Treaty or Pact Suggestion

[Alkie]

My suggestion is to add a new but separate system it works like a treaty/pact. Kings are the only one to be able to work this system.

It allows a source of political power within the world of Pirates Glory resulting in less wars and loss of new player base.

Okay so say spain were to make a peace treaty/pact with china which allows both trade and non aggressive actions between ports of which the kings own. So yes things would be fine and dandy and really no result of wars being waged as that would prove to be a problem in this suggestion, because war is fun. However!!! By simply adding another option to pacts/treaties which would be a Trading Pact/Treaty from this option the king of the ports may decide whether or not to allow trade with another king and there ports. With that in mind it allows the power groups to work as a flow rather then a destabilizer, if they want things to run smoothly for a period of time or so.

Now to another fun part that this Trading pact/treaty suggestion may add, is the fun of this being a pirates world also. So say a trader under one king is lit from a raider under another nation, everything remains the same as without the treaty/pact system until, the raider from the nation who is attacking the trader from which there is a trading pact/treaty between the 2 nations which will result in the raider gaining let say for example +10 in hostility towards targeted nation. Actually now that i think about it, this should also fall under the idea for the peace treaty/pacts which of course tho will result in higher hostility as it is a time of peace and not trade.

Through this new system alot of fun and new strategies to gain a higher playerbase may result in a success.

Any and all suggestion or ideas are welcomed.

[Francois le Clerc]

My suggestion is to add a new but separate system it works like a treaty/pact. Kings are the only one to be able to work this system.

It allows a source of political power within the world of Pirates Glory resulting in less wars and loss of new player base.

Okay so say spain were to make a peace treaty/pact with china which allows trade between ports of which the kings own. So yes things would be fine and dandy and really no result of wars being waged as that would prove to be a problem in this suggestion. However!!! By simply adding another option to pacts/treaties which would be a Trading Pact/Treaty from this option the king of the ports may decide whether or not to allow trade with another king and there ports. With that in mind it allows the power groups to work as a flow rather then a destabilizer if they want things to run smoothly for a period of time or so.

Now to another fun part that this Trading pact/treaty suggestion may add is the fun of having pirate game. So say a trader under one king is lit from a raider under another nation, everything remains the same as without the treaty/pact system until the raider from the under nation attacks the a trader from which there is a trading pact/treaty between the 2 nations which will result in the raider gaining let say for example +10 in hostility towards targeted nation. Actually not that i think about it, this should also fall under the idea for the peace treaty/pacts which of course tho will result in higher hostility as it is a time of peace and not trade.

Through this new system alot of fun and new strategies to gain a higher playerbase may result in a success.

Any and all suggestion or ideas are welcomed.

+1

but a little suggestion:

1) +20 hostility towards nation
2) Attacker fleets are lit eg:1attack -1 of attackers fleet lit
3) The attacker will not be able to participate with nation for 2 days

[Alkie]

but a little suggestion:

1) +20 hostility towards nation
2) Attacker fleets are lit eg:1attack -1 of attackers fleet lit
3) The attacker will not be able to participate with nation for 2 days

If you add a few tweaks to your added suggestion that it may work but as is, it cannot work because it will counterflict with voodoo cards to much which can lead to minor-big problems which is why i want the treaty/pact suggestion to be a system on its own that way its saves time and problems for devs

[Alkie]

there's also alot more i'd like to bring up as to how this system will affect the game in a positive way but i will wait as this developes from the community.

[Sirius Black Soul]

how about the player who are doing a mission to be promote to higher rank?

[Alkie]

Well you already get something great from those ranks. You get a MoW for example which is a high valued target in general, and the rank after that woule be govenor and to get that you need to own a port which that as is, is already a high valued target and to be a king I do believe it should require a fair amount of responsibility and the treaties/pact adds to that, also adds alot more to the game then what i just mentioned in this reply

[Alkie]

Just wanna give this thread a lil bump, and also wanted to ask the community if they believe this suggestion may actually be of a benefit towards the ever so growing world of PG. I personally do believe bringing this suggestion into play will keep players playing and also new players will benefit largely off this because if a player were to join and check out what guilds may suit him and by adding my suggestion in each guild desc.

it would say for example: (EIC) has a peace treaty with (Spanish Ayes) 48 days until pact expires.
(EIC) has a trade pact with (ZomB) 26 days until pact expires

The new player may think to themselves well hmm seems this guild is fairly good with the majority of the playerbase perhaps i'll join them.
It can also help out the smaller guilds who would most likely want peace with everyone and when a new player sees that they'd be on it well imo.

[Stan Rogers]

Idea is worth consideration. The thing that complicates things is the Nation/guild loyalties and where they fall. I, as yet, unable to see how this would help that issue and of course, guilds can and are multinational. Some nations have no king to form a pact with but have active players in a guild.

IMO, guilds need to have a little more development time to give guilds more power to assert their hierarchy along with rewards above what is already present (think treasury,bank, voodoo chest etc.) Ability to earn a % of earnings (variable set by guild) from things like plunder and /or trade. That ability would help 'cement' the loyalty factor and perhaps also be able to have more control on guild issues by the carrot/stick method.


Guilds could have "insurance companies" and new member assistance funds all funded by the guild members themselves. If a guild forms a legit treaty with someone through a 'formal' agreement, and a guild member fails to honour the pact, guild fines could be levied.
All in all,there is loads of room for development in this direction and its a direction that does not present itself until you work with it a while.
Perhaps it is something admin do not experience when working out how the game would flow in real time with real people.
I dunno, just things that I have found cumbersome for me when growing a guild from scratch.

Perhaps I got off topic of Alkie's initial proposal and for that I apologise but I think my ideas stem from some of the same frustrations he is experiencing.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Most Lee Harmless]

My view is treaty/pacts etc are rendered meaningless or overly complex by the split between nation and guild loyalties : How can you agree a inter-guild treaty/pact when members of both sides are in nations at war with each other.. same goes for inter-nation treaties/pacts ; what if both sides have members in guilds at war with each other?

We have had an example recently of a guild, with leadership mainly in one nation, warring with another guild, with its membership mainly in one nation, on the basis that yet another player, not in either guild, was in the same nation : this resulted in members of other nations in both guilds also getting warred on and, to increase the complexity, members of both nations not in either guild getting hit as well.

I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone was acting incorrectly above but it does illustrate the problem the game has with the proposal, which I think is where the game needs to go towards, but cant while nation and guild interests and loyalties are so conflicted.

[Alkie]

Well maybe the pact/treaty can be used for guildmasters instead of a king of a nation

We have had an example recently of a guild, with leadership mainly in one nation, warring with another guild, with its membership mainly in one nation, on the basis that yet another player, not in either guild, was in the same nation : this resulted in members of other nations in both guilds also getting warred on and, to increase the complexity, members of both nations not in either guild getting hit as well.

I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone was acting incorrectly above but it does illustrate the problem the game has with the proposal, which I think is where the game needs to go towards, but cant while nation and guild interests and loyalties are so conflicted.

so in fact if we changed the suggestion to Guild masters being in control of pacts/treaties. I think it works even better that way

perhaps to make it less complicated to manage, if a member under a guild is under a peace treaty and breaks that peace treaty, the attacker will be able to attk twice without being kicked from the guild so there's a basic 2 warnings and third strike your out. they'll be kicked out of the guild for breaking the peace treaty.
although it does seem a bit harsh but first imma wait to see if this suggestion is actually worth the devs time by communicating with the peoples.

Just like the Pirates of the Carribean, Having the guild Masters in control of managing peace/trade treaties. Its like having the 9 Pirate Lords who gather round the table to discuss whats best for all pirates alike. but of course its not gunna play out just like the movie but you guys get what i mean right.