Poll [4.1] Player is not informed of relevant skills and perks for land profit

[Pieter Boelen]

For now I'd say just let the quartermaster contribute and move this to build 15 brainstorming where we can see if we can and want to expand on this.

It seems we've reached another "personal preference" debate here. It really isn't important enough for a toggle, so I'm ruling that one out.
Other than that, we have two clear options, both of which do not take a lot of effort to change.

I've added a poll to the opening post and we'll just go with whichever option gets the most votes.
Though my personal preference is for the FIRST option, if the majority decides it will be #2, then I am willing to accept that.

 

[Levis]

Well just to add to the discussion. If we go for the fact the player needs the ability we need to remove it from the Quartermaster because its useless for him. But the commerce perks are usefull for him but still if the player wants land he should have them to so it would make the whole quartermaster officer useless because if the player wants to have land he should make sure he got those commerce perks himself also.
Thats why I vote for have the quartermaster contribute his perks to this too.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

If we go for the fact the player needs the ability we need to remove it from the Quartermaster because its useless for him.

As per the opening post.

But the commerce perks are usefull for him but still if the player wants land he should have them to so it would make the whole quartermaster officer useless because if the player wants to have land he should make sure he got those commerce perks himself also.

A Quartermaster would get those abilities far earlier. So you'd get the advantage of that pretty soon.
Just not for your land. If you want it for your own land as well, you'll have to get them too.
Gives the player something more to do at some point. I don't see any harm in that. :shurg

Alternate idea: Remember how it is the DOCTOR's defence skill that reduces battle casualties and NO other officer can do this even if they do have a 10?
At the moment this logic is in use in only one specific spot, but how about we specifically make the Quartermaster's skills have an effect somewhere?
That would ensure he remains useful regardless of player skills.

This could be done for other officer types too.

 

[Grey Roger]

Does that mean that if the player has "Defence" 10 and the ship defence perks, it has no effect? Are there any more skills limited in similar fashion?

How about we don't reduce the player's ability like this?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Does that mean that if the player has "Defence" 10 and the ship defence perks, it has no effect?

No, it does not mean that at all. It is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY after-battle casualties.
In the process that deals with wounded and healed crewmembers, it is specifically the doctor's skills that are checked.
For the obvious reason that it is a doctor's job to do exactly that.

Everywhere else, the player's Defence skill works as usual. And nobody said anything about Defence perks either.
See here for some more details: Included in Build - Improve officer importance | PiratesAhoy!

How about we don't reduce the player's ability like this?

Ever since "wounded crewmembers" were added to the mod by me, it has worked like this.
I've mentioned that repeatedly over the years and it is in no way new.

This was mainly an experiment that, so far, hasn't really led much of anywhere else. But it could and I do think there is some very real merit to it.
It just makes absolutely not the slightest ounce of sense to me that a Superman player character with all skills and abilities should indeed have no need for officers.
No human can handle everything at the same time, even if you DO know how to do it all.
You just don't have enough time to be everywhere at the same time and do eveything yourself.

 

[Levis]

@Pieter Boelen that ability of the doctor still isn't communicated to the player also. I think I know of a nice way to communicate this to the player. Do you mind if I try a little experiment with that?
If that would work and people understand it, it would give us a way to show these special abilities for certain officertypes.

Concerning this problem then. What about removing the land owner form the quartermaster (I kind of agree with that one indeed) but add a perk which is called something like "Accountant". This perk will actually increase the output from land. while the landownership only allows you to have the land.
The landowner perk should be gotten by the main player, but the accountant perk can be aquired by the quartermaster. once he has this he will also contribute his commerce perks. else he wouldn't.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

@Pieter Boelen that ability of the doctor still isn't communicated to the player also.

True.

I think I know of a nice way to communicate this to the player. Do you mind if I try a little experiment with that?
If that would work and people understand it, it would give us a way to show these special abilities for certain officertypes.

I'll be interested to know what you've got in mind.

From my side, I'd quite like the idea I applied to the Doctor to be expanded, rather than it being removed.
After all, this makes officers important even at the very end of the game. Which is most assuredly a good thing in my book!

Concerning this problem then. What about removing the land owner form the quartermaster (I kind of agree with that one indeed) but add a perk which is called something like "Accountant". This perk will actually increase the output from land. while the landownership only allows you to have the land.
The landowner perk should be gotten by the main player, but the accountant perk can be aquired by the quartermaster. once he has this he will also contribute his commerce perks. else he wouldn't.

There is no actual huge problem here. There are two options that are both pretty much five-minute fixes.
Why bother spending more time on this than absolutely necessary?

 

[Levis]

True.
There is no actual huge problem here. There are two options that are both pretty much five-minute fixes.
Why bother spending more time on this than absolutely necessary?

Because I don't like both solutions that much .

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Because I don't like both solutions that much .

You can always put in a Feature Request for something more fancy.

It just strikes me as being far too unimportant to waste much time on.
Not right now anyway.

 

[Tingyun]

I may be the only one who thinks this, but I think even aside from being realistic, the present system is great gameplay.

1) When does land profit become relevant? Mid to late game.

2) When does the player have an abundance of perk points and nothing to spend them on because officers cover everything? Mid to late game.

We have a perfect confluence of factors to allow the land profit mechanic to provide advancement to players late game, while not restricting players early game.

As for @Levis 's point that if the player eventually gets all the land perks in the late game it might obsolete the quatermaster, sure, and what is the alternative? The player WILL have extra perk points in the end, and he WILL be obsoleting some officer's perks with those points. What possible difference does it make whether he obsoletes the quatermaster or the carpenter or anyone else? Someone will get their perks obsoleted at this point. At least the quatermaster may more easily justify his salary and be kept around, as even a point extra in commerce skill will probably cover his wages.

 

[Levis]

I'm working on ways to use perkpoints for other things as well .

 

[Pieter Boelen]

2 vs 2 isn't going to answer this question.

Anyone else care to vote? Maybe @Jack Rackham, @ANSEL, @Talisman, @Cassadar, @Javrimir, @Redbeard, @Eskhol or anyone else?

If it remains a tie, then I'll use my own vote as tie-breaker, which means it remains as it is now, but with added explanation.

 

[Cassadar]

The way I figure it, it is the player who IS the land owner and should therefore be the one to have that perk.

^ I agree with that one. It's the Quartermaster's job to manage your ship, not your golf course.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

^ I agree with that one. It's the Quartermaster's job to manage your ship, not your golf course.

 

[Javrimir]

It makes the quartermaster more relevant. And it's more realistic then. So I personally prefer the second option.

 

[Cassadar]

Maybe you could give the Quartermaster something to keep the crew's moral a bit in check instead. Does he contribute Iron Will or is this "job" already linked to another officer?

 

[Levis]

Maybe you could give the Quartermaster something to keep the crew's moral a bit in check instead. Does he contribute Iron Will or is this "job" already linked to another officer?

jup, firstmate

 

[Tingyun]

I don't think the quatermaster is in need of an additional role as a general matter. Playing as either a merchant or a privateer, the quatermaster will end up making more money than he costs in salary even if he has a 1 higher commerce skill than the player. His role in selling and purchasing is vital.

 

[Redbeard]

As someone whose only knowledge of Quartermasters comes from Starz Black Sails show, I cannot fathom Mr. Gates, or Jack Rackham, or John Silver managing my estates, AND keeping my crew functioning. Not to mention, whats to stop them from taking that when they mutiny. (Not that my crew frequently mutinies after taking a ship because I forgot to raise morale... ahem... cough.) From a gameplay perspective I feel like its more balanced having YOU control the estates with your skills, as it would make quartermasters much more useful than they should be in my opinion.

Just my opinion, but I prefer the first option.

 

[Levis]

So I guess the poll is stuck at 3-5?
If nothing changes I'm going to implement this on sunday.