Pirate Rankings and Bonuses

[Blackbearad]

i do not agree with plunder points, we could add ransom a port pays to the pirate the pirate's capture and also a feature that makes them do bidding for any nation that pay them the money,
plus a flagship for sure and defiantly a position of pirate king.
i also think that pirate can plunder any ship they defeat (limited to one and mow and sotl are not allowed)

now that is what a pirate need
ransom
plunder ships
flag ships
and pirate king

[Admiral Nelson]

[

Ask the former Pirate Roberts (Admiral Nelson / John Avery) about how much danger rating is a deterrence to pirates. There is a forum topic that states something like he had over 1000 danger points. There are players that are non-pirates that have war fleets with hundreds of danger points on them. I'm not a pirate, and I've had my war fleet on the plunder board with over a hundred danger.

5269 Danger Rating before it was taken.

R0nnie attacked me a week earlier reducing it by a good 600 DR. You knew you would not get it back, but due to me having emotions for the game it was upsetting once it was lost. (First fleet I lost)

[Captain dungeness]

I've waited to see where this goes before I say my piece and I'm seeing a lot of resistance from just one person. I want to know if anyone else has a problem with the suggestion or a counter-proposal.

Regarding the argument that skirmishing should cost turns because everything else costs turns: This is not true because automatic trade routes cost zero turns and are fire-and-forget for 7 days (infinitely if you log in). The trader's daily income is completely automatic whereas a pirate's daily income costs turns and danger (plus either skirmish points or voodoo). I don't want to ever discuss making it "even" or "fair" because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that pirates give traders purpose and right now I see a lack of purpose in the form of fleets without escorts and boring Party Card trading without resistance.

I am concerned that players have become so entrenched in their play styles that they argue their points based on how it would hinder their play style. There are so many tools to deal with pirates I know this won't overturn the entire world.
-If you can't stand skirmish losses then institute skirmish insurance and hide your bars better.
-If you don't want to leave your nation to get turn-free skirmishes then make your choice and live with it.
-If you are a big trader and expect to get skirmished more often then build some escorts, you can surely afford it.

I agree there is a need for pirates to be encouraged so that traders have more purpose and challenge. I do not care much how it is accomplished but I think SHM's proposal seems to alleviate some of the problems with choosing to be a pirate these days.

-Captain D

[ChaIbaud]

Yet another accconplished and respected player agreeing that something needs to change. Hmmm... must not be just pirates who notice a disparity!

[Vane]

I've waited to see where this goes before I say my piece and I'm seeing a lot of resistance from just one person. I want to know if anyone else has a problem with the suggestion or a counter-proposal.

Regarding the argument that skirmishing should cost turns because everything else costs turns: This is not true because automatic trade routes cost zero turns and are fire-and-forget for 7 days (infinitely if you log in). The trader's daily income is completely automatic whereas a pirate's daily income costs turns and danger (plus either skirmish points or voodoo). I don't want to ever discuss making it "even" or "fair" because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that pirates give traders purpose and right now I see a lack of purpose in the form of fleets without escorts and boring Party Card trading without resistance.

I am concerned that players have become so entrenched in their play styles that they argue their points based on how it would hinder their play style. There are so many tools to deal with pirates I know this won't overturn the entire world.
-If you can't stand skirmish losses then institute skirmish insurance and hide your bars better.
-If you don't want to leave your nation to get turn-free skirmishes then make your choice and live with it.
-If you are a big trader and expect to get skirmished more often then build some escorts, you can surely afford it.

I agree there is a need for pirates to be encouraged so that traders have more purpose and challenge. I do not care much how it is accomplished but I think SHM's proposal seems to alleviate some of the problems with choosing to be a pirate these days.

-Captain D

Well said! +1

[Shadowood]

I've waited to see where this goes before I say my piece and I'm seeing a lot of resistance from just one person. I want to know if anyone else has a problem with the suggestion or a counter-proposal.

Regarding the argument that skirmishing should cost turns because everything else costs turns: This is not true because automatic trade routes cost zero turns and are fire-and-forget for 7 days (infinitely if you log in). The trader's daily income is completely automatic whereas a pirate's daily income costs turns and danger (plus either skirmish points or voodoo). I don't want to ever discuss making it "even" or "fair" because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that pirates give traders purpose and right now I see a lack of purpose in the form of fleets without escorts and boring Party Card trading without resistance.

I am concerned that players have become so entrenched in their play styles that they argue their points based on how it would hinder their play style. There are so many tools to deal with pirates I know this won't overturn the entire world.
-If you can't stand skirmish losses then institute skirmish insurance and hide your bars better.
-If you don't want to leave your nation to get turn-free skirmishes then make your choice and live with it.
-If you are a big trader and expect to get skirmished more often then build some escorts, you can surely afford it.

I agree there is a need for pirates to be encouraged so that traders have more purpose and challenge. I do not care much how it is accomplished but I think SHM's proposal seems to alleviate some of the problems with choosing to be a pirate these days.

-Captain D

Wow very well said!

[DezNutz]

Spoiler: show

I've waited to see where this goes before I say my piece and I'm seeing a lot of resistance from just one person. I want to know if anyone else has a problem with the suggestion or a counter-proposal.

Regarding the argument that skirmishing should cost turns because everything else costs turns: This is not true because automatic trade routes cost zero turns and are fire-and-forget for 7 days (infinitely if you log in). The trader's daily income is completely automatic whereas a pirate's daily income costs turns and danger (plus either skirmish points or voodoo). I don't want to ever discuss making it "even" or "fair" because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that pirates give traders purpose and right now I see a lack of purpose in the form of fleets without escorts and boring Party Card trading without resistance.

I am concerned that players have become so entrenched in their play styles that they argue their points based on how it would hinder their play style. There are so many tools to deal with pirates I know this won't overturn the entire world.
-If you can't stand skirmish losses then institute skirmish insurance and hide your bars better.
-If you don't want to leave your nation to get turn-free skirmishes then make your choice and live with it.
-If you are a big trader and expect to get skirmished more often then build some escorts, you can surely afford it.

I agree there is a need for pirates to be encouraged so that traders have more purpose and challenge. I do not care much how it is accomplished but I think SHM's proposal seems to alleviate some of the problems with choosing to be a pirate these days.

-Captain D

My only disagreement is pirates getting skirmishes for free. Plunder and skirmish were not solely designed for pirates. And my argument isn't because everything else uses turns, that skirmishes should also use them. Skirmishes as they are currently require turn usage, making it that Pirates can use it for free while everyone else must pay turns is a down right idiotic idea. What about those that play as a privateer? Privateers are basically pirates, but they don't fly the Jolly Roger and may have a small amount of trade fleets. Shouldn't they get a benefit of free skirmishes.

As well, Pirates use trade routes just like merchants and there is no added cost for them. They don't use them as much as it is not economical for a pirate to possess large quantities of ships to make a profit. I understand giving benefits to pirates and have nothing against doing so. I actually have an idea to further the titles that SHM set forth in this suggestion. I also like the idea of expanding skirmishes for pirates, but that expansion should not be in the manner of FREE skirmishes.

What is relevant is that pirates give traders purpose and right now I see a lack of purpose in the form of fleets without escorts and boring Party Card trading without resistance.

You have that wrong. Traders give Pirates a purpose, not the other way around. Traders can exist without pirates, but pirates cannot exist without traders. Pirates now have a higher demand and need because of fleets without escorts and the incessant Party Card usage.

Yet another accconplished and respected player agreeing that something needs to change. Hmmm... must not be just pirates who notice a disparity!

If you read earlier in the thread, you would have noticed that several non-pirates agree that changes for pirates need to take place. There are several features on the plate waiting to be implemented. I have stated multiple times in my posts that I have no qualms with making improvements for pirates, as long as it doesn't make piracy easy, or level the playing field. However, there are some here that think that improvements should make piracy easy and trade harder. If you don't understand why that is bad for the game, then you need to get your head kicked by Danik's Donkeys.

[ChaIbaud]

That wasn't just directed to you... it was more to Guluere who gave no reason as to downvoting the suggestion.

[Haron]

I will agree with Danik on some points:

> Removing the turn requirements for skirmish is NOT a minor thing. It is clearly a major change.
> Skrimish is an "easy" option, and relatively safe (I don't recall if Danik also said "boring", but if not I'll add that myself).
> Being a pirate must not end up being as easy and profitable as trading.

I disagree with the general principle that "everyhing costs points, thus Skirmish must, too". Several things, like trading and using the markets, do NOT cost turns. Nor should they, in my opinion. But the discussion should be held on basis of consequences in the game, not in some non-existing principle.

Yes, skirmish is the "safe and boring" way for a pirate to earn gold. It's not very lucrative for new players, though, but if someone invests heaviliy in Piracy Tech, then after 6-12 months of paying down that investment, it's possible to make some profit from skirmishes (without this, you may actually be better off having many ships and hunting npcs - which everyone can do relatively risk free). The PROBLEM is that it's so safe and easy, and with max skirmish tech, it requires 92 turns every day (out of the 144 turns one gets each day). This means that pirates have very few turns left for anything else. This, in turn, causes less "action" in the form of plunders, raids and such. Removing the turn requirements for skirmish would address this issue.

It would, of course, also be giving the pirates a benefit. For those with maxed out skirmish tech, it's like getting 92 extra turns each day. That matters quite a bit. Or one could see it as getting the skirmish income for "free". Deducting the cost of counter attacks and downpayment on the tech investments, of course. I think looking at it that way, it probably corresponds to around 1M gc each day, less if you consider the cost of the techs. I know that in my own case, such a change would mean more turns spent on lighting up targets for plunder and similar action.

Danik is wrong on one point though, regarding "if Pirates are to get rich, they do so by stealing from the merchants, who then become poor". That may have been true once, but after the introduction of Piracy tech, it no longer is. The main part of a plunder - and definitely skirmish - is the 70k from piracy tech, gold which is created from thin air. Now, the following setup would be against the rules, but it is possible for two players with two fleets each to keep plundering each other and generating lots of gold, simply due to piracy tech. Also, when a pirate skirmishes a trade fleet, more gold is generated by the game than if that trade fleet had reached it's destination and sold it's goods (even with party cards).

The question is, or at least should be, does this give the pirates TOO much? Will they become "bigger than merchants"? (No, they won't). Will they pose a too great threat to the merchants? That could be. Personally I don't believe so. Yet, it may be that it is too generous towards pirates. It is a matter of preferences regarding several things, like how much pirates should be improved. This is, I think, what we should discuss.

Also, as I have already stated, I think giving this perk to those with Black Flags only is a bad idea, and think that if it is to be implemented, it should go for all. But I already argued for that earlier, no need to repeat those arguments.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Turns not spent on skirmishes but spent on extra attacks will mean more gold taken from merchants : they will get skirmished AND attacked with the turns thus saved : So, really, its up to 23 free hits for the pirate every day AND their usual number of daily attacks made using their daily turn accumulation. They will be able to do more 'traditional' attacks which do return more of the targets purse than skirmishes : thus, I am correct to say merchants will get poorer.