Fame earnings through gold earnings

[Captain dungeness]

Which means the the fame protection will no longer be an issue, at all.

It's 100% true the fame protection will no longer protect established players. Is this really what you want? I've been plundered down to 25 fame more times than I can count (even before I started a low-fame strategy). If players could have kept plundering me I would have ended up with zero ships, zero turns and zero gold except for what I hide away in my bank and buried treasure. Is this level of destruction what you want? Maybe it is... if so the game will turn completely on it's head compared to what it has been up until this point. I agree the current number of possible plunders is too limited but raising the plunder limit to above 2000 is HUGE.

I'm all for exciting new changes! Just worried about the enormity of this proposed change.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Don't forget to factor in that so many plunders will be adding 6 danger to the attackers fleet every hit. That will open them up to counter-attack from others and risk their own purse and ships. Personally, I tend to avoid putting 3-figure danger on my fleets, its giving away to many free hits : others are more reckless and some have paid the price for that with lost capital ships.

Will it change the game,? I hope so ; frankly, the mega-trade fleets have got way over-balanced in the game : beyond any 'realistic' levels, even allowing for the truth its just a game, not a historical re-enactment. It shouldn't be a free-ride gained by weight of numbers : Methinks the mega-fleet operators will need to adapt or die.

[Captain Jack]

The fame protection was created to protect newcomers. Then it was used to protect inactives. Later, it became a solution for established players to hide there in times of attack.

Since initial game design, full fleet destruction is acceptable.

Back then, before the 25 fame became a refugee for ship masters, the only way to get gold after a complete destruction of your naval fleet, was resources stored in Warehouses (porter too). Nowadays, we have much better ways, warehouse gold included.

Here is the current list where you can obtain gold without the need of a fleet:
-Work as a Porter
-Warehouse stocks
-Buried Gold
-Deposited Gold
-Booty Master card.
-Buried Treasure and Hidden Treasure cards.
-Gifts from other players through Generosity.
-Loans(coming soon) and Send Payments (coming today) from other players in Banks.
-Country Treasury gold.

I will not include Goldsmiths as they require fleets and resources in order to work.

As you see, there should be no worries development wise if someone destroys all your ships. In the same time though,we must count this tweak as a Pirates buff.

[MAjesty]

is there an ETA on this

[Captain Jack]

viewtopic.php?t=1414&p=15433#p15433

[Cdv]

Just thinking out loud. Bear with me, this could be long and messy. These are my views. If you do not agree with anything, please feel free to attack the views(with your own opinions), but not the player/person!

Issues at hand(as I understand it):
1. Fame does not accurately depict the standing of a player;
2. the 25-fame protection rule is used(or misused) to protect a large player from excessive losses;
3. anything else?

Problem 1: Fame does not accurately depict the standing of a player
Solution suggested:

Code: Select all

-1 point of Fame earned for every 1000 gold coins spent.

as opposed to 1 point of fame per 100 gold coins earned in current system

While I would obviously prefer the status quo, I have to admit that it is true that the current system does not reflect a player's actual fame. This suggestion is good and I think it will provide a better system of calculating a person's stature in the game.

Problem 2: the 25-fame protection rule is used to protect a large player from excessive loss

Captain Jack, can you provide some stats as to how many players are actually doing this? I am really interested to know how prevalent this is. I look at the top 10 ship list and the players' fames and it appears to me that only two of those 10 could possibly be using this strategy. Captain Dungeness has admitted he has been plundered down to 25 fame countless times. In my case, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I have gone below 25 fame. It is not really as easy as you would think! So, that leaves Captain D - a rule change for just one player? Captain Dungeness, you are indeed a legend!

Solution suggested:

Code: Select all

-Fame Loss: (10% of total Fame) / (Number of Ship  owned by loser/5) -> Winner loots half of this

changed from Fame Loss: (10% of total Fame or 5% if initial fame is above 1 million ) -> Winner loots half of this

This is a very drastic change. Will this stop large players from dropping to 25 fame? Yes. In fact, I think even most newbies will not be able to reach 25 fame, with this rule. So it solves problem 2, but it creates other problems.

Let's look at some figures focusing only on Fame: Assume Player A starts with 1 million fame and he is being attacked by Player B. In the current system, for the first attack, Player A loses 10% i.e.100,000 fame and Player B gains 5% i.e. 50,000 fame. This is for just one hit and is the same regardless of player A's fleet size.

In the proposed suggestion, A's loss of fame and B's gain in fame will depend on the number of ships A has, so for the first attack

Player A's ships.....Fame Lost(by A).....Fame Gained(by B)
5...............................100,000.................50,000
50...............................10,000...................5,000
100..............................5,000....................2,500
200..............................2,500....................1,250
500..............................1,000......................500

If we consider 20 fleets as a standard size of players 'worthy' of being hit, pirates will gain fame of 2,500 or less per hit. I have seen in the forums some players complaining that their plunders are not recognized, that they cannot understand why their fame gain is not reflected in the daily update. Things will only get worse with this proposal. In fact, I can imagine a scenario where the loser ends up with more fame than the winner when all the plunder has been done! In general, traders have a big advantage over pirates with this system, fame-wise.

It is also a curious side-note that Player B needs to hit ALL the fleets of Player A to get the same amount of fame as one hit from the current system. For e.g. currently, player B makes 50,000 fame with one hit. If player A had 500 ships, player B will need 100 hits to make the same 50,000 fame! Interestingly, this is roughly the same situation for any number of fleets i.e. you have to hit them all.

So, like I said, it is a very drastic change and one that may not be necessary.

Problem 3: Anything else?
Yes, there are other things that will change if this is implemented. For one thing, gold loss. Due to the low amounts of fame loss/gain, there will be a hugely increased number of potential attacks on players in the event of a Fugitive attack. Player A(with 200 ships/40 fleets) can receive a maximum of 101 attacks in the old system; and 480 hits in the new one. He will still end up with 90k+ fame, so the 25-fame rule or even a 100-fame rule will be irrelevant. The issue now will be his loss of gold and ships. If he loses only an average of 30k(not likely) of gold per hit, his total losses will be around 15 million gold. ( Idk how to calculate the actual gold loss, so maybe someone can come up with more accurate figures.) Even a player with only 10 fleets can have a maximum of 120 hits on him and lose more than 3.6 million gold.

So, I would say that not just the biggest traders but even small traders and pirates are at high risk. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see pirates have more than a hundred ships.

Captain Jack has said that full fleet destruction is 'acceptable' development-wise. But I don't know how many players would find it acceptable if it happened to them.

Possible ideas(some to be combined with others):
1. Keep Plank A, lose Plank B
2. Increase fame loss to (50% of total Fame) / (Number of Ship owned by loser/5)
or alternatively, (10% of total Fame) / (Number of Ship owned by loser/25) which gives the same result
3. Put limits on the number of Hostle Natives and Fugitive from Justice that can be cast on a person during a certain period of time; for e.g., maximum of 5 Natives cast on a person in 3 days; 4 Fugs per 7 days

Edit: 4. We need a vacation mode that does not require credits and one that every player can afford to use. The ability to stay away from the game for up to 3 or 6 months, or up to when the player logs in next, whichever comes first. You must 'apply' for leave 3 to 7 days before, so that the vacation mode does not become misused. Everything stops-trade , fleets, gold production etc. and stays the same until the player comes back from vacation. I'm sure other players can add the details.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Putting 100+ hits on a target will give the attacker/s 600+ danger points ; there is a different cost/benefit analysis to attacking under the proposed scheme : yes, I could theoretically wipe your purse out by launching 120+ hits : but I would then leave myself open to being theoretically wiped out by all the free hits on my attack fleets that the danger gain now gives to you, or any other counter-attacker : in the extreme case of requiring 480 hits ; that's a danger gain of 2880 : or 160 return hits : somewhat of a phyrric victory then.

The new metric would become not the chase down to 25 (or 100 or 1000) fame and safety : it would be how much gold coin can the attacker afford to risk by making excessive hits and getting the come-back on their purse? : What's the potential gain in doing that number of hits? Is there any point in even considering wiping out a major trader? New tactics, new considerations, and not all of them biased against the large trader, by any means. An end to the low-purse strategy? Probably : maybe higher purses will need to be carried, more temptation for the prudent raider who takes a nibble rather than goes for the whole pie.

One last thought : take a 'regular' fleet trader : lets say 250 ships : 50 fleets : even after the purse is burnt down to allow 'total fleet destruction' : that's 250 hits, one per capture/sinking : 1000 turns required : 1500 danger gained : so, no, I dont see total destruction coming near Avonmora soon, not for the big fleet operators.

[Cdv]

Danik, I understand the points you have made and, theoretically, they are correct, but you have missed one vital point. In the case of the largest of traders, it is NEVER one person who is making the attacks. It is always a group of 2 or more who will each attack within their comfort zone i.e. up to a level of danger that they can handle. So, turns and danger points are always shared. As a case in point, I have just been attacked by 2 persons who have hit just a quarter of my fleets.

Also, see the edit in the above post.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Indeed, that's the point about reconsidering tactics but 'passive' defence does go out of the window, somewhat, yes. Is that a bad thing? As a 'reality' the notion of hundreds of unarmed and unprotected trade-ships sailing around unmolested in a 'pirate' world is laughable. It's irrational. In reality, such ships would have a line of pirates queueing up to plunder them daily. No crew would ever sign up to sail on them for dead men draw no wages.

[Cdv]

As a 'reality' the notion of hundreds of unarmed and unprotected trade-ships sailing around unmolested in a 'pirate' world is laughable. It's irrational.

As is the reality of pirates having Ships of the line, a Man of War and hundreds of trade ships themselves.