obtain another ship from the economy.

So you see a ship is an economic asset or medium that gets lost in PvP which is the live interaction or mechanic between players in combat for this economic change to take place.

If a nation or player has a weak economy or is unable to obtain ships due to lack of cash or production because his slots were set up are in red ports it hinders their ability to participate in PvP.
If another nation has plenty of cash & is in full production they are in a much stronger position to replace any lost ships & keep a constant push on RvR.

Quote kblack "This game is AROUND PVP... you need PVP, but you need too PVE, grinding, econ, etc... and, IMHO, it is reaching a good balance among all those aspects."

Just bear in mind that Potbs is 90% economic & then you won't go wrong.

The problem with Potbs is they failed to understand their genre.  Ships did not defeat other ships because of how many guns they had or how much experience their captain had.  Crew was the deciding factor in almost every battle in the age of sail.  In Potbs, the crew is an afterthought.  Just a complete oversight in the design of the game.

But I will agree, that economic factors are very strong in this game.  The unfortunate mistake they made was including better items in the loot which causes the crafters less of a desire to produce product.

Originally posted by DJXeon

There has been much confusion to potential customers about what kind of game Potbs is with no help at all from the box as to the kind or player or market FLS should appeal to which has lead to much disappointment of expectations.

 

It is important that players understand that PvP (player vs player) is only a small part of the game which has some great ship combat but is mainly economic. ....

If a nation or player has a weak economy or is unable to obtain ships due to lack of cash or production because his slots were set up are in red ports it hinders their ability to participate in PvP.
If another nation has plenty of cash & is in full production they are in a much stronger position to replace any lost ships & keep a constant push on RvR.

Quote kblack "This game is AROUND PVP... you need PVP, but you need too PVE, grinding, econ, etc... and, IMHO, it is reaching a good balance among all those aspects."

Just bear in mind that Potbs is 90% economic & then you won't go wrong.

Sorry, can't agree. 

You can still produce in a port owned by the enemy and depending on your class (Free Traders) can do so with a minimal penalty.

Port Governance is still not in the game.

Production is generic.

I see what you are trying to say GB, but really, "grasping at straws" comes to mind in this case.
 

Originally posted by Gyrus

 

Sorry, can't agree. 

You can still produce in a port owned by the enemy and depending on your class (Free Traders) can do so with a minimal penalty.

Port Governance is still not in the game.

Production is generic.

I see what you are trying to say GB, but really, "grasping at straws" comes to mind in this case.
 

 

 Never said you couldn't produce in a port with red circles but it can be considered a hindrance.

Players can participate in the economy in a small way simply by trading without being generic.

Port governance will make it even more of an economic game.

The relevance of the economy in PvP is much more than other mmorpgs so i would hardly say its grasping at straws.

No, no wait Pirates of the BS is a ..... game.

Pirates of the BS is game that had it shot and failed.

Bad design, bad execution, bad marketing, bad community.

Anything that happens now is too little, too late, who cares, waiting for the next game.

Originally posted by Burntvet

Anything that happens now is too little, too late, who cares, waiting for the next game.

That could be true, however its not too late to implement changes that can alter the face of what otherwise is a good game.

Unlikely but possible.

To me, this is not really an economic game. The basic premise of economics is competition, and that is based on skill. Two players, given the same resources, should compete to produce the best product, and therefore prevail economically. If A makes much better cannons than B, then A will prosper and B will not (unless B has better marketing :) ).

It was a huge disappointment to me that in PoTBS there is no skill involved in harvesting and crafting. A's products are identical to B's. Economically, PoTBS is like playing poker with everyone having the same hand.

PoTBS is a war game, not an economic game. The only way to win economically is to kill the other player.

Imagine, instead, if PoTBS had actual skill involved in production. A's cannons are better than B's, so they cost more, everyone wants them, etc. B's options are:

1) B learns to make better cannons, and changes the market -- economic game

2) B kills A -- war game.

PoTBS is a wargame with a simplistic manufacturing add-on.

Originally posted by DJXeon

There has been much confusion to potential customers about what kind of game Potbs is with no help at all from the box as to the kind or player or market FLS should appeal to which has lead to much disappointment of expectations.

 

It is important that players understand that PvP (player vs player) is only a small part of the game which has some great ship combat but is mainly economic. Players that buy Potbs for PvP combat only will be disappointed if they have no intention to participate in the large player driven economy allbeit in some small way.

When you are in ship combat with another player the objective is to sink or board & defeat your opponent.
The reason for this is not only to obtain some Movs & rewards or cargo for yourself which improves your wealth or ability to build or obtain another ship or fittings from the economy.
The loser in effect loses a durability point, all permanent fittings & some cargo which decreases their ability to build or obtain another ship from the economy.

So you see a ship is an economic asset or medium that gets lost in PvP which is the live interaction or mechanic between players in combat for this economic change to take place.

If a nation or player has a weak economy or is unable to obtain ships due to lack of cash or production because his slots were set up are in red ports it hinders their ability to participate in PvP.
If another nation has plenty of cash & is in full production they are in a much stronger position to replace any lost ships & keep a constant push on RvR.

Quote kblack "This game is AROUND PVP... you need PVP, but you need too PVE, grinding, econ, etc... and, IMHO, it is reaching a good balance among all those aspects."

Just bear in mind that Potbs is 90% economic & then you won't go wrong.

With all due respect, you got smacked down on the POTBS  forums for this, and I concurred with it.

This game is a PVP game.  Right now the economy lives for one purpose since nothing else that should've been there is.  It exists to cater to PvP.  Port flips are PvE that lead to PvP.  Econ ultimately goes towards ships which go towards PvP.  Port Battles, PvP.  Eco unrest is to put a port into a pvp zone.

Me I'm an eco guy.  Love the economy.  Spend a lot of my time doing econ.  Yet I understand that the ultimate purpose of my econ is to get my British brethren in the best stuff they can afford, so we can use that better gear to give us an advantage against the other nationals and rats on the open sea.

If they want to balance the economy, make things more transparent.  Let you see what you can buy at this price.  Develop player governed ports, give people who do econ ability to devote that towards other things.

Originally posted by olepi

To me, this is not really an economic game. The basic premise of economics is competition, and that is based on skill. Two players, given the same resources, should compete to produce the best product, and therefore prevail economically. If A makes much better cannons than B, then A will prosper and B will not (unless B has better marketing :) ).

It was a huge disappointment to me that in PoTBS there is no skill involved in harvesting and crafting. A's products are identical to B's. Economically, PoTBS is like playing poker with everyone having the same hand.

PoTBS is a war game, not an economic game. The only way to win economically is to kill the other player.

Imagine, instead, if PoTBS had actual skill involved in production. A's cannons are better than B's, so they cost more, everyone wants them, etc. B's options are:

1) B learns to make better cannons, and changes the market -- economic game

2) B kills A -- war game.

PoTBS is a wargame with a simplistic manufacturing add-on.

Or drive the other person out of business, to where it makes no point costwise for him to produce that.  Have done that with 3 main challengers to my textile market on BB.  One of the vanquished I made a partner.  Another saught my blessing before setting himself up.  Economy can be just another form of PvP if you can work it.  Granted, the results aren't as visible of satisfying, but power is always nice rofl.

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by olepi

To me, this is not really an economic game. The basic premise of economics is competition, and that is based on skill. Two players, given the same resources, should compete to produce the best product, and therefore prevail economically. If A makes much better cannons than B, then A will prosper and B will not (unless B has better marketing :) ).

It was a huge disappointment to me that in PoTBS there is no skill involved in harvesting and crafting. A's products are identical to B's. Economically, PoTBS is like playing poker with everyone having the same hand.

PoTBS is a war game, not an economic game. The only way to win economically is to kill the other player.

Imagine, instead, if PoTBS had actual skill involved in production. A's cannons are better than B's, so they cost more, everyone wants them, etc. B's options are:

1) B learns to make better cannons, and changes the market -- economic game

2) B kills A -- war game.

PoTBS is a wargame with a simplistic manufacturing add-on.

 

Or drive the other person out of business, to where it makes no point costwise for him to produce that.  Have done that with 3 main challengers to my textile market on BB.  One of the vanquished I made a partner.  Another saught my blessing before setting himself up.  Economy can be just another form of PvP if you can work it.  Granted, the results aren't as visible of satisfying, but power is always nice rofl.

At one point, however, it's not even a question of free market anymore.

I remember when I played on Rackham and before that, Blackbeard; I was one of the main producers of wood tar and hemp rope.  My prices were consistenly the lowest, and I even posted in non-French ports to expand my business.

I made some solid money out of it from March to May, then after that, nothing.  My goods didn't even sell anymore and my prices were still the lowest.

At that point, it meant that demand itself was rock-bottom across the ocean (probably due to dwindling populations), and that the market was dead outside of word-of-mouth and closed-loop societies.

By which time nobody could really be talking of "a working economy" with a straight face.

Well the reason you weren't selling to Brits around that time is.... that's when i started my textile business.  I moved into the private contract domain and a lot of shipwrights are now in my pocket on Blackbeard.  :)

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by olepi

To me, this is not really an economic game. The basic premise of economics is competition, and that is based on skill. Two players, given the same resources, should compete to produce the best product, and therefore prevail economically. If A makes much better cannons than B, then A will prosper and B will not (unless B has better marketing :) ).

It was a huge disappointment to me that in PoTBS there is no skill involved in harvesting and crafting. A's products are identical to B's. Economically, PoTBS is like playing poker with everyone having the same hand.

PoTBS is a war game, not an economic game. The only way to win economically is to kill the other player.

Imagine, instead, if PoTBS had actual skill involved in production. A's cannons are better than B's, so they cost more, everyone wants them, etc. B's options are:

1) B learns to make better cannons, and changes the market -- economic game

2) B kills A -- war game.

PoTBS is a wargame with a simplistic manufacturing add-on.

 

Or drive the other person out of business, to where it makes no point costwise for him to produce that.  Have done that with 3 main challengers to my textile market on BB.  One of the vanquished I made a partner.  Another saught my blessing before setting himself up.  Economy can be just another form of PvP if you can work it.  Granted, the results aren't as visible of satisfying, but power is always nice rofl.

How did you drive them out of business? By outproducing them? cheaper prices? better quality? or war?

How did I drive em out of business?

A.)  I outsold them

B.) I was able to do it at a far cheaper price.  They couldn't compete making riggings when I had everyone doing the subcomponents at a 5% markup.  I then threw 600 units of Riggings on the AH at 300 when he was before selling a lot more in price, and he couldn't compete.  I then began establishing a network of all the big shipwrights for the Brits.  Those textiles were immediately sold to them at a discounted rate, provided they remain a steady client and don't resell on the AH since I was monitoring them twice a day.  They had precious little options to sell with.  When I saw new players or societies, if they were new players I drafted them into my operation making hemp.  They only made a few thousand doubloons a week, but their ships were paid for up to level 39 at which time I would offer them the opportunity to go to another business, fully backed by my money.  Their lots and mats were paid for, and each received a "severance" package of 50k-100k, depending on what they were producing next.

Only one person on Blackbeard does it better, and he does brass and we get along great, so I'm not too worried.  :)

Originally posted by iceman00

 

With all due respect, you got smacked down on the POTBS  forums for this, and I concurred with it.

Me I'm an eco guy.  Love the economy.  Spend a lot of my time doing econ.  Yet I understand that the ultimate purpose of my econ is to get my British brethren in the best stuff they can afford, so we can use that better gear to give us an advantage against the other nationals and rats on the open sea.

Don't recall getting smacked down but if you believe it so be it.

For someone who spends a lot of time in the economy kinda proves my point, everyone needs to spend a lot of time doing eco activities or PVE to maintain a constant push in PVP. This is because when you lose in PVP combat it has high loss associated with it.

If you join Potbs for only PVP with no intention to play the economy you wont stay long.

If you join Potbs to play the economy with no intention to PVP you will stay much longer.

Thus the game caters for mainly eco minded players imo.

In one sense you are right eco-players produce the vehicles or ships needed to PVP without which PvP would hardly exist except in fallback or civilian ships.

Originally posted by DJXeon

Originally posted by iceman00

 

With all due respect, you got smacked down on the POTBS  forums for this, and I concurred with it.

Me I'm an eco guy.  Love the economy.  Spend a lot of my time doing econ.  Yet I understand that the ultimate purpose of my econ is to get my British brethren in the best stuff they can afford, so we can use that better gear to give us an advantage against the other nationals and rats on the open sea.

 

Don't recall getting smacked down but if you believe it so be it.

For someone who spends a lot of time in the economy kinda proves my point, everyone needs to spend a lot of time doing eco activities or PVE to maintain a constant push in PVP. This is because when you lose in PVP combat it has high loss associated with it.

If you join Potbs for only PVP with no intention to play the economy you wont stay long.

If you join Potbs to play the economy with no intention to PVP you will stay much longer.

Thus the game caters for mainly eco minded players imo.

In one sense you are right eco-players produce the vehicles or ships needed to PVP without which PvP would hardly exist except in fallback or civilian ships.

I don't think that's the point.  the POINT is that the functions of the game serve PvP.  PvP does not exist to serve the econ.  While some PvP'ers and Port Battle guys have made me quite rich (LOL) in the end, I am at their service.  I make the stuff so they can blow things up.  A lot of the good PvP'ers i know don't even do econ.  one of them is quite content to farm ouit his needs to people.  I handle the  sails and riggings, someone else makes the runners rigs, and so on.  the economy isn't an end game in and of itself.  PvP and RvR is.  I think its a distinction with a difference, and a very important one.

Originally posted by iceman00

 

I don't think that's the point.  the POINT is that the functions of the game serve PvP.  PvP does not exist to serve the econ.  

That's where we have to agree to disagree, i remember asking Isildur about this as the economy appears to made with PvP as an afterthought.

The way i look at it is that Is that the economy should serve PVP but what FLS has created is PVP that serves a huge economy.

The only reason PvP has such high risk & loss is to serve the economy which Isildur admitted he protected at all costs.

We would indeed have to disagree.  I can think of many reasons of the steep PvP loss entirely independent of the economy.  Its a game where loss actually matters.  No more PvP which is entirely pointless.  I for one like that.  It absolutely sucks when you lose that last dura, no doubt about that.  But it's a game where actions have consequences.  PvP becomes that much more intense when it isn't a zerge fest.  The point of PvP in this game isn't "wait out the zerge fest or leave the zone."  Simply put, a group HAS to work well together to survive.  When you die, there's no coming back from that in that particular fight.  It's why I still think that when you get a 6 v 6, its bar none the best PvP in any game.

Originally posted by iceman00

We would indeed have to disagree.  I can think of many reasons of the steep PvP loss entirely independent of the economy.  Its a game where loss actually matters.  No more PvP which is entirely pointless.  I for one like that.  It absolutely sucks when you lose that last dura, no doubt about that.  But it's a game where actions have consequences.  PvP becomes that much more intense when it isn't a zerge fest.  The point of PvP in this game isn't "wait out the zerge fest or leave the zone."  Simply put, a group HAS to work well together to survive.  When you die, there's no coming back from that in that particular fight.  It's why I still think that when you get a 6 v 6, its bar none the best PvP in any game.

Don't forget PvP loss comprises of not only a dura point, it also includes the loss of all permanent fittings costing up to 50k & your unsecured cargo which can cost a lot more.

In my mind at least this is the main reason why players avoid red circles & inhibits PvP fun.

The economy has nearly all its loss or market from PvP players & this should not be the case for a healthy prosperous game imo.

Originally posted by iceman00

We would indeed have to disagree.  I can think of many reasons of the steep PvP loss entirely independent of the economy.  Its a game where loss actually matters.  No more PvP which is entirely pointless.  I for one like that.  It absolutely sucks when you lose that last dura, no doubt about that.  But it's a game where actions have consequences.  PvP becomes that much more intense when it isn't a zerge fest.  The point of PvP in this game isn't "wait out the zerge fest or leave the zone."  Simply put, a group HAS to work well together to survive.  When you die, there's no coming back from that in that particular fight.  It's why I still think that when you get a 6 v 6, its bar none the best PvP in any game.

Very interesting conversation, and perhaps the first sustained exchange of ideas in a few months.

Loss might matter, but in the absence of a genuine RvR conflict, the PvP remains pointless, and the loss becomes a burden.  Why should you risk anything if, in the end, your own side receives nothing for its effort, even in victory?

Map resets are necessary to prevent a lopsided server that can't be rearranged without starting over.  But that also means that the rewards must in themselves be meaningless apart from a purely symbolic value, lest that confer an advantage upon a winning faction.  But even with that, it gets tiresome if you show up and lose every single time.

I know both you and GB play Brits; I played French, arguably the least popular faction, and that made all the difference in the world.  You never really had population problems; we did.  And in the end, it meant showing up at port battles while being sure to lose because we didn't have the numbers; and even with a full 24, we knew that even if we won, we probably would face a much greater setback than the Brits would in losing the battle, unless we sustained no losses whatsoever.

In a war of attrition, we would end up losing our ships and forced to grind to replace them, while all the Brits had to do was to pool together their greater numbers and replenish their fleet much faster.  In the best of cases, regardless of PvP skill, it was your garage-league team facing the Yankees; with population levels becoming critical, it meant your left-fielder was off on vacation that weekend, and your right-handed pitcher had sprained his arm and was now throwing from the left.

In the best of cases, barring a miracle, the final score is easily predictable; with even lower population levels, even showing up at all is a waste of time.  Even with map resets, there is just no chance of changing the outcome with a major population imbalance problem.

Get a 6v6 together, and I have no doubt that it's fun. But then I could get that playing NavyField, entirely for free -- and it gets tiresome after a week.

Regarding the economy, I was under the impression that the economic players were among the first to leave the game, precisely because they were considered second-class to the PvPers.  PvPers might have a tendency to think like this in most games, but in other games, crafting takes time and sometimes involves skill, so PvPers grudgingly acknowledge your presence, because they don't have the inclination to spend hours doing it themselves.  But in this game, every PvPer can just waste a few minutes crafting his daily labour allotment, with no time lost by the player himself.  Which meant, at best, closed societies where even the most ardent PvPer contributed to the crafting effort (such as your hemp producers), and at worst, cross-server lot-swapping and multi-boxing. 

At most, you needed one level-45 freetrader in your society to build the master shipyards, but for other people, a level-20 freetrader (usually an alt, so as not to destroy his reputation with foreign nations) was enough: Trade Connections, and the ability to sail the lowest of the cargo ships, the Dromedary, were all you needed.  Maybe in some cases advanced structures were worth it; but when you were French and underpowered, your Antilles cities were easy pickings and constantly in the red, so it was not exactly an advantage to go there.

You're right about the economy serving the PvP, and I remember writing something to this effect six months ago or so.  But that is where the relationship ends.  The PvP becomes meaningless in the absence of genuine RvR -- of actual need to control resources, which is warring has always been about.  If you can set up production in an enemy port with a good reputation level every FT starts out with, cranking out vital resources immediately shipped to your own side on a ship which can't be attacked (in the absence of a red circle) with only a minimal increase in taxation, it basically means that the RvR is meaningless outside of deep water harbours, because of the taxes involved in the building of bundleboats -- but now I'm hearing they want to get rid of bundleboats altogether?

So let's add risk to RvR.  Prevent the production of certain goods in enemy ports (would you let a First Rate sail out of port, let alone see it being built without doing something?), put a heavy excise tax on other goods to discourage their leaving the country; charge prohibitive customs duties to foreign producers posting on your auction houses), etc, etc.

In fact, I remember suggesting once that map resets ought to be done away with, to be replaced by periodic map calculations to determine the winner, and that then ports are slowly given back to their starting faction (in a "Dispatch from Europe: Treaty cedes Tampa back to the French!").  It certainly sounds more appealing and mysterious than: "Map reset.  Let's start over."

In fact, in the entire PvP/econ debate, there is one interesting remark I saw on several occasions: PvPers want red circles; economic players hate them.  PvPers want to take a port; economic players with production there would rather have it firmly in the hands of the enemy, even if that involves higher taxes, rather than see it perenially contested, especially if their own side is the weaker one.  PvPers understand that they need economic production for their war effort; economic players know that they need military action to make profits.  But the two don't trust one another, and have completely different aims.  Game mechanics just lopsided the relationship in favour of the PvPers -- and the economic players seem to have left.

Originally posted by Vetarnias

Regarding the economy, I was under the impression that the economic players were among the first to leave the game, precisely because they were considered second-class to the PvPers.  PvPers might have a tendency to think like this in most games, but in other games, crafting takes time and sometimes involves skill, so PvPers grudgingly acknowledge your presence, because they don't have the inclination to spend hours doing it themselves.  But in this game, every PvPer can just waste a few minutes crafting his daily labour allotment, with no time lost by the player himself.  Which meant, at best, closed societies where even the most ardent PvPer contributed to the crafting effort (such as your hemp producers), and at worst, cross-server lot-swapping and multi-boxing. 

As always Veternias your posts has been in-depth & to the point, you have made some very valuable contributions to Potbs which like the most of us that have taken the time to do so have more often than not been ignored by FLS. The reason for this is because they have never been clear in their own minds what is really wrong or what it would take to put it right. You can take several quotes from the lead designer & then only ponder in dismay as to why FLS did not follow them through with decisive actions when they were needed.

One small point i would like to pick up & comment on:

In beta Potbs there was a hard core of mainly economic or Isildur followers some of which still exist today; although i believe his credibility & position today is much less tenable there is probably still nobody strong enough to replace him & it would probably leave FLS is a worse state if he was to leave or be replaced as any new person picking up on his job would have an enormous task to change things around.

The PVP players that were invited to play beta saw the problems coming but were shouted down.

Isildur promoted Potbs as a PVP game claiming that anything from producing a log of oak was PvP when in fact it was more of an RvR economic activity that only supported PvP.

Due to this heavy promotion as a PvP game FLS was surprisingly totally unprepared for the many vocal PvPers that arrived at release saying that they could not afford to maintain PvP. The FLS knee-jerk response was to introduce inflationary insurance which still exists today. The economy was "murdered"as Isildur put it & two of the vital sinks which he planned as part of the huge economy way back in beta still do not exist today. Surprisingly FLS has now chosen to revamp avcom & left us with a broken economy or game.

In short i don't think that eco-players feel second rate to PvP but left because they did not like to produce for the kind of LvL50 PK or PvP player that shouted & ganked by killing the game for many others including newbies. Despite that i still believe the game today has some great PvP if you can find it but it still mainly caters for ECO or PvE players.

I suspect that with closed-loop societies, even economic players might be on the way out.  No point in playing if the market is dead and that money is meaningless.

Where I differ from you is on the question of insurance.  Sadly, I left the game just before that was brought in, so I never saw for myself the amount of inflation it created.  I heard that it had most devastating effects when coupled with the high prices for bundleboats, yet even without insurance, the end result would have been the same: bundleboats would have monopolized port battles sooner or later, with the larger factions (e.g. you guys) having an even greater advantage with this.  Your society loses a bundleboat?  You just get your members grinding to replace it, and if you collaborate with other societies as well, everybody just pitches in.  Insurance just means, as far as closed-loop societies are concerned, a faster rate of replacement.  This might minimally advantage one type of player: those who play in smaller factions and in closed societies, and who already have a bundleboat.

In fact, even before I left, I saw inflation come into play, so while insurance might have compounded it, it cannot entirely be blamed for it.  It also fails to explain why inflation started in the first place.  Let's consider, for starters, that everyone can be a crafter, which if anything should lead to increased competition and a decrease in prices, and that the initial cost at the basic level remains the same -- no increase in taxes, no reduction in available labour, no frost to destroy your crops or an unfavourable exchange rate to reduce your purchasing power, just business as usual. 

Insurance, if anything, should have alleviated the reliance on the marketplace as a source of revenue; i.e. one could have posted at little more than above cost and it would have been sufficient to maintain one's standard, especially with marketplace competition remaining the same.  Certainly, insurance introduced tons and tons of extra money into the market, but that alone does not explain inflation in a game, as stipulated above, where anyone can be a crafter. 

In itself, it's not a case where supply and demand as we know it really enters into play, as there is nothing whatsoever which forces a producer of oak logs (or any sort of basic goods) part of a closed-loop society, to sell his leftovers at 20 doubloons apiece when he could sell them at one doubloon above cost -- especially if all closed-loop society members who produce oak logs try to sell them at the auctionhouse.  If anything, this should bring prices down, unless there is a shortage.

And that is why I find the PotBS economic nut hard to crack in this case, because for all the economic theories we could cite, I have seen so much contradictory evidence that I can't make sense of it all in a single attempt.  Back in June, i.e. pre-insurance days, I often saw two concurrent phenomena: a complete shortage of certain goods on the auctionhouse (which should have driven prices up), but also a complete lack of demand for them.  And here I am not talking about certain luxury items like gold ingots or certain types of low-level consumables.  I am talking about some of the products I did make, mainstays of ship construction -- hemp rope, wood tar, even leather at times.  Sometimes I was the only seller on the market, and I did not exactly raise my prices to obscene levels -- just my usual selling price.

Yet they did not sell for a few days.  And that was not just in Grenville, the French economic hub, but in Sisal, Campeche, and Bartica as well.  In other words, even at times when I had a monopoly, and selling at the usual going rates, my wares did not sell.  Shortage and zero demand for strategic goods.

Much as I tried to find an explanation, the only one which fits the bill is a combination of closed-loop societies (no reliance on the market, reducing demand), private contracts like Iceman's (a variation on the above, with a profit margin), and purely economic players -- those who hate to risk ships and who hoard money, the type of people Isildur once railed against -- quitting the game.

Why did they quit? Perhaps because PvP was inevitable (and as I mentioned in my previous post, it's clear some economic players would rather avoid it altogether), and perhaps because there was nothing inherently interesting in playing an economic player in a game where the actual crafting required no involvement beside putting up structures and click buttons for a few minutes -- which everyone else  could do. This post is pretty interesting in this regard.

So instead of an overstocked market situation where profit margins are so insignificant as to discourage production with a lucrative purpose in mind (which in turn would have led to a shortage as people stopped producing, which would have led people to start again because of the shortage, and on, and on, which if I recall correctly happened in the first month or two of the game), you got to a point where the pure crafters just quit, leaving production to PvPers and societies -- people who sometimes don't want to be forced to craft in the first place, and would sooner grind NPC's than play the market.  Then greed set in, because the crafters that remained, few in numbers, realized that people now had more disposable income thanks to insurance and that they had more or less cornered the market.

So I would suggest that even though insurance increased the money pool, which *in real life* would have caused inflation, the real problem is that populations have grown too small to sustain an economy.  You started seeing that in May/June, and I suspect it's just worse now.  Bring back independent traders, and I suspect that, insurance or not, prices would come down again because of accrued competition.

What I would have loved to see, to alleviate this, is a player-run insurance system, where the player decides whom he wants to cover, whether cargo, the ship, permanent fittings, or a combination of any of those are to be covered, what the premiums and payouts would be, length of coverage, etc.  Which of course would need a new set of criteria to determine what happens in case of bankruptcy -- perhaps a negative balance, with "The Game" acting as lender, until you make things right again, while being forbiden to issue insurance until you have a positive balance. But in the meantime, what should have been done was to make insurance optional, with a policy to be purchased from a civilan ship trader (or perhaps pre-made templates made by players and sold on the AH in the manner of ship or structure deeds, with the payout coming from above as with the current insurance scheme).  This would make insurance optional (if you forget to buy one, that's your damn problem), and affordable without being free (and perhaps more expensive in the case of bundleboats).  That way, at least some money would be taken out of the economy.

Originally posted by Vetarnias

I suspect that with closed-loop societies, even economic players might be on the way out.  No point in playing if the market is dead and that money is meaningless.

...

I am talking about some of the products I did make, mainstays of ship construction -- hemp rope, wood tar, even leather at times.  Sometimes I was the only seller on the market, and I did not exactly raise my prices to obscene levels -- just my usual selling price.

Yet they did not sell for a few days.  And that was not just in Grenville, the French economic hub, but in Sisal, Campeche, and Bartica as well.  In other words, even at times when I had a monopoly, and selling at the usual going rates, my wares did not sell.  Shortage and zero demand for strategic goods.

Much as I tried to find an explanation, the only one which fits the bill is a combination of closed-loop societies (no reliance on the market, reducing demand), private contracts like Iceman's (a variation on the above, with a profit margin), and purely economic players -- those who hate to risk ships and who hoard money, the type of people Isildur once railed against -- quitting the game.

...

What I would have loved to see, to alleviate this, is a player-run insurance system, where the player decides whom he wants to cover, whether cargo, the ship, permanent fittings, or a combination of any of those are to be covered, what the premiums and payouts would be, length of coverage, etc.  Which of course would need a new set of criteria to determine what happens in case of bankruptcy -- perhaps a negative balance, with "The Game" acting as lender, until you make things right again, while being forbiden to issue insurance until you have a positive balance. But in the meantime, what should have been done was to make insurance optional, with a policy to be purchased from a civilan ship trader (or perhaps pre-made templates made by players and sold on the AH in the manner of ship or structure deeds, with the payout coming from above as with the current insurance scheme).  This would make insurance optional (if you forget to buy one, that's your damn problem), and affordable without being free (and perhaps more expensive in the case of bundleboats).  That way, at least some money would be taken out of the economy.

I clipped this post to the bit which really caught my eye.

Right now on Invincible (Aussie Server) I am playing French, and produce Rope and Tar.  Next to zero demand.  I am about to start producing leather because there is none available at French ports at all - in fact there has not been any  for some time.  I have been watching the market for a fortnight and it is only available in one port in the whole Carribean...

I also reached the conclusion that it was closed society production that was to blame.

As for what needs to be done - well - lots of things.

The interesting thing is that in the original developer blogs they talked about player run insurance and other ideas (like paying another player to haul your wares) IIRC.  Yet they never put proper tools in to allow this to be done.

The irony is - these things could be done relatively easily (in comparison to some of the other things they have done) and might make a significant difference to game play.

My own idea was a way to quickly and (relatively) easily introduce a proper Naval Ranking and Command System into the game.     This included seeing Naval Officers getting paid and being issued a proper assignment / posting.  In fact I even planned to introduce it to Invincible on my own (to prove the concept was workable).  But, the snag was that I cannot make money.  My FT rarely sells goods so never has the money get the system up and keep it running.

The other thing is I wonder what FLS is actually playing at?
I saw this thread DJXeon : http://www.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43327
and I have to admit I have wondered about this myself for some time.

I'm not much into conspiracy theories but I have even considered the fact that PotBS might be just one huge experiment for MMO designers throughout the industry to randomly throw ideas at and see what happens?

Either that or they are still listening to this twit.  This thread is a classic example of someone (or several someones?) unable to actually consider all the implications of their proposed 'rule change' through to all possible conclusions (keline is correct).

I don't think anyone -- well, I mean other players; I wouldn't bet on developers -- listens to Jack Simple's musings anymore.  That's what happens when you threaten to quit every other week, and have a narrow vision of the game to fit your own style, even though it wouldn't work on a larger scale.

That later incident Jack is mentioning doesn't surprise me, but it's not exactly the most egregious example of cheating I've seen.  Best way to solve all this would be to allow to fire on your own side; not only would it add an element of treachery, but it would also make battles much, much more realistic if friendly fire is enabled -- no longer will you get players firing through a small opening between other ships.  (But I don't think the game could enable it in its current form).

Based on what I'm seeing on the PotBS official forums these days, it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  The developers have abandoned the forums for the most part.  Case in point: Isildur, who has posted less than ten times since the beginning of September, and even then mostly in FLS's current pet project, Avatar Combat. Is there anyone who has seriously ASKED about an AvCom revamp?  It's arguably one of the weakest points of the game, but it's also one of the most inconsequential -- it's like saying my bathroom is the least decorated place in the house.

An AvCom revamp is clearly not something that can be justified by saying "well, the art department has to do something, and they don't do game mechanics", yet up that alley FLS goes instead of the handful of more pressing issues around.  The economy? Doesn't matter.  Population imbalance? Shhh, it can't be helped anyway.  Ganking?  Why, we gave you our splendid idea of 6v9's to solve this, haven't we?

There is a pattern emerging, and it's that FLS takes into consideration everything written on its forums as a way of deciding what NOT to do, and go instead for things nobody actually asked for. Hence we got, in turn, unrest decay shutdown, underdog tools, 6v9's, AvCom, etc.  Oh, and that new pirate class in lieu of trying to justify just what the pirate endgame is supposed to be.

In a way, I'm almost sorry I quit the game in June, because I would have loved to see those wrong-headed decisions first-hand.  I would be surprised if a gaming reporter doesn't turn this into a lengthy feature, even a book.  It's just too painful, yet comical, to watch, like a guy who thinks he's drowning in a puddle of water.  Put all the gaffes together -- DrewC's remark, Isildur's "next big failure", the devlogs, the admissions of the game being incomplete at launch, the erratic development of new mechanics without a masterly plan in sight -- all of this could easily be a cautionary tale for the ages, a "Devil's Candy" for the gaming industry.

The other thing annoying me of late is the developers evading questions and playing a little game of wait-and-see with their remaining subscribers.  Rusty's overextended drumroll over the fate of Invincible vividly comes to mind.  It's been two months since the issue was first raised; at one point someone is bound to ask him to put up or shut up.  Especially pathetic, since everyone knows there are basically two options: merger with the rest of the servers, or closure.  Just get it over with.

Your ranking system is intriguing, but unlikely to be implemented (and I'm guessing that if they bring it in, they will just make it level-based like the rest of it, which would be the most straightforward and disappointing way to go about it).

Originally posted by DJXeon

Originally posted by iceman00

We would indeed have to disagree.  I can think of many reasons of the steep PvP loss entirely independent of the economy.  Its a game where loss actually matters.  No more PvP which is entirely pointless.  I for one like that.  It absolutely sucks when you lose that last dura, no doubt about that.  But it's a game where actions have consequences.  PvP becomes that much more intense when it isn't a zerge fest.  The point of PvP in this game isn't "wait out the zerge fest or leave the zone."  Simply put, a group HAS to work well together to survive.  When you die, there's no coming back from that in that particular fight.  It's why I still think that when you get a 6 v 6, its bar none the best PvP in any game.

 

Don't forget PvP loss comprises of not only a dura point, it also includes the loss of all permanent fittings costing up to 50k & your unsecured cargo which can cost a lot more.

In my mind at least this is the main reason why players avoid red circles & inhibits PvP fun.

The economy has nearly all its loss or market from PvP players & this should not be the case for a healthy prosperous game imo.

There's a person on blackbeard that represents the Yacht Club.  normally, i view their kind as representing all that is wrong with this game.  But you made this point on the POTBS, and he came with what I view an equally compelling counterpoint, one that I found valid.

You could make PvP entirely risk free, and many people would still not PvP.  People do not join a game that heavily advertises PvP for no risk.  A lot of people don't PvP...... because they aren't very good at it.  That's not a knock on them.  It's simply that this isn't their style of play.  It's not a discussion of one being a "carebear."

I remember when I played pre-cu SWG.  PvP was for all intents and purposes risk free.  There was a group of rebels who were essentially being bullies on Dantooine.  We decided to challenge their perception, and had a few stalemate battles.  We then decided to take the fight to them.  We performed a march on their home city, taking the fight to their home turf.  They came out to defend.... and got slaughtered.  The slaughter continued for 4 hours.  We marched all around their city, proclaiming that the Empire intended to restore order so that her children would no longer feel chaos.  (Great RP arc lol.)  This was absolutely humiliating for them.  After that night, we didn't see them PvPing anybody for 3 months.  They ran up against a team of obviously superior skill, and wanted nothing to do with it.  For others, PvP is not their style.  They don't want to enter something they feel they suck at.  (Even if they might be good.)  That's just the way things are.  Making pvp "more accessible" by eliminating any sense of risk won't change a thing.  Not to mention that it would wreck the economy, since right now, economy serves PvP.  It should work to more, but right now, it doesn't.

Of course, a lot of this is FLS' fault.  They appealed to gamers who thought they wouldn't be getting what they got.  They made the game as PvP having a niche, not PvP being all important in the game.

Originally posted by Vetarnias

Originally posted by iceman00

We would indeed have to disagree.  I can think of many reasons of the steep PvP loss entirely independent of the economy.  Its a game where loss actually matters.  No more PvP which is entirely pointless.  I for one like that.  It absolutely sucks when you lose that last dura, no doubt about that.  But it's a game where actions have consequences.  PvP becomes that much more intense when it isn't a zerge fest.  The point of PvP in this game isn't "wait out the zerge fest or leave the zone."  Simply put, a group HAS to work well together to survive.  When you die, there's no coming back from that in that particular fight.  It's why I still think that when you get a 6 v 6, its bar none the best PvP in any game.

Very interesting conversation, and perhaps the first sustained exchange of ideas in a few months.

Loss might matter, but in the absence of a genuine RvR conflict, the PvP remains pointless, and the loss becomes a burden.  Why should you risk anything if, in the end, your own side receives nothing for its effort, even in victory?

Map resets are necessary to prevent a lopsided server that can't be rearranged without starting over.  But that also means that the rewards must in themselves be meaningless apart from a purely symbolic value, lest that confer an advantage upon a winning faction.  But even with that, it gets tiresome if you show up and lose every single time.

I know both you and GB play Brits; I played French, arguably the least popular faction, and that made all the difference in the world.  You never really had population problems; we did.  And in the end, it meant showing up at port battles while being sure to lose because we didn't have the numbers; and even with a full 24, we knew that even if we won, we probably would face a much greater setback than the Brits would in losing the battle, unless we sustained no losses whatsoever.

In a war of attrition, we would end up losing our ships and forced to grind to replace them, while all the Brits had to do was to pool together their greater numbers and replenish their fleet much faster.  In the best of cases, regardless of PvP skill, it was your garage-league team facing the Yankees; with population levels becoming critical, it meant your left-fielder was off on vacation that weekend, and your right-handed pitcher had sprained his arm and was now throwing from the left.

In the best of cases, barring a miracle, the final score is easily predictable; with even lower population levels, even showing up at all is a waste of time.  Even with map resets, there is just no chance of changing the outcome with a major population imbalance problem.

Get a 6v6 together, and I have no doubt that it's fun. But then I could get that playing NavyField, entirely for free -- and it gets tiresome after a week.

Regarding the economy, I was under the impression that the economic players were among the first to leave the game, precisely because they were considered second-class to the PvPers.  PvPers might have a tendency to think like this in most games, but in other games, crafting takes time and sometimes involves skill, so PvPers grudgingly acknowledge your presence, because they don't have the inclination to spend hours doing it themselves.  But in this game, every PvPer can just waste a few minutes crafting his daily labour allotment, with no time lost by the player himself.  Which meant, at best, closed societies where even the most ardent PvPer contributed to the crafting effort (such as your hemp producers), and at worst, cross-server lot-swapping and multi-boxing. 

At most, you needed one level-45 freetrader in your society to build the master shipyards, but for other people, a level-20 freetrader (usually an alt, so as not to destroy his reputation with foreign nations) was enough: Trade Connections, and the ability to sail the lowest of the cargo ships, the Dromedary, were all you needed.  Maybe in some cases advanced structures were worth it; but when you were French and underpowered, your Antilles cities were easy pickings and constantly in the red, so it was not exactly an advantage to go there.

You're right about the economy serving the PvP, and I remember writing something to this effect six months ago or so.  But that is where the relationship ends.  The PvP becomes meaningless in the absence of genuine RvR -- of actual need to control resources, which is warring has always been about.  If you can set up production in an enemy port with a good reputation level every FT starts out with, cranking out vital resources immediately shipped to your own side on a ship which can't be attacked (in the absence of a red circle) with only a minimal increase in taxation, it basically means that the RvR is meaningless outside of deep water harbours, because of the taxes involved in the building of bundleboats -- but now I'm hearing they want to get rid of bundleboats altogether?

So let's add risk to RvR.  Prevent the production of certain goods in enemy ports (would you let a First Rate sail out of port, let alone see it being built without doing something?), put a heavy excise tax on other goods to discourage their leaving the country; charge prohibitive customs duties to foreign producers posting on your auction houses), etc, etc.

In fact, I remember suggesting once that map resets ought to be done away with, to be replaced by periodic map calculations to determine the winner, and that then ports are slowly given back to their starting faction (in a "Dispatch from Europe: Treaty cedes Tampa back to the French!").  It certainly sounds more appealing and mysterious than: "Map reset.  Let's start over."

In fact, in the entire PvP/econ debate, there is one interesting remark I saw on several occasions: PvPers want red circles; economic players hate them.  PvPers want to take a port; economic players with production there would rather have it firmly in the hands of the enemy, even if that involves higher taxes, rather than see it perenially contested, especially if their own side is the weaker one.  PvPers understand that they need economic production for their war effort; economic players know that they need military action to make profits.  But the two don't trust one another, and have completely different aims.  Game mechanics just lopsided the relationship in favour of the PvPers -- and the economic players seem to have left.

Some good points.  And yes, it always is good to have a real exchange of ideas.  I completely agree that the "end game" is left undefined.  There really is no consequence to winning a map.  There is no consequence to a lot of things.  What POTBS does have going for them is the sheer rush of a 6 v6 or a 24 v 24 port battle.  Without a doubt, that is some of the most fun I've ever had in the game.

I honestly don't think being a Brit has much of anything to do with it.  There was a time when TRM on blackbeard owned the Brits.  I remember the French and Brits teaming up once to counter Ginger Magician.  We brits saw the french fleet and were scared out of our minds.  We realized at that time "okay, they seriously have twice the SOL"s we have"  (This was around the time of the original server transfers.)  The transfers first to Rackham then to Antigua destroyed any organization on the Brits.  We had no economy.  Heck a national meeting in Vent produced at the time all the active players in the Brit nation.... all 15 of them.  We did a lot of recruitment amongst friends and new players.  and eventually people like myself, Rapture Lohan, and Chip Graybeard not only streamlined our economy, but greatly enhanced it.  Alpha was around providing a lot more leadership in port battles.  To be honest it is only just now for the first time since server transfers that we Brits are able to pump out SOL's like we do.  And our numbers are still less of a story than you think.  What we do have are several people who are serious about eco.  This complements our people who are serious about PvP.  (Some of us big eco guys are also big pvpers, we know our market lol.)