Ideas for the future!

[Grey Roger]

Possibly carry an object on the character that causes it? Maybe just have that object in their inventory to check for.

The snag there is that you either need to dump the object somewhere or the next battle is going to be "No quarter", which might not be to your advantage. If you have dumped it, you then need to retrieve it to switch to "No quarter" mode - and you can't go to your cabin in the middle of a battle. If it's a special object which can be activated by command, similar to the glowing orb in the battle against the Black Pearl at the end of "Tales of a Sea Hawk", then you're back to having to add a command. In that case you don't need the object, you just add the command.

Don't forget that one of the options in the dialog with the captain is "I'll cut you all down like pigs! That is my final decision!" If you want to show no quarter, that's how to do it at the moment.

Otherwise, if anybody else wants to implement the effect of a red flag, another way in might be that if you are currently flying a pirate flag, replace the "Hoist pirate flag" icon and command with a "No quarter!" command.

 

[Grey Roger]

Get it on shot across the bow. You are right about the money, but do you mean to that when you demand the money in the current game you get the sword? If so I never noticed that.

That is exactly what I mean. I didn't notice it either until I tried out my new dialog which gave you the captain's sword when you demanded it in return for good treatment, checked that I was in fact getting his sword, and found I was getting two of them. When I removed that line from the dialog - or indeed, when I put back the original dialog - and checked again, I found that I did indeed still get a free sword. (And gun, if the captain was carrying one.)

The code which does it is part of function 'DisarmCharacter', defined in "PROGRAM\MAXIMUS_Functions.c" and called in function 'TIH_PrisonerTakenProcess'. This in turn is defined in "PROGRAM\Dialog_func.c" and called by the part of the dialog with the surrendered captain when you pick the option to take him prisoner.

 

[Jason]

Who new. Can you tell if the sword is the one the Captain was carrying when you spoke to him? I like the idea of the surrender dialogue if we can implement it. I wonder who we have to thank for the weapons / disarm thing. That is extremely clever and subtle although it is a little disconcerting that are still armed in the hold. I wonder if we could clear that up and then if you want to duel him the hold you could offer him a weapon, maybe give him a choice of one from you inventory or arms chest?

 

[Grey Roger]

The sword you receive is indeed the one the captain was carrying. You can check by looking closely at the captain to see what he has, checking your inventory to see how many of that sword you already have, then checking your inventory again after taking him prisoner.

I suspect that enemy captains are being equipped twice. If the captain does not surrender and you fight him, you automatically get his weapons when you kill him and you also find more weapons when you loot the body. Taking him prisoner gives you the weapons which he had equipped, then he's still left with the others.

If you choose to kill him and then allow him to fight, the captain automatically gets a new random sword.

 

[Jason]

Very thorough explanation thanks. I wonder if it would possible to block the re-equipping. Unless you decide to fight him and requiring you to re-equip him from your inventory.

 

[Grey Roger]

This is starting to become a case of mission creep - more requirements are added until the original objective is lost. If I can figure out where the enemy captain is being equipped, I'll try to prevent him from getting a second weapon. Otherwise I'll concentrate on the revised dialogs and the consequences of various choices. (Both "Cabinfight_dialog.c" and "Prisoned_dialog.c" are involved here, and "governor.c" will become involved as well.)

At present, what I'm planning for consequeces are as follows:

• +1 reputation for offering honourable surrender, i.e. not taking the captain's money.
• Reputation boost for releasing without ransom reduced from +5 to +4. The net total is therefore still +5, but you get +1 in advance for not taking the captain's personal money. The big gain is still from not taking the ransom.
• Naval regulations require that prisoners be treated honourably, so naval officers don't have a choice - they can't take the captain's money. Privateers can, but they'll lose 1 point of national relation with anyone from whom they have a LoM. They'll usually get at least 1 point when they capture or sink the ship, so they won't end up with a net loss unless they make a habit of plundering tiny merchant ships and robbing the captains, but it will slow down their promotions.
• Executing prisoners will bring the normal -5 reputation, or -10 if you said you're going to treat him well and then break that promise. Additionally, there'll be an attribute keeping score and if you make a habit of executing prisoners, you'll get a nasty surprise when you visit a governor to try to claim a promotion. First you get a warning to change your ways. If you've had a warning and keep on doing it, you lose all your LoM's and naval officers get kicked out of the service. There'll also be an addition to the "Art of War" tutorial book explaining that naval regulations require decent treatment of prisoners - and privateers, being auxiliary naval officers for legal purposes, are expected to follow that rule.

 

[Jason]

That seems excellent. Apologies for mission creep.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

This is starting to become a case of mission creep - more requirements are added until the original objective is lost.

That's how discoveries are made!

Privateers can, but they'll lose 1 point of national relation with anyone from whom they have a LoM.

Need to make sure to use the correct function call there.
One of the related functions was hugely rewritten by me and might "overreact" to a negative relation change with friendly nations.

Executing prisoners will bring the normal -5 reputation, or -10 if you said you're going to treat him well and then break that promise. Additionally, there'll be an attribute keeping score and if you make a habit of executing prisoners, you'll get a nasty surprise when you visit a governor to try to claim a promotion. First you get a warning to change your ways. If you've had a warning and keep on doing it, you lose all your LoM's and naval officers get kicked out of the service. There'll also be an addition to the "Art of War" tutorial book explaining that naval regulations require decent treatment of prisoners - and privateers, being auxiliary naval officers for legal purposes, are expected to follow that rule.

That's an interesting idea!

If you're already thinking along those lines, are there any potential thoughts as well for non-navy non-privateer characters?
I am thinking of the "Blackbeard scenario": Deliberately doing whatever necessary to be perceived as terrifying, for increased profit.
Or something like that anyway.

 

[Grey Roger]

Need to make sure to use the correct function call there.
One of the related functions was hugely rewritten by me and might "overreact" to a negative relation change with friendly nations.

This is what I'm going to try:

               if(bIsPrivateer || bIsNavy)
               {
                   for(i = 0;  i < MAX_NATIONS; i++)
                   {
                       if(GetRMRelation(PChar, i) >= (REL_NEUTRAL + 1.0) && HaveLetterOfMarque(i)) ChangeRMRelation(PChar, i, -1.0);
                       else SetRMRelation(PChar, i, REL_NEUTRAL);
                   }
               }

Boolean variables "bIsPrivateer" and "bIsNavy" are already defined earlier in "Cabinfight_dialog.c". At present this code isn't going to be run if "bIsNavy" is true because naval characters won't get the "money" option, but I've included it anyway just in case I change my mind on that or in case someone modifies it later.

If your relations are already over 1.0 then the -1.0 change will be just the minor setback I want. If your relations are less than 1.0 then a -1.0 shift would set them negative and cost you your LoM - I already looked at the definition of "ChangeRMRelation".

That's an interesting idea!

If you're already thinking along those lines, are there any potential thoughts as well for non-navy non-privateer characters?
I am thinking of the "Blackbeard scenario": Deliberately doing whatever necessary to be perceived as terrifying, for increased profit.
Or something like that anyway.

Non-privateer and non-naval characters don't need any special treatment, they can do whatever they like. Blackbeard wants his reputation to drop, so executing prisoners will still do that.

Maybe increase the ransom if you're "Bloody Terror" or "Horror of the High Seas", though I'll only look into that, if at all, when I've got the "honourable surrender" dialog and the penalty for navy/privateer characters executing prisoners sorted out.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I already looked at the definition of "ChangeRMRelation".

Good!
There was a function that does a whole lot more, but I think that was "UpdateRMRelation", wasn't it?
If so, you've got the right one here to be on the safe side!

But do you actually lose your LoM at all when only calling "ChangeRMRelation"?
I can't remember properly anymore, but I think a whole lot of those far-reaching consequences are handled in "UpdateRMRelation" instead.

Non-privateer and non-naval characters don't need any special treatment, they can do whatever they like. Blackbeard wants his reputation to drop, so executing prisoners will still do that.

I was thinking mainly about adding a positive side to have a terrible reputation. Right now, I don't think there really are any...

Maybe increase the ransom if you're "Bloody Terror" or "Horror of the High Seas", though I'll only look into that, if at all, when I've got the "honourable surrender" dialog and the penalty for navy/privateer characters executing prisoners sorted out.

Nice idea!
But as you say, better left until after the other stuff works. You've got enough on your hands as it is.

 

[Grey Roger]

Good!
There was a function that does a whole lot more, but I think that was "UpdateRMRelation", wasn't it?
If so, you've got the right one here to be on the safe side!

But do you actually lose your LoM at all when only calling "ChangeRMRelation"?

From 'ChangeRMRelation':

       if (IsMainCharacter(char)   && newrel <  REL_NEUTRAL)                       // If dropping below Friendly
       LooseLetterOfMarque(iNation);                                           // Lose any Letter of Marque

I was thinking mainly about adding a positive side to have a terrible reputation. Right now, I don't think there really are any...

If I remember correctly, "Horror of the High Seas" can trade anywhere, the same way "Hero" can. Everyone likes the "Hero" and everyone is scared of the "Horror of the High Seas" - if you're running a store and Blackbeard comes in wanting to buy something, are you going to refuse?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

From 'ChangeRMRelation':

       if (IsMainCharacter(char)   && newrel <  REL_NEUTRAL)                       // If dropping below Friendly
       LooseLetterOfMarque(iNation);                                           // Lose any Letter of Marque

Ah, good! Then you're covered there too.

If I remember correctly, "Horror of the High Seas" can trade anywhere, the same way "Hero" can. Everyone likes the "Hero" and everyone is scared of the "Horror of the High Seas" - if you're running a store and Blackbeard comes in wanting to buy something, are you going to refuse?

I indeed remember you changing that.
That is indeed an advantage compared to being "notorious but not that notorious", but it isn't more of an advantage than any good character has.
Gameplay is still far easier when you're on the good side, which is very non-piratey and even very unrealistic.

 

[Grey Roger]

Beyond that, the only advantage I can think of for a good reputation is that some sidequests require it. The only way to balance that is if someone writes a sidequest which requires an evil reputation. Or possibly an entire storyline about an evil pirate. Volunteer required...

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Beyond that, the only advantage I can think of for a good reputation is that some sidequests require it. The only way to balance that is if someone writes a sidequest which requires an evil reputation. Or possibly an entire storyline about an evil pirate. Volunteer required...

Maybe indeed reputation just simply doesn't affect much of anything at all.
Unfortunate, because there's a LOT of gameplay and role playing potential there.

 

[STARk7]

If I remember correctly, "Horror of the High Seas" can trade anywhere, the same way "Hero" can. Everyone likes the "Hero" and everyone is scared of the "Horror of the High Seas" - if you're running a store and Blackbeard comes in wanting to buy something, are you going to refuse?

I'm "Horror of the high seas" just because I haven't returned 300 gold to loanshark.It would be better for those store owners not to mess with evil abominations like me

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I'm "Horror of the high seas" just because I haven't returned 300 gold to loanshark.It would be better for those store owners not to mess with evil abominations like me

 

[STARk7]

When they see me at the door they're all like "OMG I Can't believe it's him.
-Who?
-That guy that borrowed 300 gold from loanshark and never returned it
-What a jerk
-Yeah,I wish he is dead
-Me too

 

[Grey Roger]

Maybe indeed reputation just simply doesn't affect much of anything at all.
Unfortunate, because there's a LOT of gameplay and role playing potential there.

Yes, sidequests. Toff Oremans doesn't trust you unless you're trustworthy. And you won't get far into "Strange Things Going on in the Caribbean" without a good reputation, which makes sense - you can't be expected to "stand brave in the face of evil", as Father Bernard puts it, if you are in fact evil. (Wait until you have the evil-looking ship, then turn to the dark side. )

I am thinking of the "Blackbeard scenario": Deliberately doing whatever necessary to be perceived as terrifying, for increased profit.

Thinking about it a bit more, I believe the traditional response to requests of that nature is "Nice idea, but you'll be doing it." Besides, I don't know where ransoms are calculated. If you do, it shouldn't be too hard to add in a factor for reputation. It does make sense - if the prisoner knows you're a nice guy, then he knows you're not going to kill him, which means you'll either settle for whatever he offers, keep him alive in the hope of an improved offer (and give him the chance to escape), or release him for the reputation boost. If he know you're evil then the only way he's getting out alive is if he makes it worth your while.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Yes, sidequests. Toff Oremans doesn't trust you unless you're trustworthy. And you won't get far into "Strange Things Going on in the Caribbean" without a good reputation, which makes sense - you can't be expected to "stand brave in the face of evil", as Father Bernard puts it, if you are in fact evil. (Wait until you have the evil-looking ship, then turn to the dark side. )

I've been thinking for years to work it into the basic game mechanics. But because I got completely swamped with real life (and still am), nothing ever happened...

Thinking about it a bit more, I believe the traditional response to requests of that nature is "Nice idea, but you'll be doing it."

Yep, I've used that response myself often enough.

In this case, "I'll be doing it" effectively means "it won't happen". I haven't had a chance for any playing or modding whatsoever for well over a year now.
Doesn't look to be changing soon, so posting random comments on the forum is pretty much the limit of what I can manage.

Besides, I don't know where ransoms are calculated. If you do, it shouldn't be too hard to add in a factor for reputation. It does make sense - if the prisoner knows you're a nice guy, then he knows you're not going to kill him, which means you'll either settle for whatever he offers, keep him alive in the hope of an improved offer (and give him the chance to escape), or release him for the reputation boost. If he know you're evil then the only way he's getting out alive is if he makes it worth your while.

That should work. And is probably far simpler than my 2-year-old vague ideas.

Prisoned_dialog.c handles most of the ransoming, so there should be a reference there to the calculation.
Should be possible to use that to track down where it happens.

 

[Homo eructus]

Maybe it could be done via dialogue with the prisoner, like threatening them with cutting off a finger and send it to their families... or actually doing it, for increased ransom and bad rep, or torturing the locals after you attack a town so they reveal their secret stashes, as pirates were known to do when plundering cities.