Plunder Formula tweak discussion

[Captain Jack]

Let's leave the skirmish evasion probability down to a new fleet-specific (specialization) feature.

[Cdv]

Every aspect of the game costs turns. I cannot think of anything that does not. Skirmish should be no exception. Turn cost should be reduced but not totally removed.

[Most Lee Harmless]

I'll ask a question : improving all the plundering battling, skirmishing, etc to encourage more battles, which will primarily be attacks by pirates on the larger purses that will now need to be carried by traders, just where is the game going to find enough dumb-assed fools willing to take time , effort and, in a lot of cases, credits and RW coin, build up big fleets just to be farmed daily and have all their efforts reduced to a long list of events telling them how much has been stolen off them today? Finding the pirates wont be the problem : thats the kind of instant gratification buzz that will attract them like flies to cowpats : but where will all their targets come from? Building up, defending and maintaining a biggish trading fleet is tough enough : who is going to do that when the income needed to develop is drained away daily by plunders? The game wants an economy for gold bars? Who will be able to earn the coin to build the smiths? Which smith in their right mind will trade the bars when more and more skirmishes occur threatening their loss? The game wants banks to feed the demands for coin loans and credit exchanges? Again, who will be earning the coin to develop and supply them? We have some large banks, yes, and goldsmiths : but they have all been built and paid for from coin accumulated over years of trading before hide-outs were implemented.
So, I ask, who in their right mind is going to consider being a trader in this game, given the direction it is going, are there enough masochists in the world to keep replacing the ones who will think 'Wtf?' and quit after getting hammered yet again?
We cant all be pirates, or all be traders.. but the game needs enough of each to work.
I've seen this in other games : games where newbs are slaughtered and stripped clean within a few weeks long before they could develop defences or any reserves to fall back on to rebuild : a game full of dead accounts and a few dozen mighty warriors biatching in chat that there is no-one left to kill and what are the devs going to do about that?
Dont let this game go down that path.

[Bmw]

I've played one of those games it's crap and I haven't really read all of what's going on but the plunder formula has been working for what 4 years now why change it if it's working

[Kart]

In response to Danik's post.

I am afraid he makes some good points. I am seeing and hearing a good bit of talk from players who have been playing this game for a long time and they seem to say the same thing. "Too many changes, too many changes in the wrong direction"

As a caution, let me also say that I am hearing older players saying such things as "Thanks for all the fish".

Personally, I am waiting for the popup ads to start. I have seen this in other games where the rules became so undesirable or the people became so unbearable that others didn't want to play with them any more.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Aye, it can be forgotten that we play here voluntarily : its not a bounden duty, or some social obligation to provide a playground for others : we play here to provide ourselves with enjoyment and fun : now, some may find walking into a game and painting a great big target saying 'Hit me!' on their back to be fun, different strokes, etc... but, realistically, I doubt there are enough such folk to populate a game, and they tend to have other sites to congregate at : take away our fun, ruin our enjoyment of the game, and we can find other sites too : that's not said as a 'threat', just the sad realisation that the reasons I came to this game, and more importantly, the reasons I stayed, are being stripped away apiece at a time leaving a game I have no interest in playing. I'm not a juvenile speed-freak who needs the buzz of a 'kill' every five minutes : nor am I a long-suffering fool happy to build so others can destroy it for their momentary pleasures. There doesnt seem to be any other path left to follow, given what is being proposed so whats to keep me here, whats to attract others like me?

[Donald Trump]

Honestly, I dislike the idea of changing long held game mechanics, but instead adding new ones. I would like to see some kinda talk on the Diplomacy page, and special captains. Some kinda proposition on it at least for us to think about. Doesn't have to be added in immediately, but atleast give us a view of what it should be.

[Sir Henry Morgan]

I hear and can truly empathize with you both, Kart and Danik - Admin put this in a discussion thread to conisider, and openly discuss. Perhaps a tweak to the plunder formula is the wrong tact to take in order to promote more competion, more naval combat:

Regarding Influence. If you gained influence by battling at that port, trading at that port, and donating to that port, rather then just casting voodoo cards. I think battle rates between traders would skyrocket.

Instead of re-adjusting for the current motive of trading and plundering - gold coin (and fame) - perhaps addressing an area that needs development will do it naturally. Diplomacy, naval blockades, forts, etc., may be the catalyst needed.

[Most Lee Harmless]

The only way to pay for these new plunder rules is for traders to earn the coin to do so : they wont be hitting anyone : the size of purse they will have to carry to defend their fleets rules that out : putting danger on a fleet is just inviting a greater loss from return fire : skirmishing would be irrelevant to them ; the gains again out weighed by potential loss : all traders would see is a range of ways and means for them to suffer more losses daily ; from raids, from plunders, from skirmishes : I could put 40 trade fleets out tomorrow : but why should I make myself a target for raiders? And these changes will not beenfit me at all, quite the reverse : No, I can squeeze by with a handful of fleets instead and minimise any loss from plunder raids. So fine, I wont suffer much : but there is a price for that : I wont earn enough to build up my hide-out any time soon : I wont develop a bank big enough to trade credits, or subsidise loans : my game hits a plateau of dull mediocrity : no incentive means no progress : Truly, is that what the game devs want? Nobody progressing further than being a profitable farm for the click-happy 'hit-kill-get bored and go play on the x-box' brigade until the futility of it kicks in and they go play on the x-box themselves?

[Haron]

I agree that other changes are needed if "more action" is the goal. However, I doubt that traders will lose as much as Danik fears with the suggested tweak in plunder percentage, although I agree that it is probably a bit generous to pirates. If it needs tweaking, perhaps it's better to adjust it less, but not reduce the max payout. Traders will still make more money sailing large fleets than small fleets, so I think Danik is wrong in his assumption that traders will sail smaller fleets. I think he may be right assuming that they will not be attacking any more, though. Also, more defence might be beneficial to some traders. Anyway: Such a tweak will matter; it will give pirates more for plunder and make traders lose more. But it is not such a tweak that will generate more "action". I think wars and blockades, player generated goods and a new suggestion I'll post later today, "External Political Events", will be much more beneficial if "more action" is the goal.

As for skirmishes: Someone said that they should cost turns, and I think they are right. I think a reduction in the turn cost is in place, though. Perhaps reduce the cost to 3 turns at skirmish tech level 10 and 2 turns at level 20 would be sufficient. It would also give people a reason to study it to level 20. This, and an increased "skrimish point storage", is necessary for high level skirmish technology to make sense, I think.