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

[Levis]

Do we really need to do this at all?
Sounds like some substantial effort for little to no gain....


I don't like Luck simulating stuff that the player couldn't possibly influence in real life. That makes it equivalent to "magic".

what you describe is sort of the defenition of luck isn't it?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

what you describe is sort of the defenition of luck isn't it?

Yes. But that is not an actual skill people can possibly have.

I prefer luck in the game to be REAL luck. As in: The actual player PERSON should be lucky, rather than the player CHARACTER.
In other words: Only use a pure random chance, rather than adding a skill influence that a character couldn't possibly have.
For further details, see here: Planned Feature - Replace "Luck Skill" with "Sneak" | PiratesAhoy!

 

[Grey Roger]

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 ?

Perhaps make higher price weapons rarer in "initItems.c"? If they're that expensive then not many people ought to have them!

The main snag is that restrictions on minlevel, nation and period may mean that even rare weapons are common. Hibernians are common when you're high level in "Tales of a Sea Hawk" because there aren't many other swords at minlevel 19 or higher in "Colonial Powers" and most of them are even rarer.

 

[Levis]

I think another fix we should at least consider is having the minlevel be depended on the enemy character and not the player character right @Pieter Boelen as this is now not the case?
And it's not a problem to find a weapon which you can't equip yet because you aren't the required level (that does work right?).

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I think another fix we should at least consider is having the minlevel be depended on the enemy character and not the player character right @Pieter Boelen as this is now not the case?

I thought it already did depend on player level?

And it's not a problem to find a weapon which you can't equip yet because you aren't the required level (that does work right?).

Nope, once you have it, you can equip it regardless of minlevel.
Let's keep it that way too!

 

[Grey Roger]

I thought it already did depend on player level?

Yes, because as far as I know, minlevel determines whether shopkeepers will sell you a weapon and whether you have a chance of finding it.

But isn't enemy level also dependent, at least to some extent, on player level?

Nope, once you have it, you can equip it regardless of minlevel.
Let's keep it that way too!

Agreed! Partly because of some nice swords which you can find in dungeons, but mainly because of Nicholas Sharp's Sabre (minlevel 99 so that you can't find or buy it).

The only restriction on equipping weapons at the moment is that braces of guns and multibarrel guns require the "Gunman" perk; some require "Professional Gunman".

 

[Levis]

normal encounters are dependend on the player level.
Boarding we hope to make dependend on the ship in the future. At the moment I believe its dependend on the player level still.

Maybe a weird idea but would it be an idea to have some weapons only be equipable if you have the professional fencer perk? From a gameplay perspective I think for balance it's better if at the start of the game you can't equip high damage weapons. Also from a realistic point of view you would be able to handle a normal sword pretty easily if you have a bit of experience, but to handle more specilized or better weapons you would need more training.

If you are level 7 or 8 or so you should have that perk normally so it wouldn't limit you that much.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

At the moment I believe its dependend on the player level still.

Partly.

Maybe a weird idea but would it be an idea to have some weapons only be equipable if you have the professional fencer perk? From a gameplay perspective I think for balance it's better if at the start of the game you can't equip high damage weapons. Also from a realistic point of view you would be able to handle a normal sword pretty easily if you have a bit of experience, but to handle more specilized or better weapons you would need more training.

Why do the weapons themselves make such a huge difference anyway? It isn't the sword, but the hand that wields it!
Of course that goes into "massive reworking of the game logic", so let's not go there for now....

 

[Grey Roger]

It doesn't require much reworking of game logic - it's already the case, to some extent at least. If you're careful, and if you have decent melee skill and perks, you can indeed defeat a poorer grade opponent who has a better sword. Conversely, if you're careless and don't have decent skill, not even Nicholas Sharp's sword will save you. But if you're reasonably careful then that sword, or one of the lesser but still pretty good swords which you can earn by raiding a dungeon, will give you an edge over the low grade opponents you're likely to meet early on. And that's enough to help you to survive those early fights and build up your skills.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

If that is already the case, then that alleviates at least some of my worries about that.
Thanks, @Grey Roger!

Then I think the Soldier Weapons feature is primarily intended to show some more difference between the countries and possibly distinguish the periods some more.
But it shouldn't need to have any huge impact on gameplay.

 

[Tingyun]

I have a suggestion that might help counter a kind of exploitation on land, as well as address some of the concerns with too much loot coming from boarding actions.

I just tried a new castaway start, and ended up on St. Martin. Which is clearly the place to go for an exploitive castaway, because all I had to do was talk to the dutch guard, he says the french are attacking, sit back, watch the battle, if the dutch civilians win, loot all the bodies, if the french guards win, run to a new scene and try again. In a matter of 15 minutes, at lvl 1, I had swords with max damages above 30, a musket, a grapeshot pistol, and many 1000s of gold of loot. With 0 risk. Now, obviously this is pure exploitation.

But I was thinking about the thread you guys had here a week ago, where you discussed many possible means of reducing the loot received in boarding actions, so that you could use the weapons you wanted without giving the player too much. And I wonder if that problem has the same solution.

How about whenever an AI who is not your officer kills another AI, they auto-loot all the possessions of their victim? Or if it could not be added to their own inventory, their victim simply appears as a corpse with no possessions to loot?

I think this would be both realistic and help game balance. On land, the player would be unable to carry out any exploit involving the AI killing each other, and this makes sense too, because if a bunch of AI kill another bunch of AI, they are going to claim the valuable possessions themselves. Why would they leave 1000s of gold worth of stuff for the player to claim?

In boarding actions, it would make sense as well. If a sailor kills an enemy in boarding, it seems only fair that they should get the benefit of the loot that comes from the enemy. How is it fair for the captain to only pay them a few coins a month, but if they risk death and out dual a dangerous opponent by being one of the select few volunteers to fight at the vanguard of the boarding action, the captain gets to pick up the sword from their defeated enemy and sell it for 200 times the sailors monthly salary and keep it? Wouldn't it make more sense the sailor himself would grab the enemy's purse and blade, and sell it for his own savings? I don't know specifically regarding the age of sail, but generally throughout premodern history soldiers have supplemented their income by looting their adversaries after battle. I would strongly suspect the same would be true of boarding parties for privateers.

And from game balance, it would limit the profitability of looting the high end weapons that everyone was discussing, without the seemingly unfair mechanism of making the loot simply go overboard or break. Instead, quite sensibly, if the captain kills an enemy sailor himself in fencing, he can keep the loot, if a sailor kills him, it disappears, whether completely from the game or into the sailor's inventory.

Finally, there would be an issue of officer kills. Maybe the loot should remain, because the player pays them much more. Maybe the loot should instead disappear, with the rationale being the officer sells it to fund their own savings, and by this mechanism some of the quick profitability of fighting on land would be reduced, and players would be incentivized to travel with a smaller shore party if possible. Maybe different answers should apply with shore parties vs boarding parties, as maybe by allowing the player to loot bodies killed by officers in a boarding action, players are incentivized to risk their valuable officers in boarding actions rather than keep them safely behind the lines.

There would be the occasionall frustration when one of your sailors charges in and gets the final killing blow on a guy you had mostly killed. Maybe this could be handled by awarding the kill to the person who had done the most total HP damage. But honestly I think killing blow would be fine. The occasional frustration would be compensated by the times you get a killing blow in another's dual as well, and it would all balance out in the end, and it is kind of fun to have the killing blow awarded the loot.

Most importantly, on the whole, I think it might help to balance the economy in both land and boarding.

 

[Levis]

on land it might help a bit if there are more parties involved in a fight indeed. but during boarding the crew which kills the other crew gets weapons from you (weapon locker) so if you give them the loot eventually it should just return in the weapon locker so you can still get it.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

It does make sense for there to be no lot from NPCs killing NPCs.

 

[Tingyun]

Levis,

On boarding actions, perhaps the loot could just disappear/never spawn then for any kills by your sailors, rather than going into their inventory. The idea being your sailors sell it for their personal funds later, while still relying on you to provide their equipment for battle.

It would make sense given the tiny pay any crew member gets per month, that they would demand the right to supplement their income with looting if they are asked to risk their lives in a fight. Officers, on the other hand, are paid well enough that maybe it makes sense they let you have the loot (and then there is an incentive to risk them in a boarding action as well).

 

[Grey Roger]

on land it might help a bit if there are more parties involved in a fight indeed. but during boarding the crew which kills the other crew gets weapons from you (weapon locker) so if you give them the loot eventually it should just return in the weapon locker so you can still get it.

Or, in my case, the weapons which I loot from the bodies go into the weapon locker so the crew can get at them. Of course, if the crew are going to auto-loot the weapons themselves, it saves me a bit of effort.

Anyway, it's not as if you get a major source of income from looted weapons. A merchant ship with a decent load of cargo provides a lot more wealth. But I do like being able to equip all my officers and crew with looted weapons and will not be happy if this becomes impossible...

 

[Tingyun]

@Grey Roger , what do you think about my idea of having enemy sailors killed by your own generic sailors simply not generate loot, instead of having it transfered to their inventory?

Under the explanation that selling the loot goes into their personal compensation, rather than keeping it around for future battles. I really can't imagine anyone is going to risk their lives for a couple of coins a month without the prospect of greater wealth through personal looting.

The player still being able to gain looted items from their own and their officer kills, so just slowing it down a bit...

 

[Grey Roger]

I think that boarding and looting works well enough as it is, and will be very wary of any changes that threaten it. However, if I'm the only one who feels this way, don't let my objections stop you.

Perhaps have the gold removed from enemies killed by your generic sailors. Grabbing all the coins from a dead enemy is easy enough; grabbing all the weapons for themselves is not so easy. Anyway, if you get excessively rich then they demand shares of the wealth, you have to switch to payment by division of plunder, and that's when they're going to get their share of any money you make by selling the weapons. Naval crews would be under naval discipline so the only looting they'd get away with is small stuff, i.e. money.

The only massive exploit is if you have both a Merchant Licence and a Letter of Marque, which means you can get stupidly rich without having to share it with the crew. And that's going to happen anyway because the real source of wealth isn't selling those weapons, it's taking an enemy ship with a hold full of something valuable.

 

[Tingyun]

@Grey Roger , I actually cannot offer any opinion on the balancing issue, because I'm still a new player and have no concept of how it works. Just throwing out ideas for you experienced players to consider.

One (realism, not game balance) argument: I think professional soldiers actually did engage in a great deal of personal looting, extending to personal possessions of slain enemies. Also, even in a divide the plunder state, it might make sense that the brave few who joined your vanguard on a boarding action, and all the extra risk, would have the chance to profit a bit with personal looting. Though maybe divide the plunder should create an exception, and allow full looting--which would be a nice incentive to adopt that method.

I also wonder whether it would create an incentive for the player to train up a special cadre of men at arms for boarding actions, if you get to keep officer kills (seeing as how they are actually paid decently). Which might be interesting.

But just speculating--It'll probably be months of playing before I can really have game balance opinions. The only boarding I've done so far is to test that bugfix for Levis, I've never even done a proper one myself!

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Is it true looting is a little bit overpowered?
I think I saw reports of several days of shore fighting being enough to buy you a new ship.
That sounds quite silly, doesn't it?

What if all items prices were to be massively reduced? For example, divided by ten or so?

 

[Tingyun]

Hi Pieter,

It was my reports regarding shorefighting. However, I do not believe it is overpowered.

It took around 15 hours of real life time for me to have made the money I did in shorefighting. And I think the reward is best balanced against real life time and effort investment, not game time, so that the player is rewarded for their efforts. After all, the character is immortal, but the player has limited time to play away from work or school, and they need to be rewarded in the time they spend.

So I'd say normal looting is balanced fine, when measured against the effort and time the player puts in. Cargo delivery and other methods are already MUCH more profitable when measured in real life player time investment and effort.

However, if you wanted to reduce the rewards, I'd say it could be reasonable to reduce the amount of gold carried by NPCs by 50%, and reduce the price of guns and swords only by 50% (so keep full price for armor, books, and all other items that players tend to buy). Anything more than that and fighting on land just won't be worth anything in terms of player investment, and it will remove a fun aspect of the game.

I suggested the "No loot from NPC kills or sailor kills" because it seemed you guys were worried about too much loot in some kinds of boarding actions, and it seems a realistic solution. But I personally don't know how boarding profit is balanced, because I haven't gotten there yet.

The only truly unbalanced money making method is the maltese crypt. I describe it fully in my balancing thread, but I can make 200,000-300,000 gold per real life hour in there, as each maltese knight (from the crypt, not the abbey, the gold rewards are different, and I am specifically speaking of the 4th dialogue option, which involves them telling their story) gives 7,000-10,000 gold per time you trigger their dialogue (the rare thief monk can be countered with a cobblestone, and as I describe in that thread the monks are so underpowered that they are incredibly easy to kill). That is even with the Corpse Bug I describe triggering every 5 or 6 kills, so that you have to leave and reenter the scene. If that bug is fixed, then the player profit will go up to around 400,000-500,000 gold per real life hour.

SUMMARY: Land looting is not unbalanced at all, and indeed has very low rewards when measured in real life time investment (only the maltese knight rewards are unbalanced on land). I think the no loot for NPC or sailor kills would make sense though.