Plunder Formula tweak discussion

[Cdv]

Having a rational discussion is good to solve any problem. Just one thing I'd like to add. I see some players saying it is 'only a 2% increase'. Imho, it is actually a 66% increase. Please carry on with your discussion.

[Meliva]

Having a rational discussion is good to solve any problem. Just one thing I'd like to add. I see some players saying it is 'only a 2% increase'. Imho, it is actually a 66% increase. Please carry on with your discussion.

I suppose mathematically speaking your correct. and I agree, a good discussion is useful before adding in new mechanics. I think reducing the hard limit and increase the percentage is fine, and I like the proposal. an alternate would be 2-6%, with a 200K limit. but I do believe the formula should be tweaked to counter the sink chance change.

[Captain Jack]

First, Advanced Piracy tweak, as Cdv underlined already, refers to an extra 3%.

Code: Select all

Advanced Piracy voodoo card awards an extra 3% per card, paid by the game


The proposed amendment gives an extra 3% which makes it 5% per card, stackable to give a total of 25%, paid by the game. Good change.

15% paid by the game, 10% paid by the player

Regarding, the proposed 3%-7% has been chosen because:
-It allows higher average plunder.
-It reduces attacks required once gold drops (easier to plunder ships)

We found the % solution better than the fixed amount in order to work it with any setup.

Given the chance, I want to underline something:
We do not develop the game based on what we currently see but based on what we would like to see.

This rule is not absolute though. A good example is Booty Master card that steal 3%-7% of a target player treasury. Unfortunately, most of the players ignore the power of this card and this has allowed it to drop to 6 credits on average (from about 15 in the past). Of course, all battle cards have dropped also (ambush,Call Leviathan,Fugitive of Justice,etc) while almost all trading cards have risen. In the same time, defense cards (great example is mindbar) have considerably dropped.

Why am I saying this? I am saying this because everything is related and of course as administration we take everything in mind. We will not interfere everywhere though. If the traders have allowed these cards to become cheap enough, then it means that attackers can now launch large scale wars with voodoo and still profit. The avg price of a lvl 10 sol is 150 credits. So if one earns at least 5 SoLs out of a war, that 450 credits he can spend in war cards. These are 75 Booty Masters! With 75 Booty Masters, its like launching 125 plunder attacks. Surely, this puts ANY defender under immediate threat as only Booty Masters are enough to take any defender down.

So, what should we do as administrators? Change the card? Just because you (traders mostly, to use your terms) allowed it to drop to a very low price where the mass can now collect them in mass? Hardly. The only think we are already considering and only because it is in direct relation to this formula, is to introduce (perhaps, mostly probably not) a hard limit for Booty Masters (2M per cast, currently reached if the player has more than 30M at hand). This only to allow players to run on larger hands of 30M without worrying too much about them.

Let's go back to our issue. Our issue here is that we want more battles between players. This is a multiplayer game. Traders of course would want as fewer battles as possible but in the end, this gets boring. Without battles, the game eventually gets boring. We want to have an entertaining game so since the battles help the game, we want to encourage them.

We want traders to still make a profit as this is how the economy moves forward. Nowadays, both Pirates and Merchants (to use your terms - there are many more playing styles out there) can make huge profits. Merchants profit from the game (PvE) and Pirates profit from merchants (PvP). This is the vicious cycle of... life.

This is why we are discussing here, trying to find a better formula. No one said that current formula is bad. We want something better though because current formula has the following issues:
-It is hard to organize a defense.
-It is impossible to defend when you have very large ship numbers.
-You cannot use your gold coins to defend - it gets too expensive.
-The losses are hard to predict and can be monumental.

For the reasons above, many players choose to run few fleets whereas they can run a lot more. So, if the pool of ships to attack is now 100, with this change it will become at least 200 (doubled). For me, it is an issue similar to the demographics page and richest person which held the treasure at hand figure at a pretty low number (about 500M - see the details here viewtopic.php?p=19418#p19418 - read all the posts). This was affecting the game at multiple fronts.

Same with the plunder formula. This is why this will eventually change. We are just trying to find the best solution for now and for the distant future. This is not one of the things to update regularly. After all, this formula has been one of the first things to decide and since then, the game has been through a total reform. It is only natural to update it.

I will continue to read all posts here. We are open to any ideas. We should not have any limits. One of the things we could use, is to calculate total fleet worth every time and take it into consideration for the final bounty.

[Haron]

I disagree with the statement "it's impossible to defend with a large ship number", but that's beside the point. Would this change be an advantage for pirates? Yes, I think it will. But I'm concerned that dilemmas will be removed. Particularly if you also put a max limit on booty master. Today, there is the following dilemma: Carry more than 20 M gold, and both booty masters and plunders are dangerous. Below 20M, booty masters won't really pay off, but plunders are still a threat. Carry less than 1M, and losing ships become an issue. This balance is nice! However, if you increase the percentage gained from plunder, and simultaneously lower the max payout AND set a hard limit on booty master, this dilemma goes away. Yes, it will still probably benefit pirates, but I think the game becomes poorer. Dilemmas like this are, in my opinion, very important to games. So, if the percentage payout is increased, the max amount should actually increase too, not decrease.

In any suggestions I make, I strive to make sure dilemmas like this exist. Having one "best" way to defend or attack is not good. There has to be advantages and disadvantages to all strategies.

[Captain Jack]

The 2M limit applies at a hand above 30M and at maximum affect (7%). No one is really running with such hands right now. We would like to see such hands though, why not?

I agree with your dilemmas planning. It is true that this issue is very hard to resolve. There needs patience from all participating sides. I believe we can come up with great ideas. We got a long array of features that already exist and features we can build to make it happen.

Guild specialization, technologies are things we can consider. First Mate feature too.

[Most Lee Harmless]

An excellent point, well made, Haron : there should be no 'walk-thru' route to glory, where if you do a, then, b, then c... you get there : far more fun is when you have lots of 'ifs' and 'buts' and most of all, the dreaded unknown unknowns...

[ben]

chin chin message me and telled me what the arguing was going on and i think idea is still good if the cap is lowered the bonus should be highed. i think a lower maximum works good with higher minimum in some cases but bad in other

[Admiral Nelson]

Hello,

I have stayed away from this " General Discussion " for a matter of good reasons one of them is I am Appalled with this General Discussion of changing the Game Mechanics. These Mechanics have been here nearly from the start and good reason as it was a Fair Mechanic , players have stuck with this , now Administrators you may state you have been looking to change this but I feel it is not the true reason. I believe the true reason is newbs "bitching" about how plunders are so unfair. How many experienced players actually "*****" about this? None. By experienced I mean Sir Henry Morgan , Black Sparrow how many "Newbs" do you see comment on how unfair the system is? Lots.

Now I will talk about why I have truly posted here today, as I am appalled with the changes Admins are suggesting, now do not get me wrong - I am happy for Merchants to be helped, but there is a certain Line of which this has crossed. I was fine, with you suggesting a change for the " Ship Lost Level % " but I had a serious doubt , how long until this becomes 750 ships for 100%? How long until 1000 for 100%? As I said, this has been around for many years - And Ship Masters have always been on this scale, they have coped fine, so why the change? A couple of newbs " Bitching? "

However, then I went onto this which started to get me a bit annoyed - As, again this " Plunder Formula " has been around for years and everybody has been fine with such only complaints have been in war. Ok... Ok... Make the ships lost level or sunk, half of it goes to us but a majority of the Merchants have Howker tales, so really what will we be getting? 4,000?

Again, this seem's to be it is only helping merchants. Merchants in the game " Merchants Glory ". 150,000 max plunder, seriously? You drop it by a full 100,000 gold coins? Yes, you did say " Yeah but you may make more " - It is a possibility, but not likely. As, they use Howkers for tales, it costs 40 turns for 5 Advanced Piracy to be cast, I think again making it a tad bit harder then it is already. Whilst reducing the stress for the Merchants.

Now, I just logged in a game and it appears to me ( I maybe wrong ) you guys are hoping to LIMIT the Booty Master % , as Haron said it takes a player to have a lot in order for it to be profitable of which you said not many carry such around. It is a rare event since you "Highered" the max amount shown to 50 Million - Which is another "Stress relief" for Merchants for them to become lazy. Now how many players have moaned about this? In my time only one possible player has moaned about this that is experienced.


As I said, I am all for helping the Merchants but it is a fine line between helping, and making it easy. The Ship Level decreased suggestion I thought was alright, you pushed me on this : Now changing the Limit to a max of 2 Million, is taking the piss a tad bit. Is this Pirates Glory, or Merchants Glory?

Now, I want to talk about my sadness - I have become really saddened due to the Administration team; Making such suggestions, which there current feature is fine, and has been fine for a while. In fact it has even become to a fine point of me not even bothering to post my Opinion, as this is Merchants Glory - No matter what you say. They are more Merchants then Pirates to a Fine Line. I feel, my opinion is not considered even more. Which is why I did not post until now.

If you really want to process this, and implement it that is fine - But you will see me to my finest destruction of players and the Player base. I would say I would quit, but we both know this is not happening, I will spend every Voodoo card to do so. Either way a great answer is needed.

- Nelson

[Lockreed]

If the average profit per attack is increased, without increasing the major risk of ship loss to merchants, while also simultaneously increasing the incentive to merchants to carry more gold on hand (further increasing the average profit...) then isn't that a good change?

The pirates who are not in favor of this kind of thinking have to ask themselves whether they are pirates because they want to hurt/discourage/inflict damage OR whether they are pirates to make money as a way of living. Choosi g the first option will reduce the 2nd option as merchants take actions to protect themselves from loss and risk.

Reduce the risk of ship loss to merchants by forcing (allowing?) them to risk their gold instead? Seems good for the game to me. If I am misguided in how the pirates/mercenaries out there make their daily living then please enlighten me. Does this change somehow increase the risk of loss to those with a low fleet count? Does this somehow disincentivize a 2xHN raid on a merchant?

[ben]

If the average profit per attack is increased, without increasing the major risk of ship loss to merchants, while also simultaneously increasing the incentive to merchants to carry more gold on hand (further increasing the average profit...) then isn't that a good change?

+1