Delete contracts of previous nation in port

[Fenris]

When a nation/clan lose a port, all buying and selling contracts from players which are playing for that nation, should be automatically claimed and erased.

Otherwise their contracts are still in port, untill they are deleted, or claimed, which is pretty annoying for the new owner of that port.

Thanks.

[Sverne]

Agreed! It's easy for previous occupiers to jack the price of sought-after resources up to ridiculous amounts as a final 'fcuk you' to the new occupiers. If you can't place contracts in an enemy port, you shouldn't be able to keep contracts in an enemy port.

 

I suggest that during maintenance following the hostile takeover of any port, all buy/sell contracts should be wiped. This would cut back on price gouging, something that we currently can't do anything about, other than to let their orders fill and wait for prices to reach a reasonable level again.

 

@admin @Ink

Edited September 8, 2018 by Sverne
added admin/ink callouts

[Fenris]

36 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I see no issue here, these contracts will disappear sooner or later and if they drive the price crazy, it means that's a potential way for easy money.

There is a huge issue with this. Those contracts can still be in market for weeks. And since "enemy" can not place contracts in a port which is not FFA, i don`t know why their contracts are still active.

That is why they need to disappear at next day after maintenance.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Fenris

[Sverne]

38 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I see no issue here, these contracts will disappear sooner or later and if they drive the price crazy, it means that's a potential way for easy money.

Either allow foreign traders to place contracts in all ports, or don't. The fact that foreign contracts are allowed to remain active after port national ownership changes reeks of lazy programming, not an intentional mechanic.

 

[Sverne]

Sure, it's insignificant, but it's still annoying. Should this be prioritized over more serious and game-breaking things? Not at all. Should it at least be looked into? I think yes.

[Christendom]

If only clans could control who sets contracts up in the ports that they pay for.....

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Yes. 

[Fenris]

Well, 1 small step for the game.......

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, Christendom said:

If only clans could control who sets contracts up in the ports that they pay for.....

Or this.

I wouldn`t mind which one of both solutions, but the current one is not satisfying.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Fenris

[Macjimm]

Perhaps we could exercise a little patience.  Contracts do not last long before they expire.

We could also allow businesses a little separation from politics.  It's not unreasonable to imagine that the actions of the merchants in a port may continue for a few days after a military take over.  Sometimes when a regime is changed the daily commerce continues.  It can often take a week or two before the change of leadership is noticed.  

.

[Macjimm]

1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

your suggestion won't prevent alts from bidding so it makes no difference.

Got a point there.

[Urchin]

Alts break the game mechanics when it comes to controlling ports and contracts. Just another aspect of the game that makes RVR for resource ports a waste of time.

[Bluetooth]

Any player should be able to place a contract anywhere.

It's their risk to sail in and sail out again.

Atm you can't place a contract in an enemy port and that's BS imo.

What about smuggler content, false moustache/beard, "have you got any of the special stuff out back mate?"

This needs to be added to the game for content and different playstyles otherwise, giving clans control of contracts because of ALT abuse will prevent any casual or solo player from ever having any access to previous materials = Less population. (Not everyone wants to be in a clan and we need all the players we can get!).

Bring in a mechanic where the clan always gets some material drop by virtue of port ownership and introduce a smuggler mechanic to allow others to be able to compete. ( more content = more players).

Get rid of the ALTS by taking away the need to cheat.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Crow
Because I made it better!

[Sverne]

5 hours ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

The new owner clan collects the taxes out of all contracts which were set after the port was lost. The conquerer benefits from those contracts. It's only the players of other clans in the same nation who have to compete with the prices set by old contracts. They have to overbid them. What generates an extra tax income as well.

Why to take away this reward for a successful conquest?

Do you disagree with every post you comment on? 

[Angus MacDuff]

This is a slippery slope.  In reality, if I took a port from my enemy, not only would I void all of his contracts, I would loot all of his warehouses.  Additionally, I would seize all of his properties, including warehouses, gold, buildings and ships being built.  I don't think we want to go down that hardcore road.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Oh... why ?

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Hethwill the Harmless said:

Oh... why ?

Simply because deleting contracts opens the door to the rest

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Exactly  let me grab something...

 

 

[Angus MacDuff]

lol, Deja Vu

[Farrago]

20 hours ago, Macjimm said:

 It's not unreasonable to imagine that the actions of the merchants in a port may continue for a few days after a military take over.  Sometimes when a regime is changed the daily commerce continues.  It can often take a week or two before the change of leadership is noticed.  

.

Or, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that all goods that have been purchased but not paid for — unclaimed but filled contracts — are seized by the capturing nation.

Contracts have too long a period anyway. Make contracts 7 days. 

[Macjimm]

9 hours ago, Farrago said:

Or, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that all goods that have been purchased but not paid for — unclaimed but filled contracts — are seized by the capturing nation.

Contracts have too long a period anyway. Make contracts 7 days. 

Sounds good.  Capturing nation could seize all goods.  Paid for or not. Or the capturing nation could just leave the contracts unchanged.  It could be a choice.  But regardless, changing it won't stop Alts from setting prices.

Although I disagree that contacts are too long 

[Fenris]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Sounds good.  Capturing nation could seize all goods.  Paid for or not. Or the capturing nation could just leave the contracts unchanged.  It could be a choice.  But regardless, changing it won't stop Alts from setting prices.

Although I disagree that contacts are too long 

At this specific point, the alts are not the problem. My issue is that after conquering the port, basically nothing changes with contracts which are 1 week old. In valuable ports, which are providing precious goods(woods or ingredients for refits), it means sometimes that you need to overbid the old contracts, plus the new ones.

There is no point in status quo after losing the port. Therefore all contracts should be claimed and/or automatically deleted after the maintenance.

Alt accounts or main, can start biding again, the old ones need to go.

[Niagara]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Sounds good.  Capturing nation could seize all goods.  Paid for or not. Or the capturing nation could just leave the contracts unchanged.  It could be a choice.  But regardless, changing it won't stop Alts from setting prices.

Although I disagree that contacts are too long 

Great . Then a action like that would result in a negative effect on trade and commerce for a captured port reducing income by quite alot as merchants tends to avoid in dealing in such areas. There is a reason that the conqurers tend to leave such civil matters unchanged to avoid turmoil and unrest.

But I am all for clans getting more options but take the bad with the good in that case.