Gold Bars Destroyed?

[Donald Trump]

Gold bars should be a risky trade. Sure some may complain that their rather large investment should guarantee the best of security and profit, but this is Pirate's Glory, not farmville.

[Mugiwara]

you right but a few days ago i made some calculations about profits of goldbar trades. even you wouldnt targeted by olods or wouldnt skirmished even once your daily profit would be 3m at most(-/+ 500k due to demands). for investing 1000 credits 615,493 gold bars and 850,407,934 gold and tons of times. i cant say its best investment to do.

[Haron]

Most investments here are very long term investments, Mugiwara. That goes for lots of stuff. An example applying to myself, is "Piracy Tech". To pay down the level 20 investment, I need around 3600 plunder or skirmish wins after that investment. And that's a conservative estimate, with little emphasis on the losses taken due to danger gained in those attacks. Similar for other buildings, technologies and other investments. Looong term investments.

[Most Lee Harmless]

If you are going to invest large sums in a feature, as GS requires, then you should see some better return than not investing large sums in it : if the return is no better, or even worse, than investing in trading fleets, then why bother? If the risk and scale of loss is made greater than investing in trading fleets, what is the incentive? Thats my question : GB's are going to be made a requirement for more features : ship-building, Witch hut, etc : so, that will require players to invest large sums in the means to make them, the smith, and the means to keep making them, an income of gold coins sufficient to feed the smith, the import of materials is also required ; the means to store sufficient materials is required : the means to export finished product is required : if each of these steps is accompanied by risk of total loss and thus a wasted investment: quite why should anyone do it? Far better to put a fraction of the required investment into trade fleets, save the rest and make just as much, if not more.
I dont demand 100% security : I do demand that, by dint of smart play, astute strategy, some skill and thought I can minimise the risk of loss : there must be a defence for with no defence, there becomes no point in making that which requires defending.
I cant prevent a committed professional house-breaker from entering my home, but thats not a reason not to fit a lock on the front door to deter the casual opportunist.
I cant prevent the committed attacker from laying waste to my efforts, but that should not mean anyone, of any skill or standard of play can do so as a right and I must meakly accept it, cos, you know, I make so much money, whats a few billion here or there?.

[Mugiwara]

Most investments here are very long term investments, Mugiwara. That goes for lots of stuff. An example applying to myself, is "Piracy Tech". To pay down the level 20 investment, I need around 3600 plunder or skirmish wins after that investment. And that's a conservative estimate, with little emphasis on the losses taken due to danger gained in those attacks. Similar for other buildings, technologies and other investments. Looong term investments.

definitely. i dont want to say its not worth, you can get your money back in two years or little more just not optimal for lots of players. still its additional profit way and will increase daily income. some will choose to expand their fleet size to increase their income some will go for goldsmith to keep less fleet but more income. it depends on players and their preferences.

[PhoenixKnight]

I am not against using the cards for attacking. I get that attacks are a given. What I am saying that with Gold bars and the requirement for massive warehouses fulfil hideout requirements, the losses now are too great using these cards. That is purely unreasonable.
The cards should cause damage not annihilate. if someone decides to and succeeds, he or she can cause damages in the hundreds of millions at the cost of less than a 100 credits.
The scope of the damage changed with the game evolution and these cards now need to change too.

[Haron]

I guess the answer is to not keep lots of goldbars in your warehouses. Gold smiths should sell theirs as soon as they can. And if you need to build hideout buildings, you buy gold bars from the market and spend them immediately.

[Stan Rogers]

Thank goodness there is still a secure lock-up in the GS vault. Producers do not have to sell right away but pre-stocking warehouses with GB has become a thing of the past as of today.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Who is going to be making those gold bars you are going to buy from the market then? The gold-smith losing shipments to skirmishes, rotten food casts, OLOD's ? The goldsmith having to halt their mills cos their wage stocks have been decimated? Or lost inbound to skirmish again? Never mind they can still suffer the 'normal' loss of having fleets lit and their purse plundered? The purse they have to keep well-filled to keep the smith running? Okay, they can sell it immediately its made, and thus go on the demo page to attract more hits? Just what level of risk is deemed acceptable for them? What level of loss is deemed sustainable? It would appear that total risk and total loss is what is required, to punish them adequately for having the temerity to try and turn a coin.

[Haron]

If the gold bars are safe in the Gold Smith vault, I think it should be possible to handle this effect of OLoDs without TOO much problems. It reduces the "keep lots of bars as a reserve" strategy, but not much more than that.