The intentions behind this proposal:

1) Cause more action ("combat") in the game
2) Make it more important to be be Duke in a port-holding nation
3) Introduce more complexity to trading

So, the main idea is simply to change the way supply and demand works - particularly demand. Today, the ports that has least of a good in their "secret warehouse" is offering the highest price for that good. And the one having most of it's "own" good is selling for the lowest price. So this is a sort of "relative" supply and demand. I suggest to replace this by an ABSOLUTE supply and demand. This means the following:

A) A port producing a good, is selling that good for a price solely dependent on the amount of that good in his warehouse, independently of other ports. The price has a minumum and maximum value, with the minimum price being much lower than today (the maximum stays the same). (In addition, the price could also be dependent on the "port warehouse size", which could be dependent on port population - this is optional).

B) A port is offering a price for each specific good based on how much it currently has of that good in it's warehouse - independent of other ports. The price has a minimum and maximum value, with the maximum being MUCH higher than today (maybe 15 gc above minimum), while the minimum stays the same. Goods are consumed at a fixed rate (that rate may be dependent on port population; again, optional).

C) Party cards change. Rather than "sell" goods at a fixed price, they now "sell" them with a certain percentage bonus. Maybe 50% over what you would otherwise get in the port. This means that Duke bonuses and East india card bonuses also are boosted by party cards.

D) When successfully plundering a ship, the cargo of the losing fleet is lost. It's value is transformed to gc and given to the winner as gc.

Points A and B will give more complex trade. And the increased max prices will make even long distance trade routes profitable. Point C ensures that being Duke is worth fighting for. These three points also gives more income to traders - if left undisturbed. Point D will make plundering slightly more profitable, and also make it slightly easier to steal trade ships, since they can no longer use cargo to pay ransom. Also, it makes it possible to prevent a fleet from getting the cargo to it's destination.

So, how and why will this cause more action? Well, up until now, traders have had no reason whatsoever to fight each other. A trader gets more or less the same from his trade routes, independently of how many others use the same trade route. However, with these rules in place, that changes. It now becomes profitable to stop other traders from selling a particular good in the same port as you do. So there's an incentive for traders to get other traders plundered. It will make for an interesting mix of trade and combat. Perhaps, for instance, Egypt is fighting (or paying others to fight) any non-Egyptian trade vessel transporting tobacco to Goroum, to make sure the prices there stay high.

I think this will give an incentive for traders to wish to stop other traders, while today, there is no reason for that. This incentive will, I believe, cause more action in Avonmora.

Bump.

Haron wrote:The intentions behind this proposal:

1) Cause more action ("combat") in the game
2) Make it more important to be be Duke in a port-holding nation
3) Introduce more complexity to trading

i like 1 and 2, but 3? Maha likes simplicity

Haron wrote:A) A port producing a good, is selling that good for a price solely dependent on the amount of that good in his warehouse, independently of other ports. The price has a minimum and maximum value, with the minimum price being much lower than today (the maximum stays the same). (In addition, the price could also be dependent on the "port warehouse size", which could be dependent on port population - this is optional).

does the port warehouse have a max? or can it store up infinitely? how do the imported goods influence the storage space? i don't see how the sales price will be effected, what is the benchmark? isn't production already based on population?

Haron wrote:B) A port is offering a price for each specific good based on how much it currently has of that good in it's warehouse - independent of other ports. The price has a minimum and maximum value, with the maximum being MUCH higher than today (maybe 15 gc above minimum), while the minimum stays the same. Goods are consumed at a fixed rate (that rate may be dependent on port population; again, optional).

as far as i understand, the goods are consumed based on population. i fear that a fixed pricing system even more based on population (population under 100k sell for 4 gc; 100-200k 5gc, 200-300 etc) will get outdated with super inflated prices.

Haron wrote:C) Party cards change. Rather than "sell" goods at a fixed price, they now "sell" them with a certain percentage bonus. Maybe 50% over what you would otherwise get in the port. This means that Duke bonuses and East india card bonuses also are boosted by party cards.

what is the gain in gameplay?
party as it is now is a lazy way of trading maybe straight trading brings more profit, but it is a pain to adjust your fleets to the new most profitable route each time. with this suggestion the traders are forced to evaluate normal trade against party trade (making 5 gc on a good normal run and 2+1 bonus on a party run). who will invest in upgrading warehouses when they are no longer needed?

Haron wrote:D) When successfully plundering a ship, the cargo of the losing fleet is lost. It's value is transformed to gc and given to the winner as gc.

is this to replace the present system or on top of it?

Haron wrote:Points A and B will give more complex trade. And the increased max prices will make even long distance trade routes profitable. Point C ensures that being Duke is worth fighting for. These three points also gives more income to traders - if left undisturbed. Point D will make plundering slightly more profitable, and also make it slightly easier to steal trade ships, since they can no longer use cargo to pay ransom. Also, it makes it possible to prevent a fleet from getting the cargo to it's destination.

port prices are either based on internal elements (this proposal) or external (present system) i don't see how internal systems may work in a way that prevents inflation of prices. trade is a major game element, to change the balance is tricky. so i would like to see some formula's and scenario's. i already expressed my fear that change in the party system will be the end of the party trade. as it is now i am not in favor.

Haron wrote:So, how and why will this cause more action? Well, up until now, traders have had no reason whatsoever to fight each other. A trader gets more or less the same from his trade routes, independently of how many others use the same trade route. However, with these rules in place, that changes. It now becomes profitable to stop other traders from selling a particular good in the same port as you do. So there's an incentive for traders to get other traders plundered. It will make for an interesting mix of trade and combat. Perhaps, for instance, Egypt is fighting (or paying others to fight) any non-Egyptian trade vessel transporting tobacco to Goroum, to make sure the prices there stay high.

I think this will give an incentive for traders to wish to stop other traders, while today, there is no reason for that. This incentive will, I believe, cause more action in Avonmora.

trade is core to the game. i am in favor of scarcity to create strive, but reluctant to apply it to a core element. what if big dude no1 phoenixknight buys up the supply in a port to max his profit. no one knows who did it. it could have been grapfruit, or Grimlock, who knows. but it would kill the game for the others.

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:The intentions behind this proposal:

1) Cause more action ("combat") in the game
2) Make it more important to be be Duke in a port-holding nation
3) Introduce more complexity to trading

i like 1 and 2, but 3? Maha likes simplicity

There's a difference between something that's complex and something that's complicated. I'm not suggesting the rules become more comlicated, just more complex. Othello is an example of a game that is very easy to learn (not complicated at all), yet hard to be very good at (relatively complex). So things can be both simple and complex

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:A) A port producing a good, is selling that good for a price solely dependent on the amount of that good in his warehouse, independently of other ports. The price has a minimum and maximum value, with the minimum price being much lower than today (the maximum stays the same). (In addition, the price could also be dependent on the "port warehouse size", which could be dependent on port population - this is optional).

does the port warehouse have a max? or can it store up infinitely? how do the imported goods influence the storage space? i don't see how the sales price will be effected, what is the benchmark? isn't production already based on population?

I'm not exactly sure how the "hidden warehouse" functions today (each port DOES have a "hidden warehouse" even today). I suppose they have a max of 2,1B, since that is the max for goods the ports produce themselves. It should always be possible to sell goods to a port, but if the port has a lot of that goods, it will only pay the minimum prize (which still gives a small profit to the trader).

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:B) A port is offering a price for each specific good based on how much it currently has of that good in it's warehouse - independent of other ports. The price has a minimum and maximum value, with the maximum being MUCH higher than today (maybe 15 gc above minimum), while the minimum stays the same. Goods are consumed at a fixed rate (that rate may be dependent on port population; again, optional).

as far as i understand, the goods are consumed based on population. i fear that a fixed pricing system even more based on population (population under 100k sell for 4 gc; 100-200k 5gc, 200-300 etc) will get outdated with super inflated prices.

I think that consumption is dependent on port population only when it comes to party cards. For normal trade, you can sell as much as you want of a good to any port (except a port that produces that good). I do not want prices to be dependent on population. I want prices to depend on how much of a certain good that port already has. So if lots of people are selling tobacco to Goroum, the tobacco prices there will be at a minimum. If nobody is selling tools to Akrotiri, those prices will skyrocket there.

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:C) Party cards change. Rather than "sell" goods at a fixed price, they now "sell" them with a certain percentage bonus. Maybe 50% over what you would otherwise get in the port. This means that Duke bonuses and East india card bonuses also are boosted by party cards.

what is the gain in gameplay?
party as it is now is a lazy way of trading maybe straight trading brings more profit, but it is a pain to adjust your fleets to the new most profitable route each time. with this suggestion the traders are forced to evaluate normal trade against party trade (making 5 gc on a good normal run and 2+1 bonus on a party run). who will invest in upgrading warehouses when they are no longer needed?

The problem with party cards is that they circumvent supply and demand. And that they ignore Duke bonus. And that for big traders, party cards give very high profit. If supply and demand shall work as I see it, then the party cards has to change or disappear. I suggest they change. That way, there would STILL be a need for large warehouses. They would work like today, but rather than selling at a fixed price, they sell the goods at a certain percentage above the current price in that port.

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:D) When successfully plundering a ship, the cargo of the losing fleet is lost. It's value is transformed to gc and given to the winner as gc.

is this to replace the present system or on top of it?

On top of. It's not gonna be much.

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:Points A and B will give more complex trade. And the increased max prices will make even long distance trade routes profitable. Point C ensures that being Duke is worth fighting for. These three points also gives more income to traders - if left undisturbed. Point D will make plundering slightly more profitable, and also make it slightly easier to steal trade ships, since they can no longer use cargo to pay ransom. Also, it makes it possible to prevent a fleet from getting the cargo to it's destination.

port prices are either based on internal elements (this proposal) or external (present system) i don't see how internal systems may work in a way that prevents inflation of prices. trade is a major game element, to change the balance is tricky. so i would like to see some formula's and scenario's. i already expressed my fear that change in the party system will be the end of the party trade. as it is now i am not in favor.

Goods will be consumed ("destroyed") in ports. A simple way to to it would be to keep price changes happening every three days, as they do today. After that, prices are set based on the warehouse stock. That stock is then consumed, and a new three day period starts. After that, a new price is set. Repeat.

Maha wrote:

Haron wrote:So, how and why will this cause more action? Well, up until now, traders have had no reason whatsoever to fight each other. A trader gets more or less the same from his trade routes, independently of how many others use the same trade route. However, with these rules in place, that changes. It now becomes profitable to stop other traders from selling a particular good in the same port as you do. So there's an incentive for traders to get other traders plundered. It will make for an interesting mix of trade and combat. Perhaps, for instance, Egypt is fighting (or paying others to fight) any non-Egyptian trade vessel transporting tobacco to Goroum, to make sure the prices there stay high.

I think this will give an incentive for traders to wish to stop other traders, while today, there is no reason for that. This incentive will, I believe, cause more action in Avonmora.

trade is core to the game. i am in favor of scarcity to create strive, but reluctant to apply it to a core element. what if big dude no1 phoenixknight buys up the supply in a port to max his profit. no one knows who did it. it could have been grapfruit, or Grimlock, who knows. but it would kill the game for the others.

Trade IS core to the game - which is exactly why that is the element that needs to change in order to cause more action! Oh, and it's impossible to buy up a stock of 2,1B goods. The price of such a warehouse would be astronomical.


My main point is: Today, traders operate independently from each other. If there were no pirates, they are playing a sort of solitaire. And since trade is the core of the game, traders need to have their profits influenced by the actions of other traders. The game needs competition between traders in some form. Simply put: Traders need to be part of a multi-player environment. They can hardly be said to be so today, except for the odd act of piracy.

I have suggested a port building - market - this would fit nicely with your Idea - particularly points b and c

the market would be developed similar to a hideout building, but it would be tied to a port instead of a nation or player. It would be developed by vote from nation treasury - and I believe Maha suggested that individual nationals could make donations, I would like a hybrid payment system that allows for the use of either or both.

I suggest that the market be permanent, and may take a percent damage or loss of x levels if the port control changes, but that it will remain and be a prize of those who may try and take the port.

I suggest that the market does the following and has an increase with each level up

increases purchase price of non port goods - incoming goods
decreases purchase price of port created goods - outgoing goods
increases nation trade tax revenue - % paid NPC

this will increase the desirability of the port because of higher tax revenue.
this may increase the trade coming into and out of the port.

I suggest that perhaps nations could vote in the following for their markets

trade embargo for the market against rival nations - port market specific
tariffs - nation specific, port market specific


This does not aid in making traders more competitive, it does make ports more valuable.

To make traders fight each other - sorry this if off the cuff and loosely thought out - I am not saying this is a good idea, I am just suggesting this is a way to get merchants to fight with each other - I do think it would make things interesting.


Perhaps we should make traders fight each other for shipping lane rights.
lanes are restricted, and you must win the rights to use your merchants -
so a player may have the ships, captains, admirals and merchants, but if they do not have lane rights they are restricted on how many lane routes they can run.

for example
no permit - 20 routes maximum
level 1 40 routes maximum
level 2 70 routes maximum
level 3 100 routes maximum
level 4 160 routes maximum
level 5 unrestricted

players with small fleets of under 99 ships need no lane rights - they can sail any routes they want
players with 101-199 - must win level 1 shipping lane rights - win 10 battles against a player with this range or higher fleet count to win lane rights
players with 200-349 - must win level 2 shipping lane rights- win 20 battles against a player with this range or higher fleet count to win lane rights
players with 350-499 - must win level 3 shipping lane rights -win 30 battles against a player with this range or higher fleet count to win lane rights
players with 500-799 - must win level 4 shipping lane rights- win 40 battles against a player with this range or higher fleet count to win lane rights
players with 800 plus - must win level 5 shipping lane rights- win 50 battles against a player with this range or higher fleet count to win lane rights

If a player has no competition at the highest level they automatically get lane rights

lane rights expire every 30 days

You could make this even more aggressive by also implementing the following

-players with 800 plus loses 100 battles against a player with this range will lose 1 level lane rights and go to level 4
-players with 500-799 - loses 80 battles against a player with this range ship count will lose 1 level lane rights and go to level 3
-players with 350-499 - loses 40 battles against a player with this range ship count will lose 1 level lane rights and go to level 2
-players with 200-349 - loses 20 battles against a player with this range ship count will lose 1 level lane rights and go to level 1

A market port building is interesting, and may easily be combined with this suggestion.

As for your "shipping lanes" idea, I think it is a too "hard" restriction. That's something a trader will HAVE to do in order to grow. I suggested what I did because traders COULD still just trade like they have been doing, it's just gonna be more profitable to optimize trade. Also, I see the possibility of guilds with mostly traders, but some fighters, where the traders find some nice trade routes, and the fighters hit others who try to use the same trade route, to reduce competition on that trade route.

Haron wrote:As for your "shipping lanes" idea, I think it is a too "hard" restriction. That's something a trader will HAVE to do in order to grow. I suggested what I did because traders COULD still just trade like they have been doing, it's just gonna be more profitable to optimize trade. Also, I see the possibility of guilds with mostly traders, but some fighters, where the traders find some nice trade routes, and the fighters hit others who try to use the same trade route, to reduce competition on that trade route.

giving guild more content is a good thing.
i am throwing a 'what if' out, just a quick idea for others to shoot down or build on

say that guilds can compete for 3 or 6 day to get 'sea currents' a 50% increase in travel time.
to get the sea current , the guild needs to cast a special guild voodoo card, and more plunder/skirmish wins then all other "sea current" casters. (with a minimum of 50 plunder/skirmish wins after the voodoo is casted). the guild that hold the seacurrent has a threshold of 100 plunder/skirmish wins.

to hold seacurrent, the guild can make more profit on distant ports. the special voodoo is needed to exclude pirate guild that have no need for this addition but make lots of plunder/skirmish wins. the 50&100 wins threshold is make sure that effort is put into it. no pain no gain.

my shipping lane idea is a hard restriction, it would also lead to better protected, better armed merchants which would good for some merchants and bad for pirates that choose to use very light fleets.

perhaps this would work better as a variation on mahas idea, so shipping lanes are never required but offer an advantage if they are won.
Say a price discount or use of the best currents that increase travel rate.

As your original suggestion increases desirability of certain routes, another or possible additional method would be to limit resources and or demand. Take Akrotiri, currently if one were to try and cash in a large party warehouse on the wrong day enough population will not show up to consume. If the prices varied and were good enough to support it some crafty merchants may attack other merchants to drive them off the route, or possibly even hire someone better equipped to do it for them. So that when their warehouse was full, the population would still desire the goods.

William one eye wrote:As per your original suggestion another similar method would be to limit resources and or demand. Take Akrotiri, currently if one were to try and cash in a large party warehouse on the wrong day enough population will not show up to consume. If the prices varied and were good enough to support it some crafty merchants may attack other merchants to drive them off the route, or possibly even hire someone better equipped to do it for them.

This is exactly what I'm trying to achieve!

I edited mine a bit as to not put my words into your suggestion, so my post now looks slightly different to your quote. Yes I see exactly what you are trying to achieve and think it would improve the game.