Flagships : Baseline (Large)

[DezNutz]

Is their an estimated time on this?

I know that CJ wanted a baseline done in March so he could start programming it. When he starts and how long it will take is outside of my realm. I am sure he will have a response.

[Captain Jack]

That's an excellent baseline. I have prioritized it to be implemented during March but don't take my word for it as there are 2 weeks left and a national holiday (sat-sund-mon, that's three days!) for which I have plans. I will try though.

However, before I can start working on it, there are a few things, five in total, that I want to iron out. At the first 4, I am looking for elaboration. At the final one, I propose different functionality for the Elite Rummager trait.

Here they are:

1)

Flag status will be free in the first instance

We obviously do refer for the first instance of each player? Or each ship individually?

2)

Once the ship is no longer yours it carries no flag thus is just a standard ship with such traits and attributes it had before Flag status was given to it. As its likely any ship chosen will in itself be desirable and have value then the new owner still has gained value and deprived the old owner of added value.

If I get it right, when the ship is lost in any way (plunder,sinking,commandeer,sale) then we it is striped down of the extra trait. If the new player wants to use it as a Flagship instead, then he will want to do the usual procedure as described above.

At this point, I want to add that in the case of plunder during battle (and only this), the plundered should be presented with the choice:

Code: Select all

"You have plundered an enemy's Flagship. Would you like to use it as your Flagship?


If he chooses "Yes, name it as the Flagship of my entire Fleet" he will be able to retain the flagship as he plundered it, replacing his current one (if any) and avoiding the credit fee.

Additionally, this act should not consume the "first free naming instance". The above should provide extra incentive on plundering a valuable flagship.

3)Naming/Unaming a Flaship will be recorded in Ships Journal

4)Losing a Flagship during PLUNDER will be recorded in Global Events, but only this (ie, Commandeer will not produce an event).

5)

doubling the plunder taken from the targets purse.

This should be discussed further till the Flagship is implemented. We speak of the Pirate trait, which can be a collection of traits eventually and the player will be able to pick one of them. This does not interfere with the baseline development much. So you can propose extra "pirate only traits" to separate threads and not here.

If I got it right, we have two options for the Elite Rummager trait: we make the current 275k max to 550k and the extra (max 275k) paid by the game OR we keep the cap (275k) but we make it paid by the player (Danik's proposal). I have my reservations for both options. I am not in favor of changing what the player pays in plunder as it will render most of current strategies obsolete. It will also not encourage ownership of large amounts of ships, which is what actually helps piracy at the first place. So, I will focus at the paid by game option below (still, it should be quoted and replied in a new topic, at Suggestions, Pirate Only Flagship trait: Elite Rummager) as its functionality is an addon to the baseline suggestion and as such it should be discussed.

Let me break down the Elite Rummager into pieces:

My base problem here is that the max amount that can be generated per day (on 144 turns) through this way is around 10M. Which means that 100 pirates could generate up to 1B per day. Of course, we have few pirates now but what will happen if we start to get more? It does seem like a loophole to me. Not to mention that for this amount paid by the game, you are opening a cheating avenue for milking.

There is another major problem though and it is related to skirmish:
First, there is the question in what happens if the cargo is gold bars. A gold bars cargo could amount 1.2M. Will we double this as well? Obviously not, as this can be exploited.

Now, to the standard earnings, if we apply the doubling bonus to a standard skirmish attack, it is inefficient as the usual 4k-20k will become 8k-40k. This is nothing great.

Both notes above signify that the proposed functionality is unbalanced in comparison to the amount paid by the game for plunder. This is a high danger for skirmish as it might end up as a less attractive option. Still, the skirmish expansion of the game is important and cannot be undermined in such a way.

Let me propose a different functionality for Elite Rummager

So, instead I propose tripling of the amount and a cap of 50k, paid by the game. It will still give the same or more returns on average but it will not allow any exploitation or milking or undermining of skirmishing.

[Most Lee Harmless]

1) Defining 'first instance' as when a player nominates their FIRST flag-ship. Subsequent nominations, in event of replacement of that first flagship should carry a fee.

2) Agree. However if the player already has a flag-ship then that will revert to its original state when replaced with the plundered flagship which keeps its state.

5) No issues with modifying the 'Elite Rummager' pirate-only trait. It was intended to give pirate flags a little uniqueness. I'd be happy with a range of traits open to the pirates choice, be they combat boosts or plunder bonuses. How they would fit into tge overall balance of plunder levels, skirmish and such is perhaps best left to you as your overall view is better than ours. Your comments on avoiding routes to exploitation are also very valid.

[sXs]

1)
2) Agree. However if the player already has a flag-ship then that will revert to its original state when replaced with the plundered flagship which keeps its state.

I voted for this in the interest of moving flagship along, but I truly believe this point needs to be addressed further down the road.

Reasoning...... If I buy a car, but new wheels, tires onit, maybe tune the engine, add a nice paint job and such, the car does not revert back to what it was when I bought it. This makes no sense at all and waters down the whole flagship idea.

I liked the idea of "deactivating" upgrades and such, but reverting the ship back to nothing more than it was previously means there is no prize in even attempting to take it.

The more i think about this, it may mean I change my vote.

[Vane]

Could you elaborate on this CJ... “and a cap of 50k,”

Is this just for skirmish?

Is it just a cap on amount earned additionally?

Or will i no longer expect to hit a merchant fleet and bring in 250k if their purse is large +70k thanks to piracy tech when i raid?

[Shadowood]

Could you elaborate on this CJ... “and a cap of 50k,”

Is this just for skirmish?

Is it just a cap on amount earned additionally?

Or will i no longer expect to hit a merchant fleet and bring in 250k if their purse is large +70k thanks to piracy tech when i raid?

Sounds like it’s just for skirmish. At least how i read it

[Jeanne de Clisson]

Could the Demographics page show the total number of Flagships in the game at any one time ?

[sXs]

Sorry I will state this over and over again.

If it "reverts" to nothing more than another ship if captured sunk or sold, then I am against this 100%. If attributes and traits are "deactivated" fine, I can go along with it.

-1 unless that change is made.

[sXs]

That's an excellent baseline. I have prioritized it to be implemented during March but don't take my word for it as there are 2 weeks left and a national holiday (sat-sund-mon, that's three days!) for which I have plans. I will try though.

However, before I can start working on it, there are a few things, five in total, that I want to iron out. At the first 4, I am looking for elaboration. At the final one, I propose different functionality for the Elite Rummager trait.

Here they are:

1)

Flag status will be free in the first instance

We obviously do refer for the first instance of each player? Or each ship individually?

2)

Once the ship is no longer yours it carries no flag thus is just a standard ship with such traits and attributes it had before Flag status was given to it. As its likely any ship chosen will in itself be desirable and have value then the new owner still has gained value and deprived the old owner of added value.

If I get it right, when the ship is lost in any way (plunder,sinking,commandeer,sale) then we it is striped down of the extra trait. If the new player wants to use it as a Flagship instead, then he will want to do the usual procedure as described above.

At this point, I want to add that in the case of plunder during battle (and only this), the plundered should be presented with the choice:

Code: Select all

"You have plundered an enemy's Flagship. Would you like to use it as your Flagship?


If he chooses "Yes, name it as the Flagship of my entire Fleet" he will be able to retain the flagship as he plundered it, replacing his current one (if any) and avoiding the credit fee.

Additionally, this act should not consume the "first free naming instance". The above should provide extra incentive on plundering a valuable flagship.

3)Naming/Unaming a Flaship will be recorded in Ships Journal

4)Losing a Flagship during PLUNDER will be recorded in Global Events, but only this (ie, Commandeer will not produce an event).

5)

doubling the plunder taken from the targets purse.

This should be discussed further till the Flagship is implemented. We speak of the Pirate trait, which can be a collection of traits eventually and the player will be able to pick one of them. This does not interfere with the baseline development much. So you can propose extra "pirate only traits" to separate threads and not here.

If I got it right, we have two options for the Elite Rummager trait: we make the current 275k max to 550k and the extra (max 275k) paid by the game OR we keep the cap (275k) but we make it paid by the player (Danik's proposal). I have my reservations for both options. I am not in favor of changing what the player pays in plunder as it will render most of current strategies obsolete. It will also not encourage ownership of large amounts of ships, which is what actually helps piracy at the first place. So, I will focus at the paid by game option below (still, it should be quoted and replied in a new topic, at Suggestions, Pirate Only Flagship trait: Elite Rummager) as its functionality is an addon to the baseline suggestion and as such it should be discussed.

Let me break down the Elite Rummager into pieces:

My base problem here is that the max amount that can be generated per day (on 144 turns) through this way is around 10M. Which means that 100 pirates could generate up to 1B per day. Of course, we have few pirates now but what will happen if we start to get more? It does seem like a loophole to me. Not to mention that for this amount paid by the game, you are opening a cheating avenue for milking.

There is another major problem though and it is related to skirmish:
First, there is the question in what happens if the cargo is gold bars. A gold bars cargo could amount 1.2M. Will we double this as well? Obviously not, as this can be exploited.

Now, to the standard earnings, if we apply the doubling bonus to a standard skirmish attack, it is inefficient as the usual 4k-20k will become 8k-40k. This is nothing great.

Both notes above signify that the proposed functionality is unbalanced in comparison to the amount paid by the game for plunder. This is a high danger for skirmish as it might end up as a less attractive option. Still, the skirmish expansion of the game is important and cannot be undermined in such a way.

Let me propose a different functionality for Elite Rummager

So, instead I propose tripling of the amount and a cap of 50k, paid by the game. It will still give the same or more returns on average but it will not allow any exploitation or milking or undermining of skirmishing.

CJ this is not the baseline, the baseline is Dez thread. At least that was my understanding. We used this proposal to develop the baseline.

[DezNutz]

CJ,

Further points were discussed. The OP wasn't updated nor the point of where we voted. Danik's suggestion was the basepoint with some revisions and understandings that may not have been thoroughly explained. I take fault on this, as we should have updated the OP or submitted a new topic. In response to your questions:

1) How Danik said it is what I understood in his OP; however, with potential additions to flagships there should be a cost associated to designating one. The team agreed to an initial cost.

2) This reversion/disabling should only apply to perks and bonuses which for most parts would be for future flagship additions. Traits should stay with the ship, as for all intent and purpose, the ship is still marked as a flagship. Just not an active one. When experience leveling and additional bonuses are added, for a flagship that is stolen, those bonuses will be disabled, but the extra trait should remain active. The extra trait also gives a bonus reason to stealing another players flagship. Active flagships can't be sold on the market, only stolen flagships (flagships that are disabled) can be sold on the market. Selling to the shipwright is not restricted.

3) Agree

4) Agree

5) While this is technically an add-on bonus/perk, this is a good starting point and gives something on the baseline flagship. Can you clarify your suggestion? I think there might be someone confusion on your proposal.



NOTE: I have made notations to the OP in Red. These were the points and understandings that were laid out in correlation with Danik's Suggestion that we voted on.