• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

Feature Request Make loot from boarding smaller or harder to get rid off

Levis

Find(Rum) = false;
Staff member
Administrator
Creative Support
Programmer
Storm Modder
thinking about this a bit more.
If a certain weapon is standard issue for a country, wouldn't shop keepers not buy it, or only guy them for very low prices?
That shouldn't be that hard to add and would make sure you need to think a bit more tactical about where to sell those weapons.....
 
If a certain weapon is standard issue for a country, wouldn't shop keepers not buy it, or only guy them for very low prices?
I was indeed beginning to think along those same lines. :yes

That shouldn't be that hard to add and would make sure you need to think a bit more tactical about where to sell those weapons.....
If I'm letting my imagination run wild, what if selling such a "dedicated soldier weapon" in a store belonging to their own nation, or one of their allies could get you into trouble with the local authorities?
Anyway, that part is definitely NOT to be done on short term at all.
 
True but I can see it working.

Say you have a function like:

GetNationGuardSwords(int Nation)
and
GetNationGuardPistols(int Nation)
and
GetNationGuardEquipment(int Nation)

these function return an array of the swords/pistols (with maybe multidimentional also the minlevel added) or other stuff a guard should have, you could add a argument to it to specify it even more (for example army or navy etc).
From the GiveSoldierWeapon() function you can call these function and determine which weapon to pick for the guard.
But you could also call these functions from the shop to see if the weapon which is sold belongs to the nation and trigger whatever effect you want then. I'd say a simple town peddler would just refure to buy them (while a shady trader would buy them) and if you try to sell them in the official shop it could cause more problems.
 
these function return an array of the swords/pistols (with maybe multidimentional also the minlevel added) or other stuff a guard should have, you could add a argument to it to specify it even more (for example army or navy etc).
From the GiveSoldierWeapon() function you can call these function and determine which weapon to pick for the guard.
That means taking the current GiveSoldierWeapon function and subdividing it into different functions.
Could probably help with readability, but otherwise would make no difference compared to what we currently have.

But you could also call these functions from the shop to see if the weapon which is sold belongs to the nation and trigger whatever effect you want then. I'd say a simple town peddler would just refure to buy them (while a shady trader would buy them) and if you try to sell them in the official shop it could cause more problems.
It sounds doable for sure. But will definitely have some controversial effects. @Grey Roger won't like it at all! :wp
 
thinking about this a bit more.
If a certain weapon is standard issue for a country, wouldn't shop keepers not buy it, or only guy them for very low prices?
I don't think this would be the case. After all, are standard issue military weapons like the M-16 or Beretta 92 cheaper in the USA than equivalent, non-military issue weapons?

If anything, the price might be higher. Weapons of that type are going first to the navy and second to private owners, which means they may be in shorter supply to the shop than other weapons. And they get to add "military issue" into the advertising - the shop can claim that obviously this is the best sort of weapon if our army and navy have chosen it.

On the other hand, I specifically picked weapons which aren't particularly high priced. Partly to prevent them from being an easy source of lots of free money to anyone who plunders a warship, and partly because the navy isn't going to spend a fortune on expensive fancy swords when cheaper, less fancy ones will do the job. So they're already relatively low price compared to some other weapons of similar ability.
 
What if you sell 20 English military weapons in an English shop? Would they not get suspicious?
With I don't see an issue with 1, but at some point it starts looking strange, no?
 
That means taking the current GiveSoldierWeapon function and subdividing it into different functions.
Could probably help with readability, but otherwise would make no difference compared to what we currently have.
What I mean is that it shouldn't be that hard to implement because then you can use those functions for a lot of things.

I agree with @Pieter Boelen that selling multiple weapons from the standard issue should cause a problem.
Also if you are serving that nation wouldn't it be weird if you sold weapons handed by the navy?
 
What I mean is that it shouldn't be that hard to implement because then you can use those functions for a lot of things.
True. :yes

I agree with @Pieter Boelen that selling multiple weapons from the standard issue should cause a problem.
Also if you are serving that nation wouldn't it be weird if you sold weapons handed by the navy?
I know what @Grey Roger is going to say on that one.
If we actually do this, then all we accomplish is that players have to sell those weapons in small batches at once, which introduces more micro-management.
And that is technically quite true.
 
So for the sake of preventing exploids you could say even selling 1 weapon would be a problem.
We could add a interface thing letting the player know selling that item would be risky (just like the elder scrolls games show if an item is stolen etc).
 
So for the sake of preventing exploids you could say even selling 1 weapon would be a problem.
Which returns us to @Grey Roger's point from post #5.
And that only serves to enforce that additional micro-management.

The main reason for doing this would be to offset the "huge number of soldier weapons you could loot by attacking navy ships".
And since most navy ships you attack would be hostile, this feature won't really have much of an effect there at all.

So I'm not sure in what way to implement this so that it'll add to the game, rather than detract.
Plus.... is it worth the effort?
 
Which returns us to @Grey Roger's point from post #5.
And that only serves to enforce that additional micro-management.

The main reason for doing this would be to offset the "huge number of soldier weapons you could loot by attacking navy ships".
And since most navy ships you attack would be hostile, this feature won't really have much of an effect there at all.

So I'm not sure in what way to implement this so that it'll add to the game, rather than detract.
Plus.... is it worth the effort?
In that case another solution might be to have some of the weapons "break".
And have the changes during boarding be higher, so some of the enemies don't have theire weapon anymore.
I believe the player weapon can break already but the enemy weapon can't.
I don't advice to have this happen during the fight as it might screw up AI things, but if a character dies we could have a simple script with a random change of some of the equipment being broken. I think that is also what @Grey Roger was sugesting before (or something like that)?
 
Or better yet, just leave it alone. Again consider the current US system in which you can buy or sell military issue weapons personally, e.g. a Beretta 92 pistol. Swords in the 16th-19th centuries shouldn't be much different.

Actually, this whole idea of using it as a way to ruin things for the player has for me become a good argument against implementing the whole "Soldier weapons for boarders" thing at all.

And finally:
Military Swords - Pooley Sword
Here's a company which supplies swords, admittedly only ceremonial these days, to the armed forces. And presumably to anyone else who wants to buy them.

So shops should be able to sell the same sort of sword that the navy uses as standard. And if you can buy them legally, you can sell them legally.
 
I believe the player weapon can break already but the enemy weapon can't.
Yes, they can. And they do. Have done for years. And during the fight too.
The chance is relatively low though, since the weapon must be Worn before it can happen.

I don't advice to have this happen during the fight as it might screw up AI things
It should work perfectly fine. And it normally does. Except when this bug starts acting up:
Confirmed Bug - Unintentional Fights or Lack Thereof (aka. AI Group Relations) | PiratesAhoy!
That does unfortunately happen. :(
 
Or better yet, just leave it alone. Again consider the current US system in which you can buy or sell military issue weapons personally, e.g. a Beretta 92 pistol. Swords in the 16th-19th centuries shouldn't be much different.

Actually, this whole idea of using it as a way to ruin things for the player has for me become a good argument against implementing the whole "Soldier weapons for boarders" thing at all.

And finally:
Military Swords - Pooley Sword
Here's a company which supplies swords, admittedly only ceremonial these days, to the armed forces. And presumably to anyone else who wants to buy them.

So shops should be able to sell the same sort of sword that the navy uses as standard. And if you can buy them legally, you can sell them legally.
is this also a reaction to the "breaking" idea?
 
In that case another solution might be to have some of the weapons "break".
And have the changes during boarding be higher, so some of the enemies don't have theire weapon anymore.
I believe the player weapon can break already but the enemy weapon can't.
I don't advice to have this happen during the fight as it might screw up AI things, but if a character dies we could have a simple script with a random change of some of the equipment being broken. I think that is also what @Grey Roger was sugesting before (or something like that)?
No, I never suggested that enemy weapons should break more often.

It is certainly possible for an enemy's weapon to break in combat, leaving him either fighting with his fists (I've seen that happen in boardings) or running away (highwaymen do that if their weapon breaks). It should certainly not be possible for a weapon, which was intact when the enemy was using it, to suddenly be broken when you loot it from him - the only reason it should break is if it has been hit while parrying once too often, and that can already happen.

Anyway, the issue isn't about making lots of free money - as I said, the weapons I suggested are all picked to be relatively low price. If you want lots of free money, plunder a civilian ship instead, then you have a chance of picking up some nice expensive Hibernians. What the player is likely to do is get a lot of good swords and hand them to his officers and crew.
 
well I was thinking during a boarding situation if someone is killed it's not weird to think his weapon got lost because for example it went overboard or got broken later during the fight when someone stepped on it (just to say some things).

I understood from earlier that the amount of weapons you got from boarding was a bit to high or the quality was to good... did I understand this wrong?
 
If a ship's crew are all getting good weapons then yes, if you win the fight against that ship you're going to get a lot of good weapons. As for going overboard, that could perhaps happen on the top deck but not on the lower; and why should it be more likely to happen on a naval ship than on a merchant ship? And any sword which is so brittle that it can't survive being trodden on probably isn't going to survive 5 seconds of combat, so it wouldn't be there in the first place.
 
Or better yet, just leave it alone.
That is what I already suggested in post #10 above.

Actually, this whole idea of using it as a way to ruin things for the player has for me become a good argument against implementing the whole "Soldier weapons for boarders" thing at all.
For crying out *** loud! These kind of comments REALLY piss me off.
The intention is most obviously not ever to deliberately ruin things for the player.
It would be completely ludicrous if that is what we actually wanted!

All we're doing at the moment is free brainstorming to see where the thoughts lead. They might lead to good places or to bad ones.
Nothing is actually being done until after we agreed on the best method of implementing it, if at all.

I get really tried of these kind of panic reactions as soon as people even suggest anything at all.
"Suggesting something" and "forcing one's ideas onto others in the game itself" are not the same thing!
 
If a ship's crew are all getting good weapons then yes, if you win the fight against that ship you're going to get a lot of good weapons. As for going overboard, that could perhaps happen on the top deck but not on the lower; and why should it be more likely to happen on a naval ship than on a merchant ship? And any sword which is so brittle that it can't survive being trodden on probably isn't going to survive 5 seconds of combat, so it wouldn't be there in the first place.
So what do you say about this:
- Some location have a change of weapons getting lost (like the first boarding deck).
- The higher the price of the weapon the higher the chance it gets lost (not realistic but gameplay wise I think it would be a good choice)
- The higher the players luck the less chance of weapons getting lost

So say a player with 1 luck is fighting an enemy on a boarding deck and that enemy has a really high valued weapon there is a chance of 50% it gets lost.
if the player has 10 luck there is only a chance of 5% it gets lost.

Just trowing out some random nummer here, but do you think that would balance the weapons you get from boarding a bit @Grey Roger ?
 
Do we really need to do this at all?
Sounds like some substantial effort for little to no gain.... :unsure

So say a player with 1 luck is fighting an enemy on a boarding deck and that enemy has a really high valued weapon there is a chance of 50% it gets lost.
if the player has 10 luck there is only a chance of 5% it gets lost.
I don't like Luck simulating stuff that the player couldn't possibly influence in real life. That makes it equivalent to "magic".
 
Back
Top