[Suggestion] Official List of Demands & more

[DezNutz]

The need for OLOD to change is only the result of being able to see what players have in their warehouses due to the Player Resource Market. As such, OLOD can return to use by making the player resource market anonymous like all the other markets. The seller's name and flag could be removed.

[Haron]

The need for OLOD to change is non-existant, despite being able to see what players sell on the Player Resource Market. Even with this knowledge, it is a relatively weak card for being rare. In my opinion, it should be even stronger. I want the ability to destroy warehouse content back.

[Lefty]

"This card is temporaliry de-activated. It will re-activated as soon as we reach a redesign solution for it."
And there is a spelling correction needed. 'temporarily'

[The Lamb]

I know I said it before, and as a plantation owner, I agree with feniks. There really should be something to add risk to planation's beyond just the swag needed to construct it.

I agree with haron, that you should be able to destroy output, but i think it shouldn't come cheap.

I like henry's ideas of making cards that can affect the workers.

I would love to see thinks that temporarily disrupt production of the planation's ... I would suggest a series of disaster cards.

Each card rare, stops % of port production for 24hrs at that specific port, 5 cards stackable to 100%, the kicker is you still use the goods but end up with no output just like if a real life disaster struck.

Each card would be a disaster for a particular production, something like:
1. Food Port - Blight Card
2. Wood Port - Wild Fire Card
3. Iron Port - Collapsed Tunnel Card
4. Tools Port - Industrial Accident Card
5. Cotton Port - Locust Card
6. Tobacco Port - Horn worm Card
7. Rum Port - Non Potable Water Card

Or it could be groups of goods with 2 or three cards, but i figured it would cost more to do the damage to multiple ports IF they were all separate cards. Thoughts?

[Kangaroo]

The need for OLOD to change is only the result of being able to see what players have in their warehouses due to the Player Resource Market. As such, OLOD can return to use by making the player resource market anonymous like all the other markets. The seller's name and flag could be removed.

The seller isn't the issue, you can't sell at a producing port, it's the buyer whose name would been to be hidden.
Also, the whole plantation ranking system has clearly declared where the large plants are and who owns them, thus the risk to the plant owner is far greater than would otherwise be assumed.

New offensive and defensive voodoo is required if the card system is to extend to plantations.

[DezNutz]

The need for OLOD to change is only the result of being able to see what players have in their warehouses due to the Player Resource Market. As such, OLOD can return to use by making the player resource market anonymous like all the other markets. The seller's name and flag could be removed.

The seller isn't the issue, you can't sell at a producing port, it's the buyer whose name would been to be hidden.
Also, the whole plantation ranking system has clearly declared where the large plants are and who owns them, thus the risk to the plant owner is far greater than would otherwise be assumed.

New offensive and defensive voodoo is required if the card system is to extend to plantations.

The buyers name would only be known via bank transactions, which do not tie to any particular port. Although I could see the argument that this could be figured out.

[Most Lee Harmless]

I call cards like OLOD 'petty' cards. It exists for no other purpose that to cause hurt with no tangible gain to the caster. It is odd that in other threads such casting is seen as the 'toxic' behaviour of so-called 'witch-doctors'.

How different is it to tossing Fugis with no intent to actually hit any of the lit fleets?

Both cause financial loss to the target which could be viewed as fair game when in conflict yet one is deemed a necessary part of combat and doing the other is 'toxic'. Go figure.

The other paradox is the demand for more sea combat, more PvP battles yet here we are wanting to punish players as part of a PvP combat which has nought to do with ships.

Can we get ourselves sorted here? What is it we want? More sea battles or more petty voodoo to toss at folk we dont like much but cant bring to battle at sea and thus inflict the kind of losses Nelson has wet dreams over?

Or are we happy to just notionally toss a few cases of tea into the harbour?

[The Lamb]

i think the issue here Danik, has to deal with the fact that there are ways to play plantations with no fleets, thus no sea battles.

So maybe the more important question needs to be how to make more fleets sail? Maybe no player market? Maybe more "petty" voodoo as you call it? If a person were so inclined, they could have plantations to pay for witch doctordom... with no way to "attack" that player other than turns.

Possible actions could be
- Player markets floor price notably higher than the cost of shipping good in yourself. Maybe the COGS = Revenue. Thus if you use only player market, you make 0 dollars from planation.
- Port Taxes
- Planation voodoo to attack production.

I personally like the COGS = Revenue. It would mean the more different types of goods you ship in the more profit you make but if you just buy from player market, it will cost you 500k in goods to make 500k in revenue.

Maybe in this model, your guardhouse turns into a planation warehouse instead. You can only fill that warehouse from fleets. Your planation will always try to use that warehouse 1st for production and you get full profit, but any goods you have to take from normal warehouse get the % modifier to start decreasing your profits.

[Most Lee Harmless]

How about penalising every player with less than 200 ships everytime they hit another player? So, if you have 200 ships you get full whack. 100 ships you get 50%... 50 ships = 25%

You know, 'encourage' folk to have more fleets sailing!

See the problem with that line of thinking yet? Shall we apply the same logic to Goldsmiths? To shipbuilding?

After all, just yesterday I made 28million gc's worth of credits selling ships that never sailed on my behalf and no ships carried the goods that built them and the same for the gold bars needed to build them.

Where does it end? Penalise every action that does not lead to PvP action?

Also.. I keep hearing about this 10 million a day income from plants. Bollox. How many players make that? A handful. Yet we will change the rules for every single player to penalise five.
Same nonsense as led to the fame metric changrs, same scarey bollox about toxic witchdoctors.

If you make a game so bound up with stopping the occasional outlier you make a crap game.

[Juicypotato]

How about instead of the target player losing 15 percent of the goods in their warehouse, the player casting it receives the resources? maybe a smaller amount like 5 percent of resources stolen.