Clan and Guild Content

[Marion van Ghent]

For loans I was envisioning a tool that someone could, either from personal funds or guild funds (with appropriate permissions), lend out money to another individual or guild. Lender selects the amount, the length of the loan, and the interest rate, and the game can track that debt and show the borrower when it's due, how much interest is due, and send back a payment or payments. Ideally it could also handle an exchange of goods, e.g. lending out 3 cords of timber with an expected payment of 100 barrels of rum after 2 weeks. If the borrower doesn't pay back on time, perhaps there's a "black mark" on his/her/their record which may or may not have in-game consequences (it may be sufficient just to let others see this info before dealing with the borrower) -- possibly with the option for the lender (as part of the loan arrangement) putting a PVP flag on the offender should payment not occur.

 

As for selling bonds, that would clearly be a guild-only option (even if it's a guild of one ). Bonds could probably work fine as the reverse of loans and default to longer terms; the main difference is what you call it and the fact that the bondee sets the terms and can offer as many as are desired. Not entirely sure how they might be "policed," but my general thought is caveat emptor. It may well be that people would only ever buy secured bonds, i.e. ones that are backed by guild-dedicated existing capital.

 

Admittedly I'm unsure as to how stocks would best be handled as these are tied to the nebulous notion of "profit." It may depend on what in-guild tools there are for tracking guild finances. Captain Nell sells 100 barrels of rum at a profit of 10 ducats each (1000 ducats profit); Captain Bob uses 1000 ducats to buy a West Indiaman. Has the guild made a profit or not? No economist here, but thought it a worthwhile enough idea to toss into consideration.

[Johny Reb]

I like this discussion. Its a unique idea to add the loans and bonds into a game.

I'm for options even if I wouldn't employ them. Im not sure that I would loan society money to anyone but the most trusted and active members, maybe. I've been burned to many times by good people who borrow our money or get a ship before paying for it and then for RL reasons leave the game. What would help police this so no one gets burned is to have the ability to put in collateral.

se

I think stocks would be very difficult to manage properly. It would be to easy to abuse the system I'm afraid but the idea of bonds is interesting in itself. To make sure we are on the same page, I see a society selling bonds in order to raise money for one project or another. Here though the buyer could get burned if the society never pays on those bonds. Backing the bonds would require the soc to put money aside to cover at least a percentage of the bond which wouldn't protect the bond holder fully. It may just be easier to have dues and sell stuff.

[Samuel Adams]

Was there stocks and bonds in the 1750's???

[Marion van Ghent]

I don't disagree that any mechanism to lend or borrow in-game money is fraught with potential to get burned -- either through misconduct or the vagaries of RL interfering with game activity. But I'm glad the idea appeals in principle

 

Was there stocks and bonds in the 1750's???

 

Most definitely. They had them in the 17th century; the Dutch East India Company was the first to offer such in basically the modern sense, and if memory serves a stock exchanged opened in London in the 1680s. It offered a means for companies to finance voyages (a high-risk, high-profit enterprise) without necessarily losing everything if a ship was lost, as the loss would be largely on the part of the investors. In turn investors would be paid dividends from the profits of successful voyages -- which, particularly in the 17th century, were enormous. Bonds (and of course loans) date even earlier than stocks.

[Brigand]

It would be to easy to abuse the system I'm afraid but the idea of bonds is interesting in itself. To make sure we are on the same page, I see a society selling bonds in order to raise money for one project or another. Here though the buyer could get burned if the society never pays on those bonds.

 

I agree it would be challenging to implement this correctly, but let's not forget that bonds, loans and shares always involve risk. The risk is offset by the chances for profit. For an MMO, the hard part would be to deal with intentional fraudulent players. The good thing is that a lot of the 'gentlemen behaviour' can be forced/automated by the game engine.

 

~Brigand

[Marion van Ghent]

I agree it would be challenging to implement this correctly, but let's not forget that bonds, loans and shares always involve risk. The risk is offset by the chances for profit. For an MMO, the hard part would be to deal with intentional fraudulent players. The good thing is that a lot of the 'gentlemen behaviour' can be forced/automated by the game engine.

 

~Brigand

 

This is one reason why I think there should be an in-game public record of players'/guilds' payment history. It doesn't prevent fraud, but does encourage good behaviour.

 

Of course it could be hard as a player starting out to get loans and whatnot, but perhaps there would be in-game national banks which could lend out funds or materials so those interested or in need can develop a sort of credit history. Ability to co-sign or otherwise sponsor or guarantee business arrangements might help as well.

[Samuel Adams]

All I know is it might be a little much to ask all this of the devs. I was just throwing out some ideas and seeing what you all think. 

[Johny Reb]

I agree it would be challenging to implement this correctly, but let's not forget that bonds, loans and shares always involve risk. The risk is offset by the chances for profit. For an MMO, the hard part would be to deal with intentional fraudulent players. The good thing is that a lot of the 'gentlemen behaviour' can be forced/automated by the game engine.

 

~Brigand

I don't mind the idea of risk. Some investments don't pan out. I'm nervous about what recourse you have if a player or society refuses to pay. You can't sue them. The only way around this that I can think of atm is to have a forced payback system. Say 10 percent(or whatever the loaner wants it to be) of everything the borrower makes. Then only those that leave the game will be an issue. But the abuse there, and I know from experience that these players exist, is that someone borrows money from you and then trades all his assets to his true character or a friends and then never plays that toon again.

 

If this was to happen often enough then game labs will constantly be policing loans which I doubt they want to do.

[Brigand]

But the abuse there, and I know from experience that these players exist, is that someone borrows money from you and then trades all his assets to his true character or a friends and then never plays that toon again.

 

I thought of this myself as well (after writing the post). You can't punish a player by putting his character in prison. So, maybe it is not such a good idea after all.

~Brigand

[Samuel Adams]

Well and after all it is a game and we are here to have fun. I agree with the no prison but the society can punish there own for misconduct.

Maybe fining the player for misconduct?

[Johny Reb]

Well its not so much about disciplining a member within by, say, kicking them out or demoting them. That won't get your loaned out money back.

[Thomas Blackwell]

I agree with johny. In order for something like this to work, there will have to be something else in place to stop a person from cheating their creditors in the first place, rather than focusing on disciplinary actions for when they do.

[Samuel Adams]

Maybe if they don't pay it's like a real bank and take money out every time they make port?

[Alex Connor]

Someone mentioned society owning ports, and ofc society forts were discussed often as an idea for PotBS.

 

My take on this would scattering hundreds of unoccupied natural harbors across the map and letting societies build their own ports.

 

Each port would start as a camp on the shore and the society could build from there all the way to a town with its own shipyard and guarded by massive fortresses. Different potential port sites would have their own qualities. Some might have a deep harbor suitable for the largest ships, or a sandbar that protects the bay and would force attackers under fortress guns. Or a perfect site to build a cliff-side castle that will be much harder to land and take.

 

Ports would be built from templates, but plenty of options within those for society members to set up their own warehouses, workshops, etc, shipyards even. The society themselves would be in charge of setting up public buildings, magistrates offices, governors residence, society warehouses, all kind of things that make a port run smoothly (meaning, they increase production. Or something like that ). And of course defense. Raising a militia or even a private army, setting up simple gun batteries all the way up to stone fortresses with guns larger than any ship-of-the-line.

 

And different ports would have access to different local resources. Setting up port in an established, well defended area (high-sec in EVE terms) would be safe and low risk, but there would be a lot of competition for the best sites (not to mention competition from existing npc ports for resources). Meanwhile, the lawless and unpatrolled frontiers might lack that safety, but they have much richer resources and your pick of superb natural harbours from which to built a city that dominates the region...

 

Something for every level and strength of society to have a challenge.

[Brigand]

Actually, admin mentioned that they are leaning towards the idea of multiple societies building/owning a port together.

~Brigand

[Samuel Adams]

That is cool. I think it would be fun.

[Alex Connor]

Actually, admin mentioned that they are leaning towards the idea of multiple societies building/owning a port together.

~Brigand

Makes sense.

 

Still, would be nice to see societies given the option of going it alone or working together.

 

Competition between ports could be very interesting. Say a society has a major port in an area, and some rival is building nearby. The first society doesn't want this, but cannot resort to direct force because they are in the same nation. They might use trade pressure, ships visiting the rivals port are barred from the bigger and more important established trade hub. Or play it dirty, slip some money to pirates to attack shipping using that port. Maybe even pillage and burn the port itself...

[Brigand]

Competition between ports could be very interesting. Say a society has a major port in an area, and some rival is building nearby. The first society doesn't want this, but cannot resort to direct force because they are in the same nation. They might use trade pressure, ships visiting the rivals port are barred from the bigger and more important established trade hub. Or play it dirty, slip some money to pirates to attack shipping using that port. Maybe even pillage and burn the port itself...

 

Well, in this case, no society will 'have' any port. You should instead think of it as a society having a presence in a port. If a 'rival' society is investing in a port nearby, why not get an office in the same port?

The competition should be between nations. Two societies in the same nation may be see each other as competition, but they are still both fighting for the same flag. If the societies within a nation start a trade war between themselves, you can expect the enemy nations to profit most. So, societies better learn to negotiate win-win situations with other societies in their nation, or they will all loose.

 

If you let go of the notion of port ownership or -exclusivity, a new type of gameplay emerges. You should strive to get as man other societies in the important ports as possible, because you will need their support in growing and improving the city, as well as the defences, because the enemy nations will sure take notice of any successfully port and see what they can do to break its economic prosperity. Maybe a large and powerful society will even sponsor the development of fortifications in ports they have no presence in, because it improves the overall power balance between nations.

 

~Brigand

[Alex Connor]

I'm hoping the absurd situation from PotBS where captains from nations at war can freely enter hostile ports will not carry over to NA. Really the only reason for this was for quests, and since NA devs have said the are not interested in making hundreds of quests...

 

If you cannot enter other nations ports (at least not openly), the only possible trade competition is player to player and society to society within the same nation. This doesn't automatically set societies at each others throats, in an area with a significant enemy threat societies might have to work together to survive. Or one might feel it can survive on its own and lets the enemy wipe out the competition, then moves in to take over and rebuild what's left for itself. Or maybe several societies form an alliance to control a large area that individually they couldn't hope to hold. Could even have a scenario like the one you suggested with a big society (or alliance) encouraging smaller allies to come help build up its ports and in return defending their ports. Or the other way round, defending smaller societies ports to gain future allies.

 

Society relationships could be a very interesting gameplay element if done right (meaning as few artificial limits as possible).

[Johny Reb]

You have to have enough meaningful ports to make sure the societies spread out. You wouldn't want every society in the nation set up in just one port because it is the only one that you can build large ships in. The societies that put down roots in a city should be smart enough to build relationships with the other societies making that port home. This will probably be the foundation of the first alliances. If the alliance in the port grows powerful enough then it can force the other societies out of that port through economic pressure.

 

Societies though, shouldn't be limited to one port though. I'd say that a society chooses their home port where they can build everything that the game and the port can support. They could then build economic outposts with limited abilities in other ports. These outposts may be used for small buisnesses like farming and mining or it could be used as a collection port for material they are gathering in that area. So if society, "Pingu's Penguins" has made its home port in London, it would then set up outposts in the Med, the Americas, and the Caribbean so that they can trade with the alliances that are based in that part of the world.

 

As for entering nation ports, I hope NA won't be like Potbs where all nations are at war all the time. I hope that Wars happen and sometimes you are at peace. PvP is dependent on what nation you are at war with, so pvp areas are constantly shifting. I don't know how to set up this system completely but I think it would be a good game feature to spot a ship on the horizon, identify it as a frigate, close range not knowing yet if its a friendly or foe until they run up the flag. This is more immersive and fun IMO then knowing that everything not apart of your nation is a foe.

[Johny Reb]

I've been thinking about the consensus that seems to exist concerning societies being the major economic powers and not the individual. The devs have indicated that they plan on allowing societies to choose a home port and if they design societies like we have suggested the societies that make the port home will control the shipyards and defenses of that port. I love this idea but an unintended consequence will be that a society may be limited with respect to the part of the map it inhabits. I've been thinking about the addition of society outposts. These outposts would be limited to say, a warehouse divided into two sections. Set up like a society auction house, one section could receive "buy" orders and the oter section would be to sell their surplus material. In fact there should be a third section for storage. These would create hubs within an area that could be used to collect material to later be hauled to the societies main base. I imagine the number of these would need to be limited so that it doesn't effect the day to day trade routes.

 

What do you all think of that?

[Brigand]

I've been thinking about the consensus that seems to exist concerning societies being the major economic powers and not the individual. The devs have indicated that they plan on allowing societies to choose a home port and if they design societies like we have suggested the societies that make the port home will control the shipyards and defenses of that port. I love this idea but an unintended consequence will be that a society may be limited with respect to the part of the map it inhabits. I've been thinking about the addition of society outposts. These outposts would be limited to say, a warehouse divided into two sections. Set up like a society auction house, one section could receive "buy" orders and the oter section would be to sell their surplus material. In fact there should be a third section for storage. These would create hubs within an area that could be used to collect material to later be hauled to the societies main base. I imagine the number of these would need to be limited so that it doesn't effect the day to day trade routes.

 

What do you all think of that?

 

You're analysis on the consenses seems true enough to me.

 

I don't neceserraly see that societies having a home port would confine them to a single place, I could see a society having a precense in more than one port, with one of them being designated the home port. However, your idea about society outposts as a society presence at a port, but with only a subset of the options available to a society in its home ports sounds as the better idea to me.

 

If you continue this thought, you could even (at a later stage) have a society outpost gain independence and become the new home port of a society that forked from the original one (independence wars anyone?). It also opens up a very nice interaction between societies in ports, for one it will be their main base of opperation (so they will invest a lot in it) and others will have 'only' an outpost in the port (and as a result think it less important than). This would create very nice motivators for inter-society politics.

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[Kiefer Cain]

I've been thinking about the consensus that seems to exist concerning societies being the major economic powers and not the individual.

 

I am not sure I understand what is wrong with individuals becoming economic powers?  Are you saying there will be (or should be) a mechanic in place that prevents individuals from being successful in the economy, or as successful as any society-based cooperative?    

[Brigand]

A society toolbox should enable the group to be more than the simple sum of the individuals, which would automatically lead to the group having an advantage to the individual.

Having said that, I think individuals should be free to compete for economic supremacy with societies or even alliances. If you are good enough to become their equal just on your own, all the more respect you deserve.

 

~Brigand

[Johny Reb]

I am not sure I understand what is wrong with individuals becoming economic powers?  Are you saying there will be (or should be) a mechanic in place that prevents individuals from being successful in the economy, or as successful as any society-based cooperative?    

 A couple of ways to answer this...

 

Yes, kind of. I believe that the individual should be able to be successful working alone but only on a much smaller scale. There are a few reasons for this IMO. I understand that others are loners and want to do it all themselves without the need of others. I respect this, I just don't like it.

 

There are a couple of reasons for societies being more meaningful than the individual.

 

1. It improves the overall economy of the game if no one person can tackle the entire economy of the game (mainly shipbuilding). In Potbs, the ambitious create 35 toons and do everything in house. This means they never or at least rarely have to reach out to others for material. This damages the overall game economy because there is less demand on the market for the various products that are made. These hand full of players provide the nation(or at least the pvp'ers) most of their ships at the cheapest prices which hampers the individual that is building his own economy. Now the way Potbs does it works well enough I guess, I just think it can be done better.

2. The admins have used the term "corporation" with regards to societies. I see the individual as representative of the small family business. Therefore, the individual will profit by selling the various materials needed for shipbuilding and provisioning of the ships, i.e. wood, metals, farms products, etc. They may even build the smaller ships as small shipyards couldn't be building rates and its reasonable to think that a family business could build schooners and such.

3. Many have advocated for societies having more importance in the game and not just as social clubs. By having societies work as the larger shipyards and port infrastructure support then societies overall become more stable with less coming and going of its membership. Other mechanics would also help in this stability as well. Its a little more realistic to think that one person could not run a ship yard, tend to the farm, manage iron mines, sail his ship, haul his material, etc then to think that they could. Large businesses have multiple levels of responsibility and the society structure provides a perfect reflection of real life management.

4. Even in the large society that has the backing, contacts, size and infrastructure to build the largest rates the individual still has a major role in the building of ships if its designed the way I advocate. As a recap... Societies own the shipyards but within a shipyard there are dry docks with an associated warehouse. A society can own numerous dry docks of various sizes to accommodate the different sized ships according to their focus. Each dockyard would need a dry dock manager that does the "clicking" of the ships and is in charge of arranging for materials to be delivered to his warehouse. The profits would be split between the society, material providers, and the dry dock manager. (I havn't put much thought to how these profits would be split up so we could debate that later). So, the individual still can essentially have the ability to act individually under the society umbrella which will support the up keep of the shipyard itself. How much autonomy you have would be up to the management of the society and could make an interesting dynamic for choosing a society. Do you want to join a society that requires the dock yard managers to make the ships they say, or one that says you must build them in the order that the purchase orders are recieved by the society, or one that says make whatever you want and sell whatever you want as long as you make a profit which will then benefit the society (company) at large.

5. If the game is designed so that many materials are needed to build ships then it makes it more difficult for the individual to do it all and maybe even make it difficult for larger societies as well. Therefore, a system of alliances would be introduced. If your society is based in the med yet the best oak is in the Americas then it would be more practical to ally with a company over there with access to those resources and begin a trade route to exchange materials at a less inflated amount rather than requiring one of your members to set up a logging camp on the other side of the world and be displaced from his friends.(I'm assuming we have only one ship and can't port to various ships around the world instantly)

 

I hope this explains some of the motives for advocating for a more society centered economy.