admin Trade fix

[Sea Fox]

Trading isn't broke but it is a problem.......as the only true pirate in the game let me explain......

Traders and trade ships are like fat sheep, wondering around the map getting fatter and fatter. Trading needs to stay the way it is instead, incentivise the wolves of the game!

The plan is to do what the dev's have always done so brilliantly with naval action and follow history!

1) fix trade ships or bring back smugglers flag so that hunting in foreign waters is easier. 

2) bring back tow to port in battles instance option for captured ships (trade ships only). Make capping a trade ship worth more than combat marks

3) make trade ship sinks be worth half or zero combat Mark's

4) implement more trade ships, trade Niagara? Trader Essex? Make LGV (which is useless ship) an LGVR. Make indiaman refit. 

All in all make traders a HUGE target in game....this will prompt escorts and encourage pvp.  Did you know that when I started hunting traders in south America 100% of all indiaman my little tsnow came across was unarmed! Both the main and the fleet!! Now almost all of them are because they got tired of me taking their shit! Also I'm seeing more folks sail a war ship as main with indiaman in fleet. 

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Sea Fox said:

make trade ship sinks be worth half or zero combat Mark's

How does this incentivise the wolves?  You don't hunt traders for whatever random cargo they may be carrying.  Its very rare that I want to keep what a trader has. 

[Sea Fox]

That is what is broken. Incentive needs to made to hunt traders. For me it's incentive enough to take millions without sailing. But no one wants to be stuck in open world with a capped trader. 

What would incentivise you to hunt them? More combat marks? 

[Sea Archer]

Teleporting traders is the wrong way. You might send them as ai and your prize crew to your outpost with the risk, that someone else will take it.

But then there must be a price for that comfort. Which should be, that you cannot fill up your crew in OW.

I guess it could be done with an additional perk, call it "prize master ".

[The Geth]

1 minute ago, Sea Archer said:

Teleporting traders is the wrong way. You might send them as ai and your prize crew to your outpost with the risk, that someone else will take it.

But then there must be a price for that comfort. Which should be, that you cannot fill up your crew in OW.

I guess it could be done with an additional perk, call it "prize master ".

Actually love this exact idea. Would gladly take that perk myself. 

[Angus MacDuff]

6 minutes ago, Sea Fox said:

What would incentivise you to hunt them? More combat marks?

I don't think anybody needs incentive to hunt traders.  There is a Hunt mission and a PVP mission for 5th rates (and 6th).  If you see a trader in OW, most players will tag it.  If the only reward were the cargo, I think there would be a lot less traders tagged.  What would be the point.  75% of the time, the effort would be a waste of time.  It's either empty of full of coconuts.

[Farrago]

As someone who does a lot of solo trader hunting, I would love the ability to send trade ship prizes to port after capture. But I wonder if that would instead be the new exploit: I’m a Pirate. My Russian alt trader  leaves Vera Cruz loaded with goods. 5 minutes later he surrenders to my Pirate who sends the prize to Mortimer. Bam. 5 minutes = big bucks.

It would be nice to see the amount of time required to dump cargo increased. I capture a lot of empty ships.

 

[Obi-Heed Kenobi]

59 minutes ago, Farrago said:

As someone who does a lot of solo trader hunting, I would love the ability to send trade ship prizes to port after capture. But I wonder if that would instead be the new exploit: I’m a Pirate. My Russian alt trader  leaves Vera Cruz loaded with goods. 5 minutes later he surrenders to my Pirate who sends the prize to Mortimer. Bam. 5 minutes = big bucks.

It would be nice to see the amount of time required to dump cargo increased. I capture a lot of empty ships.

 

I like the proposal for a "prize crew" perk, that would convert the capped trader to AI. I think that would add a lot to the game, from a variety of angles - and it's got a basis in history.

But, you've raised a good point. So, maybe the following two additions:

1. The capped AI automatically goes to your closest OP. So, using the VC example, if your primary account is using Tumbado as a base, that's where your captured trader goes. Or, if you've actually sailed all the way to VC from Mortimer's, so be it - you invested the time in doing that.

2. Maybe limit the prize crew to what you have on your primary ship, and code in an additional restriction not allowing you to replenish crew at sea. Meaning, once you've gotten your primary ship down to a minimum crew, no more prize crews until you visit an open port and get more sailors.

3. Obviously, the time for your capped AI ship to reach port would be whatever it would take in the OW.

Personally, I think something along these lines would be great.

 

[GrubbyZebra]

7 hours ago, Obi-Heed Kenobi said:

I like the proposal for a "prize crew" perk, that would convert the capped trader to AI. I think that would add a lot to the game, from a variety of angles - and it's got a basis in history.

But, you've raised a good point. So, maybe the following two additions:

1. The capped AI automatically goes to your closest OP. So, using the VC example, if your primary account is using Tumbado as a base, that's where your captured trader goes. Or, if you've actually sailed all the way to VC from Mortimer's, so be it - you invested the time in doing that.

2. Maybe limit the prize crew to what you have on your primary ship, and code in an additional restriction not allowing you to replenish crew at sea. Meaning, once you've gotten your primary ship down to a minimum crew, no more prize crews until you visit an open port and get more sailors.

3. Obviously, the time for your capped AI ship to reach port would be whatever it would take in the OW.

Personally, I think something along these lines would be great.

 

Make the "prize" an NPC in open world that has specific instructions to sail to your closest port and enter your dock upon arrival. 

Then, it is still at risk of capture or sinking as any other open-world ship.

[Sea Fox]

9 hours ago, Farrago said:

As someone who does a lot of solo trader hunting, I would love the ability to send trade ship prizes to port after capture. But I wonder if that would instead be the new exploit: I’m a Pirate. My Russian alt trader  leaves Vera Cruz loaded with goods. 5 minutes later he surrenders to my Pirate who sends the prize to Mortimer. Bam. 5 minutes = big bucks.

It would be nice to see the amount of time required to dump cargo increased. I capture a lot of empty ships.

 

True. Exploit would have to be addressed . Maybe tow to port only towes to your closest port? And of course only capped traders can be towed. I like the AI sailing aspect the best. 

[van Veen]

14 hours ago, Farrago said:

As someone who does a lot of solo trader hunting, I would love the ability to send trade ship prizes to port after capture. But I wonder if that would instead be the new exploit: I’m a Pirate. My Russian alt trader  leaves Vera Cruz loaded with goods. 5 minutes later he surrenders to my Pirate who sends the prize to Mortimer. Bam. 5 minutes = big bucks.

It would be nice to see the amount of time required to dump cargo increased. I capture a lot of empty ships.

 

Sending capped traders to your outpost as NPC is a great idea! 

However, I agree that it will be exploited, unless it becomes a regular option for everyone! Like this:

 

[Sea Fox]

4 hours ago, van Veen said:

Sending capped traders to your outpost as NPC is a great idea! 

However, I agree that it will be exploited, unless it becomes a regular option for everyone! Like this:

 

ABSOLUTELY!!

[Farrago]

19 hours ago, GrubbyZebra said:

Make the "prize" an NPC in open world that has specific instructions to sail to your closest port and enter your dock upon arrival. 

Then, it is still at risk of capture or sinking as any other open-world ship.

That would be great however it seems like a player instructed open water AI would open a whole new coding project and devs seem to indicate that such game overhauls are not going to happen anymore in this version.

Honestly, I think the true fix to a trading economy is impossible because it would involve some aspect of all of the following and they’re not going to happen:

1. Clans could not create resources in ports where they don’t naturally occur. You can’t build ships with the resources of just a couple of really close ports. This would force the movement of ship building materials.

2. Make mods buildable but only in capital ports but remove the magic upgrade chest to hold them. Put them out on the water too. This would combat the influence of ALTs as well.

3. Make ports have needs of basics and luxuries to keep them stable and happy. The transport of trade goods and protection of shipping becomes important to the nation as a whole and not just a source of independent wealth. Economic warfare becomes a thing. Unstable ports become neutral susceptible to capture or use as a Freeport. This will put pressure on potential zerg nations. Once a port’s needs have been met, the price of that good should fall — not to 1 real — but fall.

4. Devs manually remove short and yet still extremely profitable trade runs.

5. The money supply, as influenced by unending AI supply and unending AI consumption of trade goods needs to be monitored and squeezed as necessary.

Note that, in my opinion, such changes as I described will make it more interesting to be a trader and attract more players.

[GrubbyZebra]

2 hours ago, Farrago said:

That would be great however it seems like a player instructed open water AI would open a whole new coding project and devs seem to indicate that such game overhauls are not going to happen anymore in this version.

Player-directed NPC wouldn't need to be that complicated. It would literally be a button "send to port" and then the current NPC pathing algorithm would take over in getting the ship there, or fighting the ship if it were attacked. In other words, once the player decides to send a prize to port, it becomes virtually indistinguishable from any other NPC trader ship.

Quote

Honestly, I think the true fix to a trading economy is impossible because it would involve some aspect of all of the following and they’re not going to happen:

1. Clans could not create resources in ports where they don’t naturally occur. You can’t build ships with the resources of just a couple of really close ports. This would force the movement of ship building materials.

I don't see where creating new resources in port is necessarily a problem for some things, after all, planting trees or crops where they don't naturally occur is possible IRL, provided the environment is suitable for that particular plant. I do think a balance need to be struck between the current "every port can theoretically grown any given tree" and "2 nations control the supply of woods other than oak and fir" needs to be struck. Make it possible to plant forests in ports, but limit the number of those ports to only one or 2 per region (and the port must be capturable). 

Quote

2. Make mods buildable but only in capital ports but remove the magic upgrade chest to hold them. Put them out on the water too. This would combat the influence of ALTs as well.

Again, I would prefer to see crafting moved out of the capitals.  I do think that all mods should be craftable, but don't see a value in restricting it to the capital port (unless you also mean county capitals, in which case, I'm ambivalent). I don't mind the upgrade chest, or money chest, as it frees up warehouse space. But they should not be safe from loss. There should be a random chance of an item dropping from those chests (obviously not all your doubloons, but some) if a ship is lost in combat. 

Quote

3. Make ports have needs of basics and luxuries to keep them stable and happy. The transport of trade goods and protection of shipping becomes important to the nation as a whole and not just a source of independent wealth. Economic warfare becomes a thing. Unstable ports become neutral susceptible to capture or use as a Freeport. This will put pressure on potential zerg nations. Once a port’s needs have been met, the price of that good should fall — not to 1 real — but fall.

Absolutely agree here, ports should need trade goods to stay happy, or else they might revert (similar to what happens in Civilization with city happiness and revolts), but such a mechanic would almost require PvE on the PvP server, which seems to be a sore spot with a number of vocal players.

Quote

4. Devs manually remove short and yet still extremely profitable trade runs.

I'm on the fence with this one. There is a game play consideration here, as longer trade runs take time away from other game aspects. I don't mind sailing for hours on a trade runs, but many players do, and at least are content to spend and hour or 2 a week engaging in PvE trading to fund their PvP and crafting activities for the week. A balance needs to be struck between profitability and investment (in this case, time investment), in order to appeal to the broadest sampling of players.

Quote

5. The money supply, as influenced by unending AI supply and unending AI consumption of trade goods needs to be monitored and squeezed as necessary.

The money supply is kind of meaningless in this game, however, as there is no true macroeconomy in the game.

Quote

Note that, in my opinion, such changes as I described will make it more interesting to be a trader and attract more players.

I agree that they would make the economic game more interesting.

[admin]

not going to happen. Player created NPC transporters are technologically impossible

What everyone is missing is this. 
1000 players online is not really 1000 players, its 1000 players right now (this second). In reality it is up to 10,000 players per day. 
If each of them creates and NPC trader on OW - this will create 10000 ships (which will sail when player logged off too) which is impossible on the technology side.

Remember that the whole british *****ing royal navy had only 500 combat worthy ships at its glory time (it had more but most were in ordinary and in repairs). NA has more than 1500 NPCs and up to 2500 players.

[Raekur]

So if i am understanding this correctly the idea is that the ONLY people risking moving trade should be traders who on most occasions if they have a fleet of traders loaded with goods a single hunter can wipe out the entire fleet while the hunter gets to cap and teleport his prize to a safe port with zero risk allowing the hunter to continue hunting traders who after a battle doe NOT have the ability to move any of their ships to a safe port. Little unbalanced i think. I keep seeing comments that if a trader loses a ship he can just go out and capture another one easily, that may be true if the trader wants to sail around in a ship that  a basic cutter can catch. I have not seen any NPC Indiaman's moving around for a trader to attempt to capture to replace a lost ship or fleet of ships. Every time a trader makes a comment about being attacked by a hunter it is met with "well you should have gotten an escort" or some other "you need to get someone else to help you" type of response. Why would that not apply to the hunters? If a hunter wants to move a captured ship to port, let him run the same risk as the trader and have to actually sail it. This idea that allows hunters to engage traders and strip them of their entire fleet and REMAIN in the area to continue is so biased it will kill trade all together as traders will wind up being nothing more than free money for hunters who already have to face a small risk to cap the trader in the first place. The only thing that threatens hunters is the response fleet that came up to engage the hunter. This idea of sending a ship to port only allows these 15+ knot hunters to escape and continue hunting with little to zero chance of being stopped while th e traders are nothing more than sheep waiting for slaughter.

[GrubbyZebra]

34 minutes ago, admin said:

not going to happen. Player created NPC transporters are technologically impossible

What everyone is missing is this. 
1000 players online is not really 1000 players, its 1000 players right now (this second). In reality it is up to 10,000 players per day. 
If each of them creates and NPC trader on OW - this will create 10000 ships (which will sail when player logged off too) which is impossible on the technology side.

NA has more than 1500 NPCs and up to 2500 players.

Makes sense.

[GrubbyZebra]

11 minutes ago, Raekur said:

So if i am understanding this correctly the idea is that the ONLY people risking moving trade should be traders who on most occasions if they have a fleet of traders loaded with goods a single hunter can wipe out the entire fleet while the hunter gets to cap and teleport his prize to a safe port with zero risk allowing the hunter to continue hunting traders who after a battle doe NOT have the ability to move any of their ships to a safe port.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Punctuation, man, punctuation. 

Short answer is not quite (at least not necessarily). There is a risk to the hunter, even with Farrago's initial suggestion, as his ship would then be short whatever the prize crew size is (should be the min. crew required by the captured ship). Most ships 5th rate and above are already short on crew, so reducing this number hurts the fighting efficiency of the ship. Take 2 indiamen, for example, shorts you a minimum of 120 crew. Doesn't take long for a fighting ship to need to return to port to pick up the prize crews.

Quote

Little unbalanced i think. I keep seeing comments that if a trader loses a ship he can just go out and capture another one easily, that may be true if the trader wants to sail around in a ship that  a basic cutter can catch. I have not seen any NPC Indiaman's moving around for a trader to attempt to capture to replace a lost ship or fleet of ships.

Indiamen are cheap now (150k?, come on, they used to be 1kk), and profits are easier too. There are 45-min trade runs that you can lose 3 of 4 indiamen and still net a profit, even accounting for the cost of the lost goods and ships. If you are a trader and you are sailing all of your ships and money in 1 one, you are not planning properly. You never put more out on the water than you are prepared to lose, especially when playing as a trader.

Quote

Every time a trader makes a comment about being attacked by a hunter it is met with "well you should have gotten an escort" or some other "you need to get someone else to help you" type of response. Why would that not apply to the hunters? If a hunter wants to move a captured ship to port, let him run the same risk as the trader and have to actually sail it. This idea that allows hunters to engage traders and strip them of their entire fleet and REMAIN in the area to continue is so biased it will kill trade all together as traders will wind up being nothing more than free money for hunters who already have to face a small risk to cap the trader in the first place.

Boy, that NEVER happened in history......

And yes, traders who want protection need to either add a fighting ship to their fleet (which is what many of us do), or get an escort (also what many of us do). Hunters don do the same because a) they are already in a fighting ship and b) the traders are generally unprotected. Funny thing, when traders start protecting themselves, hunters team up to hunt. 

Quote

The only thing that threatens hunters is the response fleet that came up to engage the hunter. This idea of sending a ship to port only allows these 15+ knot hunters to escape and continue hunting with little to zero chance of being stopped while th e traders are nothing more than sheep waiting for slaughter.

as unprotected traders should be.....

[Earl of Grey]

1 hour ago, admin said:

not going to happen. Player created NPC transporters are technologically impossible

What everyone is missing is this. 
1000 players online is not really 1000 players, its 1000 players right now (this second). In reality it is up to 10,000 players per day. 
If each of them creates and NPC trader on OW - this will create 10000 ships (which will sail when player logged off too) which is impossible on the technology side.

Remember that the whole british *****ing royal navy had only 500 combat worthy ships at its glory time (it had more but most were in ordinary and in repairs). NA has more than 1500 NPCs and up to 2500 players.

1000 players online means at least 500 sitting in Port. 200 Trading, 200 doing PVE ... maybe 100 in PvP ...

You can limit Prize-ships somehow ... one per 1,2,3 hours or even 2 or 3 in 24 hoirs ... or/and make em cost some Doubs/reals too ...

You can even reserve 50 or 100 NPC-slots for AI-Prize ships and make a waiting queue If all slots are in use the ship just spawns later (allthough a bit unfair to the revenge fleet).

If 1500 NPC are a maximum then simply reduce NPCs in the power center of nations, f.e. nobody cares for british NPC near truxillo or russian NPC near Vera Cruz ... 

Thats only to the "impossible on the technology side" ... 

I think Raekur has a good point against ...

Edited January 23, 2020 by Earl of Grey

[GrubbyZebra]

4 minutes ago, Earl of Grey said:

1000 players online means at least 500 sitting in Port. 200 Trading, 200 doing PVE ... maybe 100 in PvP ...

You can limit Prize-ships somehow ... one per 1,2,3 hours or even 2 or 3 in 24 hoirs ... or/and make em cost some Doubs/reals too ...

You can even reserve 50 or 100 NPC-slots for AI-Prize ships and make a waiting queue If all slots are in use the ship just spawns later (allthough a bit unfair to the revenge fleet).

If 1500 NPC are a maximum then simply reduce NPCs in the power center of nations, f.e. nobody cares for british NPC near truxillo or russian NPC near Vera Cruz ... ..

there is merit in this.

Quote

I think Raekur has a good point against .

his point is moot if the prize ships exist in OW as NPC.s, though.

[Sea Archer]

1 hour ago, admin said:

not going to happen. Player created NPC transporters are technologically impossible

What everyone is missing is this. 
1000 players online is not really 1000 players, its 1000 players right now (this second). In reality it is up to 10,000 players per day. 
If each of them creates and NPC trader on OW - this will create 10000 ships (which will sail when player logged off too) which is impossible on the technology side.

Remember that the whole british *****ing royal navy had only 500 combat worthy ships at its glory time (it had more but most were in ordinary and in repairs). NA has more than 1500 NPCs and up to 2500 players.

Ok, players  cannot create own npc transports.

But if a players caps a npc transport, why not sending it to the next outpost with a prize crew. That would not create an additional transport and the next ai created transport will only appear when the capped ship reached port or is sunk.

[Earl of Grey]

7 minutes ago, GrubbyZebra said:

 

his point is moot if the prize ships exist in OW as NPC.s, though.

I think Raekurs Point is: why should the Trader spend 3 hours playtime to haul stuff over the whole map and the hunter gets an NPC that hauls the stuff for him ... ? Seem really Not fair to me ... 

[GrubbyZebra]

2 minutes ago, Earl of Grey said:

I think Raekurs Point is: why should the Trader spend 3 hours playtime to haul stuff over the whole map and the hunter gets an NPC that hauls the stuff for him ... ? Seem really Not fair to me ... 

Because the hunter's NPC would take crew away from the hunter, and otherwise act like an NPC (thus easily capturable/killable), which is at least as much risk as the trader player is taking (it's actually more).

[Raekur]

1 hour ago, GrubbyZebra said:

Because the hunter's NPC would take crew away from the hunter, and otherwise act like an NPC (thus easily capturable/killable), which is at least as much risk as the trader player is taking (it's actually more).

Maybe in your haste to be a grammer nazi you missed my point. I said nothing about the hunter sending the ship off as an NPC (which was already stated by an admin that it was not going to happen). I was referring to the tow to port option.

So lets examine your position of using crew to send the captured ship to port (which again, will never happen due to the strain it would put on the systems and the database). Admiral grants 1200 crew, an Endymion (about the largest hunter ship in use) uses only 340 crew. That leaves 860 crew to cover losses and "prize crew". More than enough to FULLY crew 2 Indiaman and still have 100 left for crew losses before even touching any rum that was brought along as extra.

As to trying to code something that limits the crew you can replace, what tag on a ship would designate who can and can not replenish crew? The coding for that would only be possible provided both the hunter and NPC remain online and afloat until the NPC reaches port. Otherwise it would be too easy to exploit by the hunter simply logging off to remove the flag on the account. The other aspect that I dislike with the NPC fleet is that it creates more targets and forces the nation that lost the trader to chose who to go after. If a trader cant send a fleet off under the NPC crew idea, why should a hunter have the option?

 

The only way I would see there to be any balance in this is that similar to the smuggler flag there is a Hunter or Privateer flag with the following rules set.

1. Can only be switched on or off at a Nation port.

2. The hunter can teleport the trader to his nearest outpost from OW after 3 min, this means that response fleets only have about 2 min to engage the hunter before the trader is lost. The hunter must have enough dock space to accept the trader otherwise the transport fails and the trader remains in fleet and will need at least minimal crew otherwise the fleets speed is reduced to 0.

3. The hunter is unable to engage NPC ships while the flag is enabled (this would be the reverse of the current code preventing a basic cutter from attacking a player).

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

5 minutes ago, Raekur said:

Admiral grants 1200 crew, an Endymion (about the largest hunter ship in use) uses only 340 crew. That leaves 860 crew to cover losses and "prize crew".

I wonder where those 860 extra hands fit a 340 crew ship... 🤔

( fine with covering losses as long as there's no prizes to crew, once you crew a prize you would've taken from the 340 and not the "pool to cover losses". that's balance, makes you make decision on how to use your resources, and not give everything without cause )