Make Pirates Great Again.... as Mercenaries

[Cutch]

DISCLOSURE: I dont play as pirate. Never have.... I'm making this suggestion as a way to make the game more interesting for everyone

 

The Pirates nation has enjoyed a very strong set of conditions over the past several months which have made them the strongest force on both PvP servers during various stretches in recent months. While the game mechanics at the time clearly aided this outcome, recent changes to game mechanics that reduced the Pirate nation's potential. This is unfortunate, as many players recently transitioned to Pirates, and are now in a difficult position.

 

I feel these combined changes are bit too heavy-handed:

* Players can no longer 'go pirate' at will

* Alliances can not be formed with the Pirate nation

* Pirates can no longer attack each other

* Pirates can no longer enter battles between other nations

 

Before getting into the details, lets be clear about one thing: I'm not suggesting any of these changes be reverted! They all exist for good reasons.

 

The political system leaves the pirates out of forming alliances, and rightly so. However, the fact that pirates can't be involved in other nation's battles also means that they can't act as hired guns a la pravateers. They essentially now exist in a vacuum. Soon there will be stable large power blocks on each server that can reduce the pirates to minimal ports. When this happens, Pirates' only viable gameplay option will be to harass free towns (which is also less effective with the Social perk). This is annoying for everyone.

 

The solution I would like to suggest is to enable the Pirates to play more of a Privateer role where they can be hired by nations to fight on their behalf. Think of it like voting for an ally, but with money. Keep them outside of politics as is, but allow pirates to be hired by nations, either on an individual or clan basis to participate against the nation's enemies. I am NOT suggesting that a nation can pay to ally with the entire Pirate Nation! Only individual clans (or players, possibly).

 

Mercenary Contracts should be bound by the following:

Duration - the start/end of the contract

Targets Nation - who the mercenaries are expected to attack

Cooperative Nations - who the mercenaries are expected to NOT attack

Theater: A list of target ports owned by the Target Nations to attack, and/or a list of ports owned by the Cooperative Nations to defend.

 

Compensation options should be as follows:
Gold per contract: a 1-time payment for accepting the contract

Gold per ship: A fee paid for each ship of Target Nation that is sunk or captures by the contractor which scales with ship rate.

Port Access: A list of ports owned by the contracting nation that the contractor can dock in. This can optionally have a duration that exceeds the contract duration.

 

Optional contract settings:
Contracting Nation Provides Ships: the Contractor will receive ships from the Contracting Nation. Actions performed on behalf of the contract must be performed in ships with a 'Built By' attribute connected to a member of the Contracting Nation. Ie, a Pirate can't attack a ship of an Enemy Nation or enter their OW battles/port battles if not in a ship constructed by a player of the Contracting Nation.

 

Loss Reimbursement: The contractor will be compensated a gold value for all ship losses to the Target Nation within the Theater. Values will scale with ship rate.

 

As the game mechanics currently stand, this can somewhat be done, with a couple exceptions:

* Pirates cant assist a Contracting Nation in port battles

* Pirates cant assist a Contracting Nation is OW battles

 

All they can do is basically blockade ports and screen flag carriers. This breaks the viability of just setting up such an agreement as things currently stand.

 

In terms of implementation, I'd suggest making the Contract mechanic basically recycle the existing Ally mechanic implementation - contracts start/end at downtime, and essentially make you an ally in terms of RoE in open world and battles. The compensation mechanics would requires some additional development, as would some of the more advanced and granular contract options.

 

Whats everyone think? I don't see how this conflicts in any significant ways with the existing development roadmap, and I think a quick solution could be implemented with relatively little effort. The Pirate nation has grown to include a significant player base in the past months, and I think a step in this direction is necessary to keep those players involved.

 

Thanks!

Edited August 25, 2016 by Cutch

[Hethwill]

Who will pay ?

 

If it is the "system" then there's no difference from what many of us already do.

 

If it is the players themselves paying, then by all means, let's do it.

[Cutch]

Yes, the players themselves would pay the contract. Either a clan (out of their warehouse account) or an individual. Each nation has a few major clans, so it'd be easy for them to collect from other clans if there's mutual interest in hiring a mercenary clan. In contracts that reimburse for activity, some limits and an escrow would have be in place to prevent accounts from going negative.

 

Another thing I've been noticing on both servers is that nations seem to vote in the direction that favors less PvP. Even when the PvP clans lobby the nation to vote in ways that make the game more intersting, the masses always vote for the safest option. Ie, everyone buddies up with their biggest, nearest threats. This removes accessible PvP targets for those that like PvP. I personally think this is an overall negative trend, but it's a bit early to tell. Either way, if such a mechanic existed, I think we'd see a mass migration of PvPers to form privateer clans, leaving the rest in need of protection. Given the upcoming port vulnerability mechanics, I think this would be very healthy addition to how groups need to work together to do big things.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Cutch

[Skully]

I'm not saying we should remove Pirate Nation. But rather tie default Rules of Engagements on it, with the option to override at Clan level. It should also not be an option for Pirates to file National edicts (/Alliances).

So by default the Pirate Nation is hostile to every other Nation and the inter-Clan RoE should also be hostile.

I do agree that in Clan battles should be disabled (or zero reward). The same for in Nation battles.

This should already solve a big part of the free-for-all battle as it then becomes a Nation-Nation, Clan-Nation or Clan-Clan battle.

We can then make the Pirate Nation fully invisible and have the Pirate hard core mode right there.

But if Clan edicts would be too complex or take too much time, then I rather see the Pirate Nation still be a full Nation in the upcoming patch with the associated access to the Alliances mechanic. Until such time that we get to whatever true Pirate mechanic comes into play.

In essence put an extra layer into the RvR model: Clans vs Clans.

I'm leaning towards marking the port battle as a Clan fight of the potential Lord Protector. That immediately defines who can enter the PB and who can not.

The game knows which player did the best contribution in terms of hostility, so the PB can be opened as owned by that Clan. Depending on the Clan & Nation relationships it defines who can enter.

This would also ensure nobody can abuse or sabotage a PB anymore without suffering consequences.

Contracts and their conditions should be rendered outside of the game. I don't see any mechanic ever reaching all potential permutations.

Or to put it simply: you pay us $1M (ah no, $1T) and we both declare our Clans to be allied.

The result would be virtually the same as if we were in a Nation-Nation alliance.

Note there might also be an Outlaw mechanic coming. In which case it might be better to think of the current Pirates as Independents, Neutrals or Minor Powers.

[Ned Loe]

First of all Pirates need to come together and talk strategy. Changes were made for ALL and not only Pirates, Looking back into history, Pirates never managed to become the Nation of Thieves and that explains why Pirates don't have all privileges that are listed above in your post. We all know why 100s of people went Pirate and now they asking why did I make this move? 

 

Today you can see that Piracy can be chained and controlled if Nations unite against one threat that thinks it can rule the oceans. Pirates never sailed 1-2-3 rates. They operated in small ships and did small raids on trading routes. This is what we see today in NA and it works as it should. Nationals chasing Pirates and protecting merchants while Pirates trying to take over some trader ships. 

 

In the end, Pirates already are OP based on history and have many features that real Pirates never had. 

 

Don't forget: New Outlaw class might be the answer for some of your desires, but definitely will come with certain heavy penalties when chosen. 

[Chijohnaok]

Cutch:

Question:

You suggested that the pirates may be hired as mercenaries by other nations.

The pirates are not one united group.  They are made up of clans (both large and small) as well as independent pirates.

Who for the pirates decides which mercenary contract they should take?

Would all pirates be bound by this contract?

Would the contract be implemented as an in game mechanic (preventing the pirates from attacking any ships of the nation that hired them)? [You might have answered this in your original post]
What about pirate individuals or clans that disagree?

 

I'm not saying your idea doesn't bear some merit.

I'm simply raising some questions or potential issues.

 

Thanks and I will look for your comments.

[Skully]

First of all Pirates need to come together and talk strategy. Changes were made for ALL and not only Pirates, Looking back into history, Pirates never managed to become the Nation of Thieves and that explains why Pirates don't have all privileges that are listed above in your post. We all know why 100s of people went Pirate and now they asking why did I make this move? 

 

Today you can see that Piracy can be chained and controlled if Nations unite against one threat that thinks it can rule the oceans. Pirates never sailed 1-2-3 rates. They operated in small ships and did small raids on trading routes. This is what we see today in NA and it works as it should. Nationals chasing Pirates and protecting merchants while Pirates trying to take over some trader ships. 

 

In the end, Pirates already are OP based on history and have many features that real Pirates never had. 

 

Don't forget: New Outlaw class might be the answer for some of your desires, but definitely will come with certain heavy penalties when chosen.

Looking back into history

the United States wasn't a nation, it was a colony.

Danmark-Norge and Sverige didn't event have holdings in the West Indies.

The British had at most 20 First Rates sailing across the globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy

Today we see the Pirates thriving on PvP2. http://www.navalactioncraft.com/map

All thanks to how players (want to) play the game.

In the end, the Nations are OP based on history and have many features that the real Nations never had.

Now that we that settled. Are we here to create an interesting game against the historical background of the West Indies, or are we here for a historical re-enactment?

 

Cutch:

Question:

You suggested that the pirates may be hired as mercenaries by other nations.

The pirates are not one united group.  They are made up of clans (both large and small) as well as independent pirates.

Who for the pirates decides which mercenary contract they should take?

Would all pirates be bound by this contract?

Would the contract be implemented as an in game mechanic (preventing the pirates from attacking any ships of the nation that hired them)? [You might have answered this in your original post]

What about pirate individuals or clans that disagree?

 

I'm not saying your idea doesn't bear some merit.

I'm simply raising some questions or potential issues.

 

Thanks and I will look for your comments.

No offense, but please read post #4 and try again. Edited August 24, 2016 by Skully

[The_Scipio]

Interesting ideas I must admit.

 

In my opinion, Pirates should have a base of a few ports - just so they can craft what nations can craft or other things nations doesn't have access to, in the 17-18th century Pirates had control over Tortuga, and Nassau (If Nassau wasn't just fiction from the series "Pirates")

 

In regard to ships, maybe they shouldn't have 1-2-3rd rates, but instead other ships only available to Pirates heavy frigates like the Constitution but with other benefits maybe bigger guns and slightly faster?

 

I lot of people may scream in anger by this, but I never saw pirates in this game as a plague, just a fun element which could (And did) cause frustration for other nations, D-N included.

 

Somehow the pirates needs to be included in the game again, in a different way - making them an asset to clans / nations if an agreement could be settled.

[themule08]

Interesting idea..but I would say no..if you want privateers maybe the answer is another nation that has low population to get into the game..but they you have alliances so don't need that either.

 

Main issue is and many don't think about it when throwing suggestions out is the coding behind such ideas.  

[The_Scipio]

It should not be a decision made "by difficulty in coding". Do we want a fun game or not, a game which isn't too predictable e.g. boring in the end.

 

Any game which have online actio "MMO's" who still have a big audience, is the ones who evolves by listening to their player-base which happen to be their cash-cows also.

[Cutch]

That is not how pirates work, and it should not be what they become.

 

What you are describing is also not 'how pirates work'. There were very few true pirate captains. Most were considered to be pirates by certain nations, but not by others. Many were Privateers, operating under the rule of law for their host nation. That's more of what I'm describing. I agree that 'pirate' isn't the best term, but lest be honest... when marketing a video game, pirates attract a heck of a lot more attention than privateers

 

Looking back into history, Pirates never managed to become the Nation of Thieves and that explains why Pirates don't have all privileges that are listed above in your post. 

 

....

 

Pirates never sailed 1-2-3 rates. They operated in small ships and did small raids on trading routes. This is what we see today in NA and it works as it should. Nationals chasing Pirates and protecting merchants while Pirates trying to take over some trader ships. 

 

In the end, Pirates already are OP based on history and have many features that real Pirates never had. 

 

Don't forget: New Outlaw class might be the answer for some of your desires, but definitely will come with certain heavy penalties when chosen. 

 

Again, research Privateers because if you open your definition of 'pirates' to include privateers, then that's just false. Also look into buccaneers, which were journeyman hired by the brits, french and dutch against the spanish. What I'm suggesting is much more historically accurate than what we currently have in the game.

 

Here are some examples:

 

Andrew Barton was a privateer hired by the Scottish to pirate against he British and French in the early 1500's. His ship, the Lion, had a crew of 260 men, but the armaments aren't exactly known. Either way, that's a pirate sailing a ship similar to a Constitution all 300 years before the Constitution was built!

 

George Clifford, acting as a privateer for Britian, captured the citidel of San Juan, Puerto Rico. He sailed a 47gun galleon way back in the mid 1500's! Being that the game is set much later, its reasonable to concede that privateers would modernize with the times at a similar rate as navies. Clifford sailed the Bonaventure along side the british navy fleet against the spanish armada. He was considered a hero in England.

 

In the late 1500's Christopher Newport was a privateer working for the birts against he spanish and portuguese in the caribbean. While the layouts of his ships aren't well known, it's known that he captured the Madre de Deus, a 7 deck, 32 heavy gun, 700-crew treasure hauler with escorts. He was considered a hero in England.

 

Christopher Myngs sailed a 46 gun Centurion as a privateer/pirate in the late 1600's. He captured several ports. I believe the Centurion was officially considered a 3rd rate at the time.

 

Edward Mansfield was a privateer for the brits in the caribean. He captured a bunch of ports. 

 

Henry Morgan was a privateer in the mid 1600's. He was also a pirate. He was also an admiral in the british navy. He took Providencia island and Santa Catalina Island while sailing for Edward Mansfield as a privateer/pirate. He sailed a bunch of different ship of various sizes. He was arrested, then released, then knighted and ended up serving as lieutenant governor of Jamaica.

 

We could go on here all day....

 

Clear as mud? Exactly. So please dont try to claim 'pirates didnt do x or y or z'. It's wasn't that simple.

Cutch:

Question:

You suggested that the pirates may be hired as mercenaries by other nations.

The pirates are not one united group.  They are made up of clans (both large and small) as well as independent pirates.

 

I explained that pretty clearly in the original post. The contract would be issued to a clan, not to the entire pirate nation.

[Skully]

Please folks, stop thinking of Pirates as one entity. They are not, they never should by design and never will be by design unless they get together for real.

But we want power hungry mongrels in Pirate land, so the Clans will never truly unite.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15653-mine-mine-mine-mine/

Each Pirate Clan is a Faction on its own!

Do they own Ports? Maybe, maybe not. The ones who care should kick them out. Not get a Pac-Man Cookie Clicker button that disables somebody else to get a Port.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16043-auto-battle-close-range/

There should be no Pirate Capital. Each Pirate Clan can hide in any of the Free Ports.

And from there we see them try to build an empire and see it fall again. (Or not. )

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/

Help or hinder potential allies.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15623-pvp1-august-3rd-the-french-%C3%A9missaire/

Be the scum of the earth.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14842-pvp1-june-26th-pirate-scamscum-at-kingston/

And bear no sympathies for their enemies.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15528-pvp1-june-29th-no-sympathies/

Boot lazy Nationals from their holdings.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15651-pirate-free-port-feature-tweek-to-help-game-conquest/?p=292392

Instead conflict gets nerfed continuously. (Leading apparently to carebear porn. )

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15676-x-files-the-pirate-corruption/?p=297126

Get of your lazy asses! Stop whining about too little loot or historical accuracy! And fight! Do not surrender!

If you don't like them, sink their ships!

Get the (money) sinks gurgling in this awesome Naval Combat Simulator!

[accents]

Looking back into history

Danmark-Norge and Sverige didn't event have holdings in the West Indies.

 

Huh, but they did thought? Or am I missing something? 

 

Danish holdings: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies

 

Swedish (rather small) holding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_colony_of_Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy

 

But yeah your point in that this is an historical game and not a strict reenactment still stands. 

[Skully]

Seeing as this game takes place more or less 1800, the US was a nation at that point.  Others are assuming it is 1700.  If that were the case there would be NONE of these ships in game.   They would be far more advanced than anything you would have seen in 1700.   I think the biggest ship of 1700 had 50-60 guns.

I would say that classifies it as an era of revolutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Revolution

Seeing as Pirates have no standing army, they should not have the ability to control a port.

The United States had no standing army in Boston. Yet somehow they became a Nation in 1783.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

[jodgi]

...the masses always vote for the safest option...

Hah! I see what you did there, loss mechanic!

[Skully]

Funny both of those wiki links are from the late 1700s, which places it squarely in my timeline that I stated.   Thank you for backing that fact up.

 

As for the US and Minutemen, they were a militia.   Which was a standing military which was funded by the local government.   Unlike pirates which had no government or a militia or even a way to enforce their own laws other than an agreement or brute force.

Good, then we both agree that the United States should not exist at the start of a season.

How do you propose we play out The Road to Independence?

For me it simply looks like:

Note there might also be an Outlaw mechanic coming. In which case it might be better to think of the current Pirates as Independents, Neutrals or Minor Powers.

[Cutch]

Pirates shouldn't need to sail first rates, or any ship of the line.  They should need to capture ships to survive, by capturing shipping and selling it in smuggler ports (free ports in game).

 

I don't think pirates need to be a "nation".  If they want to band together and form a brotherhood fine.  But capturing ports is more than just blowing up a few towers.  It is having an army to defend it once you take it.   People would not just willingly give up their national loyalties when it will most likely end in certain death for them if they are ever captured by their home nation.  

 

Seeing as Pirates have no standing army, they should not have the ability to control a port. 

 

Life as a pirate was hard and it should be hard in game.   There are a very small group of people in this game who actually play as pirates, true pirates.  

 

I hear what your saying, but I'm not sure of your sources. Most of what you just claimed is false, so using it to back up an argument for historical accuracy is pretty ridiculous. I'm assuming at this point that you are making stuff up because you have some vested interest in not seeing Pirates be an enjoyable option for players in this game.

 

Many privateers/pirates were given ships by national navies. Very few if any captured ships from nothing like you have seen in the Disney movies. If you want to play more of a fantasy-style Pirates of the Carabean game, there's already a bunch of those. 

 

That said, I wouldn't mind if pirates were not able to craft at least beyond a certain size (6th rates and traders?), but had to either capture ships, or be given ships by nations that hire them. Letting them craft smaller ships is mostly a sustainability/new-player-experience thing. Maybe give them an alternative crafting set that let them retrofit traders into more combat-focused ships, as that would have been very historically accurate. 

 

Pirates/privateers did take over ports in many cases, as I pointed out. They did attempt to form a sort of nation at one point, although it was short lived. However, they usually captured ports on behalf of a hiring nation, then handed it over after to their employer after taking their spoils. Most ports didn't have 'an army to defend it' since Europe was already stretched thin with wars, hence why they hired Privateers in the first place. The privateer fleets often included up to 1500 men that would take over an entire port! I don't think many Caribiean port cities could withstand an invasion force of 1500 even today!

 

Can we stop the 'thats not how it worked according to Disney' nonsense, please?

Edited August 25, 2016 by Cutch

[Skully]

I hear what your saying, but I'm not sure of your sources. Most of what you just claimed is false, so using it to back up an argument for historical accuracy is pretty ridiculous. I'm assuming at this point that you are making stuff up because you have some vested interest in not seeing Pirates be an enjoyable option for players in this game.

My transcripts of the events should arrive shortly, delivered by Viper-class Sloop, "Here-be-Trouble".

Your ever faithfull servant onto death,

(Early Access) Alpha Legion, Inquisitor Skully.

The historical arguments serve their own purpose, to provide a proper setting. I do not want see us being able to warp around in a Viper-class Sloop.

But this is primarily a game, so we should not have any gameplay-barring blockades in the sandbox.

 

You payed full price, so you should get full content.

The only right every player has is the ability to see all the content. It does not have to be "free" however.

There might be gameplay obstacles or effort involved in reaching certain goals, like being able to sail SOLs.

 

Many privateers/pirates were given ships by national navies. Very few if any captured ships from nothing like you have seen in the Disney movies. If you want to play more of a fantasy-style Pirates of the Carabean game, there's already a bunch of those. 

That said, I wouldn't mind if pirates were not able to craft at least beyond a certain size (6th rates and traders?), but had to either capture ships, or be given ships by nations that hire them. Letting them craft smaller ships is mostly a sustainability/new-player-experience thing. Maybe give them an alternative crafting set that let them retrofit traders into more combat-focused ships, as that would have been very historically accurate.

"Send to outpost" needs to go, at least for warships. It undermines the strategic aspects of Open World.

Picture two conflict zones next to one-another.

F-P-P-R-P-F-P-R-P-F

F = Free port

P = Deep or shallow

R = Regional

In the free ports (and independent ports) you can only build ships yards up to level 2. National ports can contain ship yards level 3, hence most likely they put the level 3 in the Regionals.

You would then need to continously supply the yards from the local region. Smuggling and intercepting away, generating hostility in the process. Hopefully lots of traders needing regional escorts.

Now should you be able to TP in warships, the whole regional balance would be upset. It would be a different story, if you had another region on the side, which would be producing 1st rates though.

But such a region would be pickings for Pirates.

Everything is already buffed, just ensure that Free/Independent Ports can only contain level 2 ship yards. And ensure those can only craft up to (and including) class 4 ships.

 

Pirates/privateers did take over ports in many cases, as I pointed out. They did attempt to form a sort of nation at one point, although it was short lived. However, they usually captured ports on behalf of a hiring nation, then handed it over after to their employer after taking their spoils. Most ports didn't have 'an army to defend it' since Europe was already stretched thin with wars, hence why they hired Privateers in the first place. The privateer fleets often included up to 1500 men that would take over an entire port! I don't think many Caribiean port cities could withstand an invasion force of 1500 even today!

As PiratesIndependents increase hostility it would open up a raid battle. Should the PiratesIndependents win, the town becomes a capture-able free port.

The net effect is that it boots the lazy Lord Protector and his Town Council, while Ship Owners and Building Owners are unaffected.

So little impact on economy, in fact it could improve, because now Freelancers (/ Pirates) and other National Plantation Owners can come in as well.

You could question who forms the new Town Council. The Outlaw? Or the Farmer?

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15665-the-low-level-farmer/

But it needs to have some entry point for the next step to happen.

Embrace the Black Plague to the full and let the play2win players be its cure. Thus define a new endgame that promotes play2win players to "own" nations.

• A capitol can be capped (via prevailing PB means) once that nation is down to its last port (e.g. the capital).
• All players belonging to the losing nation will be switched over to the winning nation at no cost.
• At any time Lord Protectors can put in a vote for a new capital for either a (Pirate/)sub-nation or (if available) a full nation.
  • The Lord Protector of the new capital dictates the nature of the nation, full or PirateMinor. And if PirateMinor, a name.
  • For full nation (if available), you need a vote containing 20 ports (some Lord Protectors have more ports than 1).
  • For a PirateMinor nation, you need a vote of 10 ports.
  • All ports belonging to the Lord Protectors passing a vote will change to the new nation. Likewise will the Lord Protectors themselves. All at no cost of assets.
• A PirateMinor nation does not have an Admiralty, so no gold for captures, nor PvE missions. This to ensure that Lords are very willing to go full nation.

I'm very curious to see if we'll see an Aussie nation.

It needs some rework, because you actually need to be able to control at least 2 Regions. One for your Capital Region, one for initial hostility to start against your newly founded Nation.

There is my full view of the Road to Independence.

With that it closes the loop of the perpetual aspects of the game. A season could last forever if we choose to do so, or it could end. (All depending on what the majority of players will actually do, instead of click. )

Edited August 25, 2016 by Skully

[Loco Bandito]

What if you could send a player a contract to participate in a PB as a mercenary?

[Sea Archer]

I suggest that pirates shall be able to sail in a nation's capital port and buy a letter of marquee, which gives the individual for a limited time the status of a privateer (1 month). In this time he may act in the nation's ports like a national.

A pirate shall not be able to craft ships above 5th rate, but shall be capable of modifying any ship above to pirate versions with higher crew and bigger guns. Of course he will have to cap them first.

[Skully]

There should be a mechanic in game where you can "hire" or issue a letter of marque to them for a small fee, that will grant them access to your ports, and will effectively treat that individual as an ally for the length of that marque.

This would be great for smaller nations who need to quickly bolster their numbers in a region by hiring a bunch of pirates to act as privateers to disrupt enemy fleets or take action against enemy ports.

I suggest that pirates shall be able to sail in a nation's capital port and buy a letter of marquee, which gives the individual for a limited time the status of a privateer (1 month). In this time he may act in the nation's ports like a national.

No need for any kind of such conditions in a letter of marque. If you want barriers you can agree on those out of game. The only thing you need is having an Independents Clan be able to enter with you on all battles.

So simply have the ability of Clans doing "alliance" agreements and you are done.

Payment, conditions etc, they can all be handled using existing mechanics.

 

But as a faction pirates should not be able to hold any ports on their own.

There is no Pirate faction going to be (if there ever was). Ultimately the choice to hold ports or not is up to a player.

If we are going to have Outlaws, then there will also need to be a mechanic to become an Independent or National again. And hence you'll have the option to hold ports again.

Why should the game dictate a barrier around content?

Edited August 25, 2016 by Skully

[Cutch]

Skully - you, my friend, are a machine Great input. You have all your bases covered!

 

I think we're all on the same page now. To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that a mercenary mechanic REPLACE how pirates currently play, but instead add new gameplay option since they recently lost a lot so many. But we also have to resist trying to model the class after <insert your favorite pirate>. Play how you want. Want to a pirate in a 1st rate? Have at it... But that's off topic for this thread.

 

As it stands since the latest patch, Pirates are against the world. They can technically take ports, but it's unlikely the can hold many for too long, as the alliance system will form major power blocks that have a huge advantage against them. The primary goal of this suggestion is give them options to participate in the big picture again, while still being different from other nations. It's a higher risk/reward game style, and that's how it should be.

 

I get the argument that pirates shouldn't have any ports, but unless the devs want to make a cluster of free ports for the pirates to operate out of, its a necessary compromise to make the game playable for them. Although like I mentioned, that may be coming to an end with the way alliances seem to be going....

 

A pirate-specific port raid mechanic would make a lot of sense. No flags, no timers, no changing of ownership.... but that's a topic for another thread.

 

On a related note, the devs mentioned wanting to add a flag for Pirates to be 'Outlaw Pirates'. That's confusing... why not rename Pirates to Privateers, and have a flag for privateers to be 'Pirates'? (other than because pirates sounds sexier than privateer)

[Skully]

There should always be conditions on things like that, because they otherwise can and WILL be abused by some players.   If there isn't, and there is some kind of defacto bonding commission to hold them to their contracts in game, then that works as long as players give a damn.  But outside game agreements don't work in most games.  I have seen this type of idea before in Face of Mankind with the Mercaneries of the Blood, MotB.  They were an in game merc faction, and if you didn't have them sign an in game contract they would not get paid for their actions, unless you were online and decided to actually give them the money.

 

I am just suggesting a system like the current contract system, where you have a "jobs" tab for the Pirates to replace the politics tab.  Where they can choose to accept an individual contract placed by a rank 10 (Rear Admiral) player.  The amount for the contract will be held in escrow like a contract for goods.  It will have the options on it.  And once signed you will be able to use that nations ports, AND target enemies of that nations ships and ports as if you were a member of that faction.   But on top of this you would make money based on your prize like normal, AND contract payment.  

 

But they can always remain a normal pirate and just hunt whatever when not on contract.   When on contract they cant attack ships of the contracting nation. 

 

Pretty simple system.

Could it model things like http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14809-preliminary-treaty-of-the-antilles-commerce-and-free-navigation-valid-as-soon-as-the-four-nations-sign/ ?

Or http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15548-the-three-admirals-treaty-pvp1/ ?

Or http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/11076-marked-with-the-black-spot-pvp1-eu/ ?

Or http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15734-tournament-for-the-worst-performance-in-na/ ?

We have many many dealings going on outside of the game. The ones of AUSFC just rarely see the light of day.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/?p=273731

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15623-pvp1-august-3rd-the-french-émissaire/

Just today we got asked to lend a hand. So we sailed (and get flooded immediately with support requests ), we don't have time to click through some mechanic.

And if money needs to be exchanged, it will be exchanged. Reputation ensures that deals fall through.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Skully

[Bach]

I've been playing pirate for three months now. I don't feel they are broken.

Port Conquest

If a strong leader organizes the pirates into a team they can take ports. This is very hard and will rarely happen. When it does it is short lived. These events are more like mini rebellions than true lasting conquests. In the current system they do work and with the alliance system it is very easy for any two allied nations to team up and put down a pirate rebellion. Which they seem to have no problem doing now.

Hunting merchant ships and harassing shipping.

This is working fine now. Sometimes we act as privateers for a nation in player to player deals. It all works now.

Pirate bases

In real life pirates did have havens. You can't stay at sea forever. Obviously the majority of these were semi-lawless frontier towns like Nassau or black beards haven in South Carolina. The Free town work fine for this. I have almost no need for Mortimer Town other than selling or trading goods with other pirates. I find it funny how many pirates build ships, do Econ and missions at MT only to become prey for Nationals that hunt pirates there 24/7. All this they could be doing a havens in Freetowns instead of giving the Nationals one place to always hunt pirates. MT currently helps the Nationals more than the pirates. But I guess you have to start somewhere for new player pirates. May as well be MT.

Pirates building frigates and larger ships

While it is true that real pirates seldom sailed ships as big as frigates or teamed up into squadrons. In NA we have to balance the fact that the Nationals aren't realistic nationals either. Most every national captain is a Rear Admiral with over a thousand men at his disposal, rate ships and endless supplies. If we held pirates to 6th and 7th rates they would become ineffective if national players also were not also held to realistic ship standards. Since we're not about to take all that back from national players we have to allow pirates the same level playing field for them to compete. The real world ratio of merchant to warships is mostly merchants. In NA it's mostly warships. The average real life pirate hunter, like Lt. Maynard, wasn't a rear admiral with a thousand men and rate ships at his disposal. In NA the average pirate hunter is. So we have to allow for some realism shifts to balance the playability of the game.

I think it would add a lot of flare to the game if pirates could create a hidden base.

I think it would be fun if nationals could occasionally find and destroy those bases.

I think it would be better if pirates could raid non-capital towns and unguarded frontier ports than conquest.

I think offering pirates letters of Marc or pardons to work for a nation is good ONLY if it's done as part of a longer term condition the pirate had to be loyal too. If loyalty to the deal isn't a requirement then we have that condition right now outside the game and don't need it repeated inside. Putting something hard coded inside is only worth it if there is some rule to be enforced.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Bach

[Skully]

That is great, but unfortunately that is not how it works on PvP2.... 

 

Pirates here are a massive faction that go around in a zerg.

We are lucky that we have an archive of the map.

PvP1 has gone through a similar phase: Naval Action : A Letter to the King - Episode 8

Ultimately leading to http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14244-hegemony/

(You can also see the Great River incident, which was another spark the British Council threw into the oil.

The Yucatan defense by AUSEZ etc. It's actually fun to see back the letter.)

The thing is, if players want to join a zerg, they will.

With Capital capture in place and finally a Season end, having a single zerg will ultimately "punish" all players with a wipe.