Max Danger per Fleet Limit for Attacking

[Shadowood]

720 Danger = 120 Attacks (720/6)

I don't see an issue with capping a single fleet to a max of 720 danger. Like Danik said, it forces a player to use more than one fleet if he/she wants to continue to plunder. They can also drop some coin on "Hideout" voodoo if they are concerned.

If a player is concerned about sink chance... you can have up to 100 ships (20 full fleets) and only have a 10% sink chance. The above suggestion shouldn't be an issue.

But I be a simple trader. I know nothing of warships.

[Captain Jack]

The more I think of this, the more I believe this can be turned to something that can be unlocked/buffed. One player has already suggested that we can have different limit for those bearing the Black and I believe this is to the right direction.

Also, here are current top 5 danger fleets in Avonmora:

CJ, I removed these numbers as a clever player could deduce whose fleets these belong to, and provides information that is not readily available thus giving an unfair advantage. - Dez


The numbers here show that we could even start from a lower floor. Like the initial 360. However, I am willing to take small steps with this one.

What currently crosses my mind as a problem is what happens once such a fleet reaches the danger limit. Right now, it can be attacked relentlessly, yet no one does. The main reason this happens is Danger. No one wants danger for a small target. I see this as a difficult puzzle to solve:

-At one hand, such prevents small fleets of small players from getting over attacked.
-There is merit to this, as the strong and powerful won't risk anything for nothing.

At the other hand, it does not make sense when someone wants to prosecute an enemy. So perhaps, instead of going with the "No attack option" after the Danger Limit, we could go with different "Plunder Rules". For example, plunder rewards are also relative to fleet danger. And/or after a danger limit, the max loot limit is removed.

Or we could go with the independent fleets system where after the danger limit is reached, the holder will be either forced to hold a useless fleet or make it independent (I think I have wrote about it somewhere, not sure of the title though - basically fleets are no longer owned by the player but are controlled by him. the player can only add/remove gold under specific rules and of course he pays turns for every fleet action).

[Most Lee Harmless]

I'd happily attack more lit up fleets : but not when I lose 2.5mil fame for each loss.
Okay, I am beyond caring about keeping it but it still rankles to see a number like that attached to, for example, the one loss after about 50 straight wins.
Deal with that then there is a good chance there may be fewer fleets holding big DP counts..

[The Lamb]

I would love to see more fleets running personally and also see the need to run more fleets. What about a process of "War Weariness". Like a health attrition base on the danger level.

Could run at milestones, 120 Danger fleets attack and defend at 75% health, 240 Danger fleets attack and defend at 50% health. and so on ... something like that

[Dmanwuzhere]

no thanks there is a cap
maybe trade ships need to go in for barnacle cleaning after so many trips
barnacles slow you down and if you dont dry dock them for a week to be cleaned they get regulated in the same manner
only gaining a percent of the profit that decreases as more trips occur

why the spotlight on danger

[Most Lee Harmless]

There is a daily cost for ship and cannon upkeep already. Dont pay it and your ships will suffer damage right down to 1% and you will lose crew and cannon.

[Dmanwuzhere]

There is a daily cost for ship and cannon upkeep already. Dont pay it and your ships will suffer damage right down to 1% and you will lose crew and cannon.

same upkeep warships have

the discussion is heading towards more than just a cap on danger
so maybe barnacle damage needs to be introduced
lets make everything about reality in a fantasy game
you want to run 50 fleets all profit then you need 100 fleets so you can rotate them for repairs
surely that will add fleets ... right

[Most Lee Harmless]

You seem to think I want to run 50 fleets. But the upkeep cost is a reason some big-fleets do not arm their ships, which does mean pirates can, and do, run less powerful and lower cost raiding fleets, which can run up danger and get lost to no real penalty. See, game-play balances out in more than the obvious ways. Trade profits do not come for free, no matter how much some pirates may promote that notion. Given the low cost/high return/low risk model of the smarter raider, maybe its the other way around.

I run a small fleet, low-cost / low risk / high return enterprise : mainly because it has cost a billion or two to reach that point. A pirate need invest far less to the same end.

[The Lamb]

I believe the "danger system" was devised as a kind of bounty system to try am make people not abuse the system for fear of heafty retailiation. While im sure Black beard used to take his flotilla and attack 200 fleets before going into hiding, my personal opinion is its an exploit.

I would even say it could go farther to the point.

If danger is the PG equivalent of a wanted poster to make the fleet stand out for attack, then:
1. Use the "war weariness" approach i brought up. At a certain danger level, att and def at 75% health, at the next level att and def at 50% health, and the last level 25%
2. The name color on the plunder board changes to alert everyone else of these levels. once at 75% health level name goes yellow, at 50% name goes orange, at 25% name goes red on plunder board so the risk can be better weighed.
3. The inverse math works for the attackers of these fleets. Attack a yellow fleet, 25% change to NOT get danger after attack, attack an orange fleet then 50% to not get danger after attack and lastly attack a red fleet and have a 75% chance to not get danger from the attack.

After all, the idea of the game is to develop and sail fleets, the idea of the danger system is to make people have to have more fleets, and if the danger system is supposed to be a sort of "Wanted poster", then there should be some incentive not to get danger that high and incentive to clear those who do.

Just a thought

[Dmanwuzhere]

You seem to think I want to run 50 fleets. But the upkeep cost is a reason some big-fleets do not arm their ships, which does mean pirates can, and do, run less powerful and lower cost raiding fleets, which can run up danger and get lost to no real penalty. See, game-play balances out in more than the obvious ways. Trade profits do not come for free, no matter how much some pirates may promote that notion. Given the low cost/high return/low risk model of the smarter raider, maybe its the other way around.

I run a small fleet, low-cost / low risk / high return enterprise : mainly because it has cost a billion or two to reach that point. A pirate need invest far less to the same end.

and gold bar sinks were added to be realistic right?
no they were added for those who wanted to squander some cash for bragging rights
now the return on all those billions or millions is to limit those who can target others
nah it sucks

are there some issues with raiding in some folks eyes ... sure
i think i have an idea what this is stemming from
but there are far better ways to achieve some results
this isnt it

i would argue probably against essentially every fix as it generally is limiting gameplay for a majority to aid a minority