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.