Ahoy everyone,

We do not really like the Witch Doctor gameplay, where one man sits behind his inventory and uses his voodoo at will, without anything to lose.

This is an old issue. First serious reference dates 2 years ago @ viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1623

A suggestion that attempted to control the problem, came 2 months later than the post above:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1747&p=20315#p20315

None was approved or implemented though. The key reason is that probably none of the ideas was good enough.

This time, we need to approach the case differently as this is something that expands to more cases. Ships is not the issue. Risk is the issue. There needs to always be some risk to everyone.

Some base ideas and concepts that can be used:

A)Risk loss - primary concept: Whenever you attack someone, you must have something to lose as well.

Without risk loss, the game can result in irritating gameplay.
Right now, in many cases, the only way to deal with continuous risk-free attacks is to drop to open a 1v1 long term war, simply to deny gaming to the foe.

This is the only way to solve such.

Even this solution, is bad. The game should not allow such fights in the end. None should be able to deny game from another. In such cases, the best would be that none would be able to affect each other. It is a flaw in design.

We have seen people desert over this. Either because they got frustrated by the strong side which continually pegged the weak side, denying gameplay. Or because the strong side got frustrated by the small side who kept pegging them with low cost. Or because the 1v1 became too personal. All these are cases we want to remove from the game.

This brings us to a second concept:

B)Power Index - primary concept that can be used in PvP

Power index can result from every asset that can be lost. For example, ships should be the primary power index. Resources in warehouses can also be lost but only with voodoo, this as a result will get a lower power index.

The power index can then be used to regulate PvP battles. A simple concept would be to have some limits once a large gap of Power Index is detected. Such limits can be cards deactivation or limited effects when tried to be cast from either side when the gap is large. Such design needs care and wisdom.

A SoL will have a big power index,a lot bigger than the cutter.

It can be calculated daily.

C)Increase types of losses - secondary concept

We could increase things that can be lost and also increase the ways that something can be lost. Skirmish attack for example, was such a thing. With Skirmish, you may attack anyone without the need of voodoo so it was an added way to lose something. Skirmish limits of course can be adjusted per case, using the power index.

Things that currently cannot be touched, can become available through new types of attack. (ie Hideout pillaging)

Or increase the ways that one can steal voodoo from another (Power Index can be used, Ships, Hideout, chance on battle etc).

For example, lets assume that we have Bob and Steve.

Bob has 1000 ships and 10 000 cards. Steve has no ships and 500 cards. Bob attempts to bully Steve who lacks the inventory to compete. Since Steve has no ships, he can use turns to steal cards. Steve cannot use turns though to steal, as Bob has a lot of ships in defense. His only chance is to raise a fleet. The higher the power index of Steve fleets, the less chance bob has to pillage cards with turns. In the same time, Steve will be able to meet Bob's fleet in the sea. The winner of every battle, will have a chance to win cards from the other player. Such chance though will be low and controlled, not random. Win/Power index/Total plunder could play roles for the control of cards pillaging.


These are all preliminary ideas. Sooner or later, we will need to do something to improve this type of gameplay. Feel free to help the design here.

I think there are a number of issues which need to be considered : using a raw number of cards possessed is not that accurate an indication of 'power' : You could have 10000 cards, yes, but if 9500 are 'junk' cards and you have lots of trade voodoo, as befits a merchant, but few 'aggressive' cards, your power is not that great compared to one with a 2000 card chest but composed of a far greater proportion of aggressive cards, cleaners and such-like, such as a pirate may own, having sold off less useful cards, such as trade or port voodoo.

Ship count is also hard to calculate for such a purpose : a count of 250 lvl1 Galleons is no match in terms of power to a single Sow, for it would decimate them: a fleet of 250 lvl10 galleons, armed and fully crewed, with full techs, are more of a match. So, its not only how many, but of what type and what level.

Techs also come into play, so also need to be considered.

Also, it needs to be borne in mind that small fleet owners already are penalised under the fame gain/loss rules. Currently, this means little save for pride, but it has been suggested that fame should play a greater role in matters, so this penalty needs addressing at some point.

A)Risk loss - primary concept: Whenever you attack someone, you must have something to lose as well.
Without risk loss, the game can result in irritating gameplay.

I believe this is the primary principle requiring redress, currently there appears a significant imbalance in voodoo vs fleet, which represents itself in the game most pertinently as reward without risk.
The game is called Pirates Glory, not Witch Doctor's Sundance.
Fleet should be at least as strong, if not stronger in relative influence than voodoo, unless we seek to only reprise Pirates of the Caribbean in parody.

I thought it was pretty normal for people to have 3 fleets of leveled sloop with 201 captains, 300 HNs and 50 FoJs.

My idea is to make voodoo less powerful, and make costly ingame actions a thing, kind of like active abilities.

The thing about voodoo is that it is only balanced by rarity and turns, and that is not that good of a thing to depend on to make them balanced.

i think you also have to consider this : whilst under such a 'power ratio' penalty as suggested, should I be going 1v1 with another player, nothing prevents a guildmate doing the casts for me, nor their guildmates doing likewise for their pal. Also, as we can have bounties paying third parties to attack on our behalf, and mercs are a legitimate tool too, I can foresee this idea of power ratios ending up benefiting those who can afford to buy assistance whilst penalising those smaller players who cannot. My war may be with Player A, but if I cant attack him without penalty whilst they can employ others to attack me freely..what equity lies in that arrangement?

I'd add another caveat : some situations will arise where the person being attacked will be penalised for defending themselves : an astute attacker can and probably will manipulate the power ratios to give themselves that advantage. What will guard against that eventuality?

Witch Doctors are not as powerful as they use to be; with the turn limitation they can no longer stack up thousands of turns and annialte all there enemys at once...

When it comes to Witch Doctors have 'nothing to lose', they do - Voodoo, Turns, friends,fame, influence the list goes on.It does not matter if they have 50,000 cards or 1,000. If they do not have the turns; they can not use them. Some people just need to be less narrow minded. What is the difference between a pirate and a Witch Doctor, as a pirate has just about the same 'elements' to loose. If someone teamed up against the Witch Doctor and time spiraled him, then he can't do anything; to me its just people not wanting to fight back, that complain.

This is someone that has been a Witch Doctor and a Pirate with many years experiance. We must ask ourselves; why do these people become Witch Doctors in the first place, what puts them in that mindset? Not saying its an illness. Merely declaring, it takes something to make them become a Doctor in the first place.

John Avery wrote:When it comes to Witch Doctors have 'nothing to lose', they do - Voodoo, Turns, friends,fame, influence the list goes on.It does not matter if they have 50,000 cards or 1,000. If they do not have the turns; they can not use them. Some people just need to be less narrow minded. What is the difference between a pirate and a Witch Doctor, as a pirate has just about the same 'elements' to loose. If someone teamed up against the Witch Doctor and time spiraled him, then he can't do anything; to me its just people not wanting to fight back, that complain.

To me, I just don't fight back because its not cost effective to fight back. It works to fight pirates because they would back off for a while because you made them lose more than they gain.

Spot on, Mr Avery : with current turn limitations, its not how many you can throw before you run out, its WHAT you throw, when and for why. Merchants dont fear a Hostile Waters, a pirate does : pirates dont fear a Hostile Natives, a merchant does. But some folk do seem to abide by the numbers game where more is always better, unless its coming at them, of course.

I agree with Danik and Avery on this one. Turns be the limiting factor and do it well enough.

Now for power index, if Player A owns 1000 ships, and player B)(a pirate) owns 3 ships I am getting that B will not be able to plunder A based on the above mentioned power index concept.

Bad way to go unless devs want to eliminate pirates, which I find very doubtful given their importance to the game just as much as a merchants.

Hideout pillaging, what would this entail? Many have spent billions on their smith's, banks etc. And have yet to see a ROI. Would buildings be damaged? If so, a pirate probably has fewer buildings and much less invested, where if a large merchant came after my buildings.. guess what, I am going to turn all of his to rubble. Fact is merchants will always have more to risk because they purchase assets, the trade off is they make mountains more in terms of coin on average. This income difference keeps the balance, your problem lies more with long players dropping ships to fight, or those spending RL cash to get cards.

I suggest focusing more on battle strategy and slowly pull cards away. Make the seafight about who's tactically better and less voodoo to do it. Right now a SoW can't beat a Lrg Frig without voodoo, where with the right mechanics and choices available, it should be possible without cards.

Charles Vane wrote:I agree with Danik and Avery on this one. Turns be the limiting factor and do it well enough.

Now for power index, if Player A owns 1000 ships, and player B)(a pirate) owns 3 ships I am getting that B will not be able to plunder A based on the above mentioned power index concept.

Bad way to go unless devs want to eliminate pirates, which I find very doubtful given their importance to the game just as much as a merchants.

Hideout pillaging, what would this entail? Many have spent billions on their smith's, banks etc. And have yet to see a ROI. Would buildings be damaged? If so, a pirate probably has fewer buildings and much less invested, where if a large merchant came after my buildings.. guess what, I am going to turn all of his to rubble. Fact is merchants will always have more to risk because they purchase assets, the trade off is they make mountains more in terms of coin on average. This income difference keeps the balance, your problem lies more with long players dropping ships to fight, or those spending RL cash to get cards.

I suggest focusing more on battle strategy and slowly pull cards away. Make the seafight about who's tactically better and less voodoo to do it. Right now a SoW can't beat a Lrg Frig without voodoo, where with the right mechanics and choices available, it should be possible without cards.

Totally agree with bolded element as a long term fix