Lose the Pirates ! Lose the Neutral Ports !

[Crankey]

Yarrr !!

 

OK now i have your attention....

 

Every pirate started their life as a National (Somewhere!) British, Spanish, Native Indian, Portugese etc.

 

When you join the game you have no reputation, Good or Bad. Only through in game actions should you remain an honourable member of your Nation or through smuggling or piracy become known as Captain Crankey the Notorious British Pirate etc.

 

Piracy was a label not a Nation.

 

Players could Have Naval Rank earned through grinding and pvp against your Nations enemy shipping,

 

Merchant standing earned through trading.

 

Piracy would be a label of notoriety/lawfullness. Honour/Notoriety/Infamy earned by acts within the game, smuggling and piracy would give you bad notoriety and eventually earn you the title "Of ill repute","The smuggler","The Blackguard", "The Pirate", whilst intercepting pirates or smuggler activity would eventually earn you the title "The Honourable", "The Upstanding" etc

 

Players with bad repute, would be limited to visiting Neutral(I prefer Unaligned) ports and National ports where the level of 'policing' would be sufficiently low enough for you to enter with a simple bribe to the harbour master to enter you as Captain 'Smith'.

 

False papers, would give you a chance of appearing to be law abiding while on the high seas or entering ports.(Depending on the quality these could perhaps fool OW players into believing you are neutral or friendly at the very least law abiding, but if your papers fail then you are flagged as wanted or pirate to the investigating players ship who can then engage you.

 

I would suggest the more notorious you become the harder it is to deceive without using the very best falsified signals or papers(Cost associated).

 

 

Neutral Ports and Nation??

 

Players should choose their birth Nation. If not one of the main 8 then at least offer some viable 'others' with the odd port dotted around.

 

I also would prefer to align all ports on the map to either the larger nations or perhaps little known local 'self styled governors/warlords' (Guild ownership possible perhaps at some point?) Even the meanest little hamlet would have been claimed perhaps tenuously at some point by one nation or another albeit 100 years earlier without seeing a uniform since.

 

Neutral just sits badly with me. Everyone wanting to be a trader will just roll a neutral toon Yeuch

 

EDIT: As I have made some sweeping statements above or put forward an idea without going into detail, I have been replying to different queries or questions regarding my ideas within the thread to clarify and expand on my OP.

 

Already seeing some very good interpretations and suggestion to expand my initial thoughts

[Paxton Brimstone]

I like your ideas and thoughts as to the idea that pirate or other not so law abiding captains wernt so easily picked out for what they were. I agree that except for a few small exceptions of very rare occurrence pirate towns werent all over the place like 7-11's. More commonly were small towns that just honestly either looked the other way for a few coins, desperate for commerce or didn't have the necessary force to deter so in reality didn't have much of a choice but allow docking and interaction to take place. Also as I understand it not often did pirates go about sailing with a giant flag waving saying lookie here i'm a pirate chillin da most. But I also understand some concessions have to be made for the sake of game play and balance. Not sure what the real answer is but the PotBS model is definitely IMHO not it.

[Paraclete]

Master Brimstone, while I agree with your assessment on the frequency of Pirate ports we all know that with the frequency of 14yo Pirates with Mommies money to spend on video games there will never be a realistic equilibrium.

I think it best to accept it and acknowledge that we shall have a respite from the Pirate menace when school resumes in two months time.

 

I Sir remain YMOS, Para.

[Guest raat]

I like this idea.  It's adds that element of extra surprise when someone from your own nation attacks you and turns pirate.

[Paxton Brimstone]

don't take me wrong I'm not anti pirate we need bad guys and good guys to make it fun i'm just wanting it a little more ... idk not so obvious. but as a balance to the added stealth of it you have to counter with some other reduction and i was thinking access to limited safe ports possibly. Honestly i'm sure what the best option is but im sure the devs have some great ideas planed as well as the player base speaking up. I just don't want fraking Jack Sparrow all over the map ya know.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Paxton Brimstone

[maturin]

There can't be pirates without ports for them to use.

 

Of course a more historically-accurate way of doing things would be to cut down on the number of neutral and pirates ports.

 

Corrupt and lawless ports, whether neutral or national, could be open to pirates.

[Crankey]

There can't be pirates without ports for them to use.

 

Of course a more historically-accurate way of doing things would be to cut down on the number of neutral and pirates ports.

 

Corrupt and lawless ports, whether neutral or national, could be open to pirates.

 

 

The more Nefarious the acts a player takes part in the higher their profile. Therefore they have to be more and more careful where they put into port, or devise bribes or legal looking documents to circumvent attention. A player deciding to play as a pirate with the right paperwork could enter every port on the map

something a National player will never be able to do. Smuggling, Stolen goods all make it worth the risk.

 

Agreed - lose the Neutral ports all together. Create a few dozen locally governed 'states' who have access to a port. Not exactly neutral more simply too small and insignificant for the larger Nations to bother with .... Well until they become a haven for pirates and buccaneers (Or gold is discovered.) causing them to be viewed in a more interesting terms.

[William the Drake]

I have suggested a supposed form of Notoriety/Honor, however implementation of this is admittedly susceptible to abuse and manipulation if not implemented properly: Notoriety, Infamy, "Heat" and Bounties

 

There should definitely be fewer Pirate ports in some locations, but I think it is a need to avoid a high concentration of pirate ports, not so much the overall number. I also think that pirate ports should be more like temporary havens: If a Nation feels the need to run out some Pirates, the pirates will simply pick up and set up somewhere else. Pirates aren't the stand-and-fight type: 

An Approach to Piracy

 

Mobility of Pirate Ports and Havens- Pirates shouldn't be camped in areas heavily trafficked by navies, nor should they be occupying a plot of land that has an incredibly valuable resource sitting in it, thus being a major target for nations. A pirate want's his safe-house to be just that: safe. Sitting on a massive gold mine that England wants is just asking for some major overkill on England's part.

That said, pirate ports probably shouldn't be permanent: what good is a secret hideout if it is no longer secret: The power behind the pirates should be their flexibility and mobility; the ability to hurry, pick everything up and get the hell out of dodge and set up somewhere new. In short "To embrace the oldest and noblest of pirate traditions...We must fight, to run away." 

 

I am also in agreement that Neutrals should go (I swear it looks like their towns are surrendering to me but I cannot enter to formally accept it!)

 

Instead, have all ports belong to a nation or pirates, but have varying levels of "security". Depending on the port's importance/size/etc. security can be heavy or light. Ports with light security will be easily accessible by pirates, smugglers, and traders of warring nations. The higher the security, the harder it will be for pirates and non-national traders to gain entrance to the port.

 

Also, port owners could even put up a type of reverse blockade: no ships can enter the port except for those of the ports owner; i.e. only English ships could enter Nassau, Spanish to San Juan etc.  (I believe Spain did something like this in South America where only Spanish traders were allowed to trade at Spanish ports)

[Hugh Latham]

Pirates are not a nation and should not be structured as such. I agree that it is better to have neutral ports accessible to pirates and eliminate the Neutral nation. The "Neutral" nation is a very weird idea anyway; are they Martians? Where did they come from? As stated above, the essence of  a neutral port is that it is non aligned or corrupt, both of which could turn a blind eye to visits and stolen goods from pirates.

[felelo]

I all for it... Sounds like the bast way to have pirates in game...

[maturin]

The more Nefarious the acts a player takes part in the higher their profile. Therefore they have to be more and more careful where they put into port, or devise bribes or legal looking documents to circumvent attention. A player deciding to play as a pirate with the right paperwork could enter every port on the map

something a National player will never be able to do. Smuggling, Stolen goods all make it worth the risk.

 

Agreed - lose the Neutral ports all together. Create a few dozen locally governed 'states' who have access to a port. Not exactly neutral more simply too small and insignificant for the larger Nations to bother with .... Well until they become a haven for pirates and buccaneers (Or gold is discovered.) causing them to be viewed in a more interesting terms.

No pirate worried about attracting attention when putting into Nassau, so I really don't see the historical parallels here.

 

And national players should absolutely be able to smuggle. Smuggling was widespread and practically respectable. Pirates don't smuggle because they don't trade.

 

Neutral ports are necessary in a free-for-all war, so that small nations and the US won't be trapped in one tiny area.

[Crankey]

No pirate worried about attracting attention when putting into Nassau, so I really don't see the historical parallels here.

 

And national players should absolutely be able to smuggle. Smuggling was widespread and practically respectable. Pirates don't smuggle because they don't trade.

 

Neutral ports are necessary in a free-for-all war, so that small nations and the US won't be trapped in one tiny area.

 

Mr Maturin I believe we are singing from the same hymn sheet, merely started at different pages.

 

 

A pirate wouldn't sail boldly into a well policed harbour unless he was doing so in 'disguise' change look of his vessel, wearing apprpriate disguise, false papers etc. Yes they would have no reason to do this if putting into an unpoliced den of the unlawful.

 

I agree any player should be able to smuggle etc, however if you get caught your unlawful activity is attached to your current 'lawfullness / notoriety rank. Carry out and get get caught doing enough unlawful acts would alter your standing and potentially make it difficult to enter the more policed ports, again without somehow trying to hide your identity.

 

Small principalities dotted around around the globe will have fewer restrictions on all national and unlawful notoriety players visiting. In essence they are your neutral ports but have far more colour and in creating them you prevent all traders rolling neutral, as well as adding a lot more future possibilities for interaction with or in them.

[Tief N Tote]

this does make sense but some of us are looking for more of a pve style of play. i'm not a die hard pvp player and the neutral option is the closest choice to that

Edited July 11, 2015 by Tief N Tote

[Hugh Latham]

this does make sense but some of us are looking for more of a pve style of play. i'm not a die hard pvp player and the neutral option is the closest choice to that

Thank god there are so few pirates that a neutral can sail without fear

[SeamanStaines]

Neutral ports are necessary for trade. Without them you will only be trading amongst concentrations of your nations ports. I just don't see how exploration and trade will work without neutral ports.

 

Also they are needed for repairs and repatriation after being sunk. Although I would not mind if after sinking players were sent back to their capitol.

[Crankey]

Neutral ports are necessary for trade. Without them you will only be trading amongst concentrations of your nations ports. I just don't see how exploration and trade will work without neutral ports.

 

Also they are needed for repairs and repatriation after being sunk. Although I would not mind if after sinking players were sent back to their capitol.

 

Not all of the current neutral ports need to be aligned to the main 8 Nations, many could be small outposts for far flung kingdoms, or self styles governors running an independent port etc. Don't forget a Nations conquests were normally based around resources wanted, or strategic locations. This would give the Nations something to fight over.

 

If there are sufficient neutral ports turned into self styled independent ports then these would function just as the neutral ones are now. So any nation could go into port for trading or shipwreck re-spawns etc.

[Flavalicious]

Pirates point is interesting, i dont think the mechanics of that speciality faction are sorted enough to fully comment

 

Neutral ports i like, because it allows you to work with conflicts in real life.  Sailing back to a national port is not always an option and i think neutral ports are a good answer between "i cant log out at sea" and "you shouldnt play unless you have 4 hours to do it".  lol

 

Neutral ports are convenience and with a good chunk of the game capable of being very frustrating, i do like the concept of how common they are. 

[Lord Hood]

I came across a pirate Bellona yesterday. Certainly detracted from the game experience for me.

[ObiQuiet]

Neutral ports are necessary for trade. Without them you will only be trading amongst concentrations of your nations ports. I just don't see how exploration and trade will work without neutral ports.

Also they are needed for repairs and repatriation after being sunk. Although I would not mind if after sinking players were sent back to their capitol.

If there were game-driven long term political alliances, shifting tensions, and wars between nations, you could trade with whomever your side wasnt at war with. The geopolitical ebb and flow would influence prices and trade routes would change accordingly. Edited July 13, 2015 by Lt. Obiquiet

[CaptLouis]

I'm very keen on these suggestions and see the 'pirate' role as heavily nuanced in this era. BTW, what is the key date or date range for this game?

 

Further to Lt. Obiquiet's point, this is all about timelines and geo-political shifts. I see it as crucial to model shifting national alliances and resulting ROE changes in some way, rather than just having everyone at war with each other for ever. Large scale collaborative wargames (both digital and not) have often run sandboxed 'games' with distinct timelines, rules, setups and historical backrounds. These 'games' are driven by historical events that re-define the rules based on historical timelines, but sometimes elect to keep variability from the purely historical to keep the players challenged.

 

A historically accurate flavour should ideally also come from Letters of Marque, in addition to out and out piracy. There is potentially also the capacity to have false colours and forged Letters of Marque, as well as a distinction between Letters of Marque and Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

 

Thanks for starting the discussion again with piracy and neutrality considered as two facets of the same dynamic.

 

EDIT: Lord Hood is right, a pirate SOL is a ridiculous contradiction in terms that spoils this great game.

Edited July 13, 2015 by CaptLouis

[Hugh Latham]

I was not suggesting eliminating neutral ports, just the neutered "nation".... I mean, neutral nation.

As for how to structure the life of a pirate, may I suggest there be various shades of piracy, from smugglers, to notorious blood thirsty villains based on reputation. The different shades could have varying access to ports as well as status on the high seas (ie which flag they sail under). I think pirates could be designed to be the most interesting and complex roll. A balancing act of allegiance and black market trade. However, the one thing I think pirates should be limited in is ship size. It should be a trade off for the freedom of being a pirate that they stick to historically legitimate medium frigates and smaller. The life of a pirate would make it harder to maintain a large ship and a notorious pirate would stand out like a sore thumb and be quickly caught and destroyed. I think the limit in ship size could be offset by advantages in crew size and boarding attributes.

Let's build on ideas for pirate rolls and eliminate the concept of neutral nation.

[Hugh Latham]

A thought on increased crew sizes for pirates; in general there should be provisioning penalties for overcrewing which limit the range of a vessel without reprovisioning with a stopover in port. Pirates would fall under these rules as well, but some could be configured as ambush predators, making short forays to sea hoping to intercept a suitable prize, while others could function with normal crews aimed at subduing weaker targets, such as merchants and small escorts.

[mouse of war]

It would be nice if there was some way back from being a pirate. In the real world a pirate could bribe the local governor to receive an official pardon.

This could be a chancy business - the governor might just pocket the cash