Plunder Formula tweak discussion

[Haron]

Captain Jack wrote:

--------------------------
Objective 1: More battles
More battles = more fun

Objective 2: No hateful gameplay
Lowlifes must never be able to hold anyone at bay

Objective 3: More strategic options
Again, more options = more fun. This is a permanent objective for anything we develop but it needs to be named.
-----------------------------

As for objective 1: I think more ACTION is what is needed. More battles may be part of this, but it should include other things as well.

Objetive 3 is, as I see it, very important. More content, and more options, is good for the game.

Regarding objective 2: No "hateful" gameplay is a decent goal - it is, after all, a game. But I'm not sure what the sentence "Lowlifes must never be able to hold anyone at bay" is supposed to mean. I think it SHOULD be possible to "destroy" or "shut down" a player, if someone really puts the resources and effort into it. Not for good, but at least for some time. So, what was meant by this sentence?

[Most Lee Harmless]

I agree that other changes are needed if "more action" is the goal. However, I doubt that traders will lose as much as Danik fears with the suggested tweak in plunder percentage, although I agree that it is probably a bit generous to pirates. If it needs tweaking, perhaps it's better to adjust it less, but not reduce the max payout. Traders will still make more money sailing large fleets than small fleets, so I think Danik is wrong in his assumption that traders will sail smaller fleets. I think he may be right assuming that they will not be attacking any more, though. Also, more defence might be beneficial to some traders. Anyway: Such a tweak will matter; it will give pirates more for plunder and make traders lose more. But it is not such a tweak that will generate more "action". I think wars and blockades, player generated goods and a new suggestion I'll post later today, "External Political Events", will be much more beneficial if "more action" is the goal.

As for skirmishes: Someone said that they should cost turns, and I think they are right. I think a reduction in the turn cost is in place, though. Perhaps reduce the cost to 3 turns at skirmish tech level 10 and 2 turns at level 20 would be sufficient. It would also give people a reason to study it to level 20. This, and an increased "skrimish point storage", is necessary for high level skirmish technology to make sense, I think.

My assumption is that traders will not attack, either by skirmish or hitting lit fleets, ever : only pirates and those with low fleet numbers will attack as only they will be able to carry a purse that will not result in more loss from counters than gain from attacks : so, in truth, these changes are not going to benefit traders one little bit : they must carry more, especially if they have large fleet numbers, and therefore risk more if attacked. To remain logical, if this is to promote more battles, whilst it restricts traders from battling, then the increase must come from more attacks on them and greater losses by them. If you want to hit, you cant trade : if you want to trade, you cant hit : that will be the effect : to do otherwise, hit and trade, leaves you too open to counters and losses. It's already gone that way, these proposals seal that knot. The game needs more than a handful of big traders (who mostly created their fleets and wealth back in the 'good old days') to support that other 'action' : coin for port wars, coin for bounties, coin for hide-outs, banks, goldsmiths, dare I say it, coin for mercenaries too : we cant rely on a steady stream of folk showing up with platinum credit cards to inject more and more wealth into the economy : the game has to generate its own as well : if we keep on pleasing the desire for more 'action' dont be surprised if the ones who end up on the arse-kicked end of that action dont bother logging back in next day : that's my fear : a game full of pirates and no targets cos there just aint enough fools left to play that role:

[Haron]

I wholeheartedly agree that merchants should make a profit. And that by and large, being a large trader needs to be more lucrative than being a pirate - as it is today. And I have already stated that I think the suggested increased from an average of 3% to an average of 5% may be too generous to the pirates.

Having said that, even WITH such an increase, there would be several ways for traders to stay profitable. I can think of lots of strategies. Sure, profits would go down, either as a result of more lost to plunders, or more spent on defences, but it would still be lucrative to be a big trader.

Anyway: Will it bring more "action" to Avonmora, which is the stated goal? I'm not sure it would. And IF it would create lots more pirates (which I sencerely doubt), that would not be a good thing. While this tweak in itself will not, in my opinion, destroy the game balance by making trading too unprofitable, having 25% of the player base being pirates certainly would. And, as Danik said, this would make traders even more cautious, and make them attack even less than they do today. One strategy might be to have NO valuable ships and run a low purse, which would make it easy for pirates to steal tail ships, but if these are level 1-3 howkers, that might make the pirates not bother, because it's not worth it. But that means such traders can have no combat fleet at all (except in the Marina).

If "more action" is the goal, other suggestions should be looked at instead. Or in addition.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Traders will be able to make a profit, yes : but at the cost of not being able to any more than trade : that's my point : the game is splitting into two camps : one who trades and gets hit : and one who hits those who trade but cant trade itself or it risk its warships : its all far too binary : one of the pleasing aspects of this game, when I started, was that you didnt have to make that bare choice : now you will.

A bit of history : Once, when we had the fame bar set at 25, one of the biggest traders developed a strategy : he set his purse high enough, turned off stop at danger, and sailed forth, lighting himself up : but after millions of losses to the plunder hits, he would drop under the fame bar and could then sail happily away until reset unmolested : smart play and all within the rules : now, daily, many players feasted on that easy plunder, for the fleets were never armed : and many feasted on the plunderers lit fleets too : an entire eco-system of hits and plunders grew around the daily lighting of his fleets : the owner took the hits as part of doing business and relied on making it all back again over the day : cue the biatching : not content with a daily ration of lucrative plunder the great complaint from our piratical elements was that they couldnt steal all his ships as well, he was cheating, exploiting, blah, blah blah and lo, the fame bar was removed : Did they then get to steal his ships? No, he sold them off and became, for a while, a seriously naughty pirate too. They got what they wished for, but when they got it, it wasnt there anymore...

[Ziggfried]

I agree that other changes are needed if "more action" is the goal. However, I doubt that traders will lose as much as Danik fears with the suggested tweak in plunder percentage, although I agree that it is probably a bit generous to pirates. If it needs tweaking, perhaps it's better to adjust it less, but not reduce the max payout. Traders will still make more money sailing large fleets than small fleets, so I think Danik is wrong in his assumption that traders will sail smaller fleets. I think he may be right assuming that they will not be attacking any more, though. Also, more defence might be beneficial to some traders. Anyway: Such a tweak will matter; it will give pirates more for plunder and make traders lose more. But it is not such a tweak that will generate more "action". I think wars and blockades, player generated goods and a new suggestion I'll post later today, "External Political Events", will be much more beneficial if "more action" is the goal.

As for skirmishes: Someone said that they should cost turns, and I think they are right. I think a reduction in the turn cost is in place, though. Perhaps reduce the cost to 3 turns at skirmish tech level 10 and 2 turns at level 20 would be sufficient. It would also give people a reason to study it to level 20. This, and an increased "skrimish point storage", is necessary for high level skirmish technology to make sense, I think.

My assumption is that traders will not attack, either by skirmish or hitting lit fleets, ever : only pirates and those with low fleet numbers will attack as only they will be able to carry a purse that will not result in more loss from counters than gain from attacks : so, in truth, these changes are not going to benefit traders one little bit : they must carry more, especially if they have large fleet numbers, and therefore risk more if attacked. To remain logical, if this is to promote more battles, whilst it restricts traders from battling, then the increase must come from more attacks on them and greater losses by them. If you want to hit, you cant trade : if you want to trade, you cant hit : that will be the effect : to do otherwise, hit and trade, leaves you too open to counters and losses. It's already gone that way, these proposals seal that knot. The game needs more than a handful of big traders (who mostly created their fleets and wealth back in the 'good old days') to support that other 'action' : coin for port wars, coin for bounties, coin for hide-outs, banks, goldsmiths, dare I say it, coin for mercenaries too : we cant rely on a steady stream of folk showing up with platinum credit cards to inject more and more wealth into the economy : the game has to generate its own as well : if we keep on pleasing the desire for more 'action' dont be surprised if the ones who end up on the arse-kicked end of that action dont bother logging back in next day : that's my fear : a game full of pirates and no targets cos there just aint enough fools left to play that role:

My thoughts the same danik. If pirating is made easy the few mabe 20 big traders that are here will just go pirate. Just like when fishing was added everyone changed to it. And seeing some complain saying this is merchants glory i want to see some true sastics. There is what mabe 20 ppl with more then 300 ships that took them years of investing to get? If pirates exspect a steady income its not going to happen as trading is not profitable enought ea day to support fast growth without the use of lots of voodoo. Prices of goods sold is just to low this game is very slow pace unless you buy lots of credits. If you expect to get rich easy pirating goods sold by merchants needs higher profit margins as 1 gold to 5 gold dont support crap. An easy fix to all this would be to make all goods in all ports prices ranomly change ea hour and better buy and sell prices. Exsample 1 create of tobaco should be 20 -100 gold then skirmishing would be worth the time

[Ziggfried]

The way this game is its not worth puting high end fleets out cause profit margins are just to low even pirates use cutters just like merchants use howkers

[Crackedcubes]

I have decided to change course on the entire tweeking of the plunder/skirmish formula. More battles are not needed.

Factual evidence for this position can be found smack dab in the middle of the Fuji loophole recently cast on one of PG's merchant's and the pilfering of his high end war fleet in an extremely short period of time, recently. This attack represents at least a month's worth of hard work by a merchant gone in a mere hour or two. Game Admin, you seriously need to rethink your position on this matter and the Fuji loophole as well, or this game will die when the merchants are driven from the seas.

[Admiral Nelson]

Pah Rumors... Ye be forgetting, this "advanced player" only had 1.1 Million gold coins and over 80 fleets active.

Whilst this raid took over a weeks worth of planning.

Which let us not forget, a merchant with 200 ships can make 5,000,000 and the net worth of the fleet I stole from 'im be around 50 m, whilst having 400 trade ships : Roughly 10 m a day, so is it really a major loss? No.

[Shadowood]

I have decided to change course on the entire tweeking of the plunder/skirmish formula. More battles are not needed.

Factual evidence for this position can be found smack dab in the middle of the Fuji loophole recently cast on one of PG's merchant's and the pilfering of his high end war fleet in an extremely short period of time, recently. This attack represents at least a month's worth of hard work by a merchant gone in a mere hour or two. Game Admin, you seriously need to rethink your position on this matter and the Fuji loophole as well, or this game will die when the merchants are driven from the seas.

I guess this is why the game is named "PIRATES GLORY" after all. #DeathOfMerchantsGlory

[Shadowood]

And the "Fuji Loophole" is a not a cheat, loophole or any other name people want to put on this. It is a strategy that can be used by any in the game, mainly pirates yes.

This was not my voodoo or plunder, but whom ever did this (evidence points to that salty sea dog Nelson) they played this round well. They planned, prepared and executed a great plan. Cost them time and voodoo to do so, but they got the reward they were after.

My hat is off to anyone who can achieve this. Yes, even if I am the victim of such an attack. It is a game of piracy, no one is safe and you should be prepared for some loses.

Just my opinion on the matter.