Make Player Gold the same as Resources

[Cpt Blackthorne]

I believe gold should have the same characteristics as resources: meaning that a player would have to transport it by themselves, or using the delivery system, and that player gold should be an item lost or won in battle. IMHO, keeping gold on hand like a credit card just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay. If I lose in battle, then the gold I have on hand should be won by the player who bested me.

This probably would require each port to have banks that you keep your gold in.

Thoughts?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Cpt Blackthorne

[Chromey]

madness

[Galileus]

IMHO, keeping gold on hand like a credit card just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay.

 

Sigh.

 

When will people learn this is never a valid argument? Keyboards and mouses just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay. For cryin out loud, the word gameplay just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay.

 

Your post is not period viable either. Should forums be hard-modded, so that everyone who does not post according to ye oldie rules is banned? Should we switch to mailing lists, and I don't mean e-mailing?

 

Would that be either fun or efficient?

 

Something being or not being 100% history accurate is never an argument by itself. How this accuracy does or doesn't affect gameplay, fun, efficiency of the system and so on - these are arguments that are interesting. These, that you did not touch on.

[Pugwis]

Sigh.

 

When will people learn this is never a valid argument? Keyboards and mouses just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay. For cryin out loud, the word gameplay just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay.

 

Your post is not period viable either. Should forums be hard-modded, so that everyone who does not post according to ye oldie rules is banned? Should we switch to mailing lists, and I don't mean e-mailing?

 

Would that be either fun or efficient?

 

Something being or not being 100% history accurate is never an argument by itself. How this accuracy does or doesn't affect gameplay, fun, efficiency of the system and so on - these are arguments that are interesting. These, that you did not touch on.

 

Don't get the point here.

Anyway, it is a bad idea, gold is good like it is now.

[Cpt Blackthorne]

Sigh....so we should keep all aspects of the game be all about instant gratification with the ability to tele with gold and buy ships, resources, upgrades up from any port as needed? Hell, there's already the instant gratification of building ships. I suppose you hate the idea of the "Such is Lord" update to be coming?

Where does the gold come from that one receives from battles? Some imaginary fund? What loss, besides the ship and resources, does a player incur when losing a battle? Nothing. What does one gain from winning a battle? Only the resources that captured ship had and the ship or one dura of it.

So what accountability does one have when entering a battle? Practically none. Gold and silver galleons were a huge part of the Caribbean experience. Who lost when those were captured or sunk...some imaginary foundation?

My post is not at all far off from the gold/bank mechanics in Uncharted Waters. Your comment simply took everything to the farthest extreme and was simply nonsense.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Cpt Blackthorne

[Chimera]

Voted "no". Let's not overcomplicate everything.

[CaptVonGunn]

You mean as gold coins? that would mean having to change the way notes are made or they would be completely devalued

[TheStarSlayer]

Realistically naval officers didn't need to go around purchasing everything themselves either, ships were assigned, crewed and provisioned by the navy.  A captain might augment the ship's provisions, powder and shot out of their own pocket but that was about it.  That's not a complaint about the game mechanics but to illustrate that we are not operating historically to begin with.

 

Realism has its place but at the end of the day the game needs to be fun and engaging, if you want to maintain a healthy population turning mechanics into a chore is not the way to go about it.  After all when it says Naval Action on the tin, not all users are looking to play at being a one person East India Company.  

 

Not to mention a captain could certainly go to their banker and request a letter of credit instead of carrying around chests full of their life savings from port to port.

[Galileus]

My post is not at all far off from the gold/bank mechanics in Uncharted Waters. Your comment simply took everything to the farthest extreme and was simply nonsense.

 

At least read it before answering. I commented on the very way an argumentation should be presented and how a mechanic is justified to exist within a system. There was no extremes, no nonsense, no place for taking sides. I did not call your idea good or bad, I called it wrongly argumented.

 

Your answer leaves it unlikely that one could expect a proper answer, though. The shear amount of loaded questions and begging the question you commit by itself is stunning. Please, rethink the way you try to debunk other's posts. "I bet you don't even lift" is always a number 1 way to make yourself a laughing stock.

[Jean Ribault]

He can certainly defend himself if he likes, but I doubt very much that Cpt Blackthorne has warranted himself to be a laughing stock on this forum.  He has many posts which are presented with much thought and background.

 

My take on this particular idea is that if banking were actually implemented in the game with even half the suggestions that have been offered, then we wouldn't need to change the way gold is transferred in battles.  A thorough and well-managed in-game banking system would add quite a new dimension to the game, especially if integrated into the clan systems as well.

[_Masterviolin]

I think that physically carrying all of your gold about can certainly add realism, but does so at the price of the overall play-ability and ease of the game. I do think that the addition of player currency as a physical item has many detriments to game-play, but I think the most noted one is creating further difficulty with accumulating wealth in-game. We already have a fairly grindy game which just about every single negative steam review on the game complains about. I think this expands that grind fairly significantly, and is hence inadvisable.

 

The benefits here seem merely to serve realism and perhaps an advantage to winning battles. I think these advantages are great, but they don't seem to outweigh the problems your proposition could create. 

[Guest]

Usually captains had a bank where they stored their money. These banks had branches/agencies in other ports working for them. Thus the captain was able to receive his money from his bank also in different ports. They didn't carry all their momey as cash with them.

Therefore the money/gold system in game is fine as it is now.

[Galileus]

I think that physically carrying all of your gold about can certainly add realism, but does so at the price of the overall play-ability and ease of the game. I do think that the addition of player currency as a physical item has many detriments to game-play, but I think the most noted one is creating further difficulty with accumulating wealth in-game. We already have a fairly grindy game which just about every single negative steam review on the game complains about. I think this expands that grind fairly significantly, and is hence inadvisable.

 

The benefits here seem merely to serve realism and perhaps an advantage to winning battles. I think these advantages are great, but they don't seem to outweigh the problems your proposition could create. 

 

Thank you! This is all I ever wanted :3

 

Nevertheless, to build upon this argument, physically carrying gold on your ship is increasing risk of the game. And this is not necessarily a good thing. Loosing a ship, loosing a port where you stacked your crafting materials AND gold... you would be able to loose way too much at once, a hit that would most likely put you off of the game. Your gold being untouchable is a safety valve - you got it always, you can rebuild with it, you can rely on it. And you don't need to keep it all in your capital to do it.

 

Another problem with it is... well... it's unrealistic. Banks did already exist for quite a time, and they did work more or less as they do now. Not as fast, but they did

[Rebel Witch]

This is a game it is not reality so please keep your realism ideas realistic or it will screw up the game really bad.

[Cpt Blackthorne]

When will people learn this is never a valid argument? Keyboards and mouses just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay. For cryin out loud, the word gameplay just doesn't fit with the era of gameplay.

 

Your post is not period viable either. Should forums be hard-modded, so that everyone who does not post according to ye oldie rules is banned? Should we switch to mailing lists, and I don't mean e-mailing?

A bit exaggeration to the extreme, no?

 

You mean as gold coins? that would mean having to change the way notes are made or they would be completely devalued

Not as gold coins, but as a physical commodity that is carried around in the hold...(actually the castle chest)

 

Realistically naval officers didn't need to go around purchasing everything themselves either, ships were assigned, crewed and provisioned by the navy.  A captain might augment the ship's provisions, powder and shot out of their own pocket but that was about it.  That's not a complaint about the game mechanics but to illustrate that we are not operating historically to begin with.

 

Realism has its place but at the end of the day the game needs to be fun and engaging, if you want to maintain a healthy population turning mechanics into a chore is not the way to go about it.  After all when it says Naval Action on the tin, not all users are looking to play at being a one person East India Company.  

 

Not to mention a captain could certainly go to their banker and request a letter of credit instead of carrying around chests full of their life savings from port to port.

Indeed that is true about officers not purchasing anything and that it came from a a national chest. Perhaps the "Such is Lord" update will begin to make things slow down a bit.

About the banks, certainly they've existed since time practically, however a bank in Charleston had no clue what credit a person had from Santa Fe, especially from a newly captured port. My idea is intended simply to add risk to a game that practically has no risk (except for sailing 1-3rd rate ships in dangerous situations). And that setting up newly conquered ports would require physical money that should be able to be taken during battle before a flag is planted, imho.

 

At least read it before answering. I commented on the very way an argumentation should be presented and how a mechanic is justified to exist within a system. There was no extremes, no nonsense, no place for taking sides. I did not call your idea good or bad, I called it wrongly argumented.

 

Your answer leaves it unlikely that one could expect a proper answer, though. The shear amount of loaded questions and begging the question you commit by itself is stunning. Please, rethink the way you try to debunk other's posts. "I bet you don't even lift" is always a number 1 way to make yourself a laughing stock.

I did read and as I mentioned above, you exaggerated on your response. 

 

He can certainly defend himself if he likes, but I doubt very much that Cpt Blackthorne has warranted himself to be a laughing stock on this forum.  He has many posts which are presented with much thought and background.

 

My take on this particular idea is that if banking were actually implemented in the game with even half the suggestions that have been offered, then we wouldn't need to change the way gold is transferred in battles.  A thorough and well-managed in-game banking system would add quite a new dimension to the game, especially if integrated into the clan systems as well.

Thank you, altho I have found myself rambling at times. heh. Banking always makes for an interesting new dimension, and having gold on hand provides an incentive for more PvP, imho. I don't really need a 1-dura copy of your ship. I also don't really need the things in your hold. However, if I've lost a ton of gold from a gank previously....the gold in your hold is vveeerrrry enticing to me.

 

I think that physically carrying all of your gold about can certainly add realism, but does so at the price of the overall play-ability and ease of the game. I do think that the addition of player currency as a physical item has many detriments to game-play, but I think the most noted one is creating further difficulty with accumulating wealth in-game. We already have a fairly grindy game which just about every single negative steam review on the game complains about. I think this expands that grind fairly significantly, and is hence inadvisable.

 

The benefits here seem merely to serve realism and perhaps an advantage to winning battles. I think these advantages are great, but they don't seem to outweigh the problems your proposition could create. 

Accumulating wealth in this game is not difficult at all. As it is now, way too many people have 2-3 million gold on hand. Many of us make over a million per day and spend it each day as well. I'd just like this to slow down.

I don't feel the game to be grindy at all. It has taken me only a month to rank to a Connie, which imo is the most versatile ship in the game. And there are many Rear Admirals just sitting there with nowhere else to go. 

 

Usually captains had a bank where they stored their money. These banks had branches/agencies in other ports working for them. Thus the captain was able to receive his money from his bank also in different ports. They didn't carry all their momey as cash with them.

Therefore the money/gold system in game is fine as it is now.

As I mentioned above, a bank up north had no idea of the credit of a player from down south. I just would like to know where the gold comes from when a person wins in battle. Who pays that out? I want that gold to be of real value to someone. As it is now, ask anyone, player gold means nothing in this game, the real currency is labor hours. And to me, that's because player gold is simply too easy to get.

 

Nevertheless, to build upon this argument, physically carrying gold on your ship is increasing risk of the game. And this is not necessarily a good thing. Loosing a ship, loosing a port where you stacked your crafting materials AND gold... you would be able to loose way too much at once, a hit that would most likely put you off of the game. Your gold being untouchable is a safety valve - you got it always, you can rebuild with it, you can rely on it. And you don't need to keep it all in your capital to do it.

 

Another problem with it is... well... it's unrealistic. Banks did already exist for quite a time, and they did work more or less as they do now. Not as fast, but they did

Personally, I think the game is not risky enough. It takes only 1 day to rebuild from absolutely nothing to being able to conquer ports again. I.e. rebuilding a prime ship and having enough gold to buy a flag. My idea is simply to slow this down.

[Tomms123]

This type of suggestion has been previous made by Steelsandwich in this thread http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12946-the-national-bank/

[OlavDeng2]

A bit late to the party, but as tomms said this has allready been suggested, as such please continue the discussion over here: http://forum.game-la...-national-bank/

 

Locked.