PotBS Dev Tracker

All times are Eastern USA (GMT -04:00)

DrewC
1 in thread Could we get some feedback on pvp zone numbers? [Ask an FLS Developer!]
Quote:
Originally Posted by beltpouch
2.) I don't think 20% is enough. Rackham has ZERO zones right now. Roberts has 1 and Blackbeard has 3. I don't think 20% will be enough to really push us up to the levels we need.
I believe that the removal of unrest decay combined with this increase will be sufficient. As I said, we will reevaluate that next week, and it's easy to turn that number up higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beltpouch
3.) Speaking of "levels we need" any chance you guys could elaborate any more about what the "30% of the world in PvP" really means. It could be interpretted many different ways.
My expectation is: during peak play hours on an average server we will see 6-12 (12 being the absolute cap) ports at the Pirate PvP threshold or higher. My expectation is that this will take a bit of time to build up to (the removal of unrest decay should make unrest generation more of a slow burn).

Quote:
Originally Posted by beltpouch
4.) This doesn't address the fundemental risk vs. reward aspect which I think needs to happen at the same time. In short I think there should be an increase in db drops as well.
Yes, I regard that as a separate issue. And while I think it is one we need to address, we're not going to address it through creating more PvP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beltpouch
5.) What ports are "noobland ports". Could we have a list?
Basically these are the ports near the new player areas. We gave these ports unrest decay because we want to provide new players with some added protection. Here's a list:

Bartica
Cat Island
Cayenne
Campeche
Carlos Harbour
Cayo de Marquis
Grenville
Les Hattes
Nassau
Riding Rocks
Sabanqui
Sisal
Santa Clara
Tampa
Tampico
Whitby
West End
isildur
1 in thread Pirate conquest: change to port reversion? [Ask an FLS Developer!]
I was ill. Actually, the entire design team was out yesterday with one form of the plague or another.

Here's why I'm not excited by this idea:

When a nation takes a port, it is not intended to feel like a temporary change. The nation owns that port now, and for all game mechanical purposes it belongs to that nation. I don't want port ownership to feel irrelevant or transient.

Now, I know we reset ownership at a map victory. And believe me, I would like to have the time and resources to change that, too, so that (somehow) we let you keep ports between victories without the map becoming totally one-sided. But in the case of a map victory, there's a major event taking place, and with it worldwide upheavals. Between the sense of 'everything's changing' and the reward handouts, I'm handwaving with my left hand to distract you from what my right hand is doing -- switching all the ports back.

I don't like it. I don't like port capture feeling transitory. If Britain takes Sisal, Sisal should be a British port, period. I want you to invest in the captured ports, defend them, and use them as forward bases from which to launch further attacks.

Pirate capture reverting a port to its original owners does, undeniably, elevate the pirate world PvP role to that of a more immediate and short-term wild card. But I think it does so at the expense of any sense of permanence to your captures -- and any sense of permanence is already so fragile from the map reset mechanic that I'm worried it would kill it altogether.

I am not dogmatic about this, and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that's where I initially stand on this idea.
DrewC
1 in thread New Devlog: Duels and Skirmishes [Devlogs]
While adding further incentives to Conquest PvP is definitely something we plan on doing, our goal here is to create a path for the less committed PvP player. Conquest PvP is very high risk, the barrier to entry is quite high. We want to create a way for players who are interested in PvP to experiment with it, without the high risk.
Action Frank
1 in thread Application Error [Known Issues / Troubleshooting]
Turn on crash dump logging and attach the dump and client logs to a new support ticket. The how and where of these files is in this post: http://www.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9456
isildur
1 in thread What are we doing about the Turn-in exploit? [Discuss: PvP and Conquest]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo LaFuze
What stops a nation from gaining a dominating position and devoting all their efforts to maintaining the status quo?
Total victory points in the system are always increasing. There is no way to reduce the total number of points in the system. Every new captured port is 3 more points added that never go away.

In order to make this happen, you would have to have total and complete control over not only all members of your nation -- to keep them from 'accidentally' taking another port and triggering the victory -- but all members of all other nations as well, to keep them from gradually chipping out their own victory 3 points at a time. You don't have to hold a port to get those 3 permanent points; you just have to take it once.

As well, there are the pirates. Keep in mind that pirates gain points every single time they take a port, even if it's the same port over and over again. This means that pirates ultimately act as a timer. Sooner or later they'll win through persistence.

We're looking into changing the balance of points between taking a port and holding a port, but that's a side issue. The 'timer' is always intended to be the ever-increasing number of points each nation is inevitably accumulating.
DrewC
1 in thread New Devlog: Duels and Skirmishes [Devlogs]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshesFall
I hope that the duel and skirmish systems apply to swashbuckling as well?
"Duel at dawn!"
Eventually yes. The first release of the Duel system will not include Avatar options, but it is something we will add later.
fraxl
1 in thread Society Tools [The Playability Lab]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafeen
I have a few ideas, though I'm sure they've been posted above, but 11 pages is a bit much to wade through .

The Society UI
As you probably noticed in the "Open Ideas" thread, I'm rather particular on my UI. So this deserves it's own section here .

1) Member Font - This needs to be changed. The white/gray text with a black border looks very bad at that size. The use of a border on such a small font actually lowers readability, rather than raising it.

2) Group Search - This simply shouldn't be present on the society tab (or friends tab really). Ideally, moving the group search tool to it's own tab, and merging the Inbox and Compose tabs to a single "Mail" tab would be a great way to go.

3) Member information - There needs to be a way to view the following information inside the society window (whether the member is online or offline): Society Rank (already shown), Career, Player Rank (aka "level"), Location (already shown, though could be expanded), Last Login, and "Notes" (see below for detail).

4) Presented Information - All that stuff above will *not* fit in the window if it remains readable, so there should be either a dropdown or a toggle that allows the user to swap between different presented info. This can be handled by "Member Info" and "Society Info" options.

4a) Member Info - This would include Name, Rank, Career, Location
4b) Society Info - This would include Name, Society Rank, Last Login, "Notes".

5) Headers - Each column of information should have headers. This would make it more of a table look than a list look, which (at least in my opinion) would be much cleaner. These headers would obviously change based on the presented information above.

6) Sorting - The ability to sort by each column would be best, simply by clicking on the appropriate header. Click to toggle between ascending and descending.

7) Online/Offline Filtering - A simple toggle that says "Show Offline Members", default is off.

Society Features
1) Customizable Ranks - Rather than 3 hard-coded ranks, the Society Leader should have the ability to create several (more than 3, but less than 10) custom ranks. The leader should then have the option to change the following aspects of these ranks: Rank Name, Rank Permissions (/soc chat, /officer chat, invite rights, mail rights, promotion/demotion rights, etc), and Rank Hierarchy.

2) Rank Hierarchy System - One place where WoW's UI fails is editing Rank Hierarchy. There should be an easy to use system in place for Society Leaders to move different ranks up and down in the list without affecting Members' current ranks. Perhaps something as "simple" as a RankID designation for each rank name (which will house all the aspects minus the hierarchy) coupled with a RankHierarchyID designation to preserve the Rank options.

3) Society Item Transfers - An easy way for society members to transfer items to each other, this can even be set with the Rank options detailed above. Now, this can be exploited by untrustworthy members fairly easily, however, it should be the responsibility of the Society Leader to set permissions and limits smartly. My vision of this would be "Drop Orders". Drop orders are basically items dropped off for x person in the society. The order would auto-send a mail to the member saying "soandso has left suchandsuch in someport for you. You can sail to the port and speak with the Auctioneer to pick it up." The item gets left on the retrieve tab. The "dropper" could set the price and all that if they wish. While similar to the AH system already in place, this could be used to guarentee a resource goes to x person in the society for y price (where y would normally be much lower than typical AH pricing).

4) "Notes" - Adding in the ability to tag notes to members. An officer and a player note would be great, but a single note is fine as well. This could be used for a multitude of reasons, and would be especially good for certain crafting specialties.

That's about all I got for now (I bet you're happy too )
Thank you for this great feedback! You are going to <3 the new society UI, I think. I hope you've read the devlog I posted yesterday!

As for the other society features, they are definitely things we're considering. They are significant changes, however, and they have to be in the queue with all the other ways we can improve the game.
ttobey
1 in thread NPC to Avatar Clothing [General PotBS Discussion]
That will probably make it in.
fraxl
1 in thread multiple chat windows? [The Playability Lab]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeroth
One thing you should note, is that Monthar is doing that on 1680 x 1050. What he's doing there is not even remotely possible any lower resolution.
Yeah, I know. We usually expect people to be playing at 1024x768 or better, so we design for that minimum. It's still nice to know what people with higher res do with all that extra room though, especially with chat.
DrewC
1 in thread New Devlog: Duels and Skirmishes [Devlogs]
I didn't get into it in the devlog, it was a fairly high level overview, but there will be some serious restrictions on high risk Skirmish battles, specifically to combat the type of exploits you describe. This system is still very much in development, and it's possible that we won't be able to make those restrictions strict enough, and we will have to go in another direction to reward high risk Skirmish battles.

Conquest is PvP with a purpose. You're out there trying to accomplish some goal. I don't think this system is going to take away from that. If you want to flip ports, if you want to take over the Caribbean, if you want to impact the world, you have to go out and fight for it. The Skirmish system doesn't change that. It simply gives players who want a competitive ship battle against other players an option that doesn't require the risk or time investment of PvP.