Plunder Formula tweak discussion

[Lockreed]

By the way, I do agree with Nelson that no limit on Booty Master is needed. That should be part of the risk equation when running large fleet counts.

[Lockreed]

I still would like to see a bigger incentive to not run howker/cutter tails, but that is probably a separate discussion as it would involve a new mechanic outright rather than changing percentages.

[Admiral Nelson]

Call me a fussy player - But I will await a post from the Admin before I answer any of this.

If ye do not see yourselves as helping the Merchants to a considerably degree , please say so and I will explain why I feel like this.

[not a pirate]

As I said, I am all for helping the Merchants but it is a fine line between helping, and making it easy.

+1, I like the proposed changes, but in a way they could be tweaked. As I said earlier in my original reply, the max is too low. It allows some people to carry high amounts of gold, lose some but enjoy 100% security of their ships unless more resources come into play such as taxation, booty masters, and other things, which would make such an attack not worthwhile.

[Lockreed]

I'm sorry... I must not understand something. If someone elects to regularly carry huge amounts of gold to secure their ships, doesn't that make pirating a lucrative career choice? Can't you hit that individual enough times to make that decision so unprofitable that they can no longer continue that form of "defense" any longer?

Its not like it is that much harder to take ships, as once they get below the limit you actually steal ships easier with a higher %gold on hand stolen.

I will bow out of this now and let those who have more experience making a living as a pirate continue the discussion, but I will say that it seems to me that because pvp strategies involve lower fleet counts then they should have a more reliable source of income than they currently have now, which is primarily a feast-or-famine driven model that requires voodoo investment to function.

[Most Lee Harmless]

I'm not sure the proposed changes will be that beneficial to players unless they are in a strictly compartmented game-mode : by that I mean, the merchant will ONLY trade and never attack : the pirate will ONLY attack and never, or rarely trade : then I see richer daily pickings for pirates as merchants carry more gold to cover hits (though perhaps fewer ship plunders) and the merchant running a larger purse able to run more fleets and thus earn more corn with a lesser chance of losing the whole shebang.

Those who like to trade a bit and hit a bit will be the ones left with the dialemma : sure, one can hit a phat trader carrying a phat purse : but now, they will need to carry a phatter purse too to cover the return fire and thus protect their own trade fleets : so, I see much less incentive to practice that hybrid game-mode. Which is a shame, as it offers the wider and deeper route to happiness : I guess we will have to choose from the three options that will be left to us : become phat traders only, become skinny pirates only, or bug out.

[not a pirate]

Those with lucrative amounts of gold will have mindbars, countercurses, and other protections in place. Some raids are just for gold, others for a goal or to make a point... you can hit an individual as much as possible, but it will never make their decision very unprofitable after they recover. In my experience, my guild and I have never hit the same target over and over, or pestered them 24/7 with plunders here and there. However, I agree with your last statement: pirates need a more reliable source of income. The people against helping another lifestyle are the reason that the game can't move forward at a quicker pace, in my opinion. Merchants enjoy a stable income, they are getting a better quality in defending, as said by CJ, and depending on the intelligence of the player, they can manipulate these changes to the best of their ability to ensure they are safe while still maximizing profit. A pirates life, however, is more costly on a day-to-day basis than their counterparts, I do believe. Constantly buying voodoo to assist in their endeavors, which cuts potential targets out of a possible attack as they can't even make a profit on the voodoo.. I am not asking for something harmful for merchants to be implemented in the game, but I am asking that someone helpful to pirates be implemented... unless ye want Avonmora to be full of trade ships and no free-range individuals hijacking them.

In regards to Danik, I agree with your concerns but something is better than nothing.

[Hawk]

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.

Quite the opposite Haron. These suggestions make carrying large purses a more viable strategy, which leads to more battles, stronger war fleets on the waters, and a more exciting game! Kinda like how it was back in the day, before players started settling into the "smartest strategies" and Avonmora calmed down. The suggestions also benefit pirates as well, in a balanced and well thought out way.

+1

[not a pirate]

Thanks for summarizing all I have been saying into one paragraph, Skyhawk.

[William Pitt]

+1