Feature Request Privateer Betrayal

[Jason Maffettone]

One of the most common reasons the more famous pirates became pirates to start with is betrayal by their governments. Wars started and ended constantly between the major European powers and no one recognized an enemy power’s letter of marque. Very often a privateer would be turned over to a former enemy as a pirate (despite following the letter of the law regarding the execution of their letter of marque) as a means of appeasing that country when a peace treaty was finally signed—especially if ships were taken after the effective date which the “offending” captain would have no way to know about.

I think it would be interesting and add a fun new dimension to the game if when their government makes peace with a former enemy there is a chance they will be denounced as a pirate, especially if they have annoyed a particular country enough.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

In a way, that can already happen.
If you don't notice a relation change and keep attacking your former targets, you will indeed lose your LoM and be considered a pirate.
You do have to trigger that yourself though; it won't happen at random.

 

[Jason Maffettone]

Yes, but those ships no longer default as enemies on the compass from the moment the war ends and you must manually fire on them in 1st person so really you can only do it deliberately. I think it would be more interesting if this could happen through no real fault of your own--simply being caught-up in politics since, in reality, that was a major risk of that trade.

 

[Levis]

@Pieter Boelen wouldn't be nice if the relations "you know" only update after you talked to someone on land (or have been on land if you have a first mate or something like that). So just like with shop prices they might be different then the ones in your log.
This shouldn't be that hard to make right?

in that case this would work because a ship might show up as enemy for you while its actually friendly

 

[Grey Roger]

How often did that happen in reality? Henry Morgan certainly fell out of favour with the English government because he attacked Panama after England and Spain had made peace, and avoided being hanged as a pirate because he proved he didn't know about the treaty of 1670. When relations between Spain and England deteriorated, he was knighted and subsequently became governor of Jamaica.

Realistic or not, this is effectively a way of ruining a player's game by pure random chance and does not make for good gameplay. It would not make the game more fun, it would wreck the game along with the player's progress. It's fine for fixed storylines in which the player can regain his position when relations change again (something of the sort already happens in "Tales of a Sea Hawk") but would pretty well destroy privateer free-play.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Yes, but those ships no longer default as enemies on the compass from the moment the war ends and you must manually fire on them in 1st person so really you can only do it deliberately.

True. Only exception is if you were making use of False Flags. But even then, you do indeed get a warning.

I think it would be more interesting if this could happen through no real fault of your own--simply being caught-up in politics since, in reality, that was a major risk of that trade.

I can tell you that ever since I rewrote the Nations Relations so that false flags work, but actions have consequences,
people have accidentally been triggering themselves being marked as a pirate already!
This despite my very hard efforts to add in explanations and warnings so that players could prevent that from happening by paying some measure of attention to what is going on.

So while the players do need to do this deliberately, often enough they still don't realise that they did it.
This is actually why the Ship's Log now has details on the nations of the ships you capture/sink, what flag you were flying at the time and whether that was considered a legal attack or not.
That way, if players drop by the forum to ask for whatever reason nations suddenly turned hostile to them, at least we can now track down the specific reason through the Ship's Log.

That being said...

wouldn't be nice if the relations "you know" only update after you talked to someone on land (or have been on land if you have a first mate or something like that). So just like with shop prices they might be different then the ones in your log.
This shouldn't be that hard to make right?

Doing that certainly does make realistic sense to me. And it does add further gameplay potential, with all the additional role playing and potential annoyances that come with it.
So this could definitely be a good thing, but whether it really is will depend quite massively on the preferences of the players.
Consider the amount of confusion people already have when they DO do it on purpose (just aren't aware), then think of what will happen if it REALLY happens through no fault of their own!
In other words: I certainly support the idea, but I expect we will definitely need a toggle on it so players who really don't like that, can disable it.

in that case this would work because a ship might show up as enemy for you while its actually friendly

This does mean we would need to have TWO relation systems again: One being the actual one that the player sees, the second being an invisible one that can change without the player knowing.
Consequences from actions would not be updated with immediate effect as is currently the case, but only later on (otherwise the player would still be immediately informed without possibly knowing about it).

I do believe this would be a great step forward. And it would work in with what @Armada and @Flannery have been suggesting about actions only having consequences IF the word gets out.
But I don't imagine this will be a 5-minute job. The way I figure it, it'll require:
1. Double Nations Relations System
2. Plus points from actions being moved to a later stage, such as when you report to a governor/pirate leader
3. Negative points from actions being moved to a later stage, such as when you ask for Tavern News OR randomly when you're recognized for what you did (even if you weren't already aware)

I wonder what @Grey Roger would have to say about this one....

 

[Pieter Boelen]

How often did that happen in reality? Henry Morgan certainly fell out of favour with the English government because he attacked Panama after England and Spain had made peace, and avoided being hanged as a pirate because he proved he didn't know about the treaty of 1670. When relations between Spain and England deteriorated, he was knighted and subsequently became governor of Jamaica.

If you've seen the old Captain Horatio Hornblower, R.N. film or the book it is based on, "The Happy Return", there's an interesting example in there too with the Natividad.
Not real history, of course, but close enough.

Realistic or not, this is effectively a way of ruining a player's game by pure random chance and does not make for good gameplay. It would not make the game more fun, it would wreck the game along with the player's progress. It's fine for fixed storylines in which the player can regain his position when relations change again (something of the sort already happens in "Tales of a Sea Hawk") but would pretty well destroy privateer free-play.

That fully depends on what you expect from your gameplay. If you expect a linear progression from zero to hero where you, as player, are in full control, then indeed that would get ruined.
This is why I propose that IF this is done, it must have a toggle.

On the other hand, if you think a realistic world where you being tremendously unlucky through this is part of the fun, then it is a different story.
After all, dealing with the consequences of this happening, e.g. being forced into piracy or searching amnesty from another nation, could be considered gameplay in itself.
It would be unexpected, but unexpected can be good if you want the game to surprise you.

Plus, it doesn't necessarily need to be career-ending for a Privateer.
If you have a high enough rank and/or fame and/or reputation, then perhaps you might be forgiven for it.
Only when you then, after realising your mistake, still continue doing it, THEN you would truly be considered a pirate.
Of course the offended nations might still be angry with you personally, with all possible consequences of that.
In other words: This could definitely get quite complicated quite quickly.

 

[Levis]

But it could also be quite fun .

Please refresh my mind, at the moment there is already a personal relation with all nations and nations have relations with each other (you as a player are considered a nation and in some cases the game picks your serving nation and in others it picks your personal right)?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

But it could also be quite fun .

Whether it is considered fun or not depends on the person playing.
But it could be fun for sure.

at the moment there is already a personal relation with all nations

Yes.

nations have relations with each other

Yes.

you as a player are considered a nation

Technically yes.

in some cases the game picks your serving nation and in others it picks your personal right

Basically the only thing your "served nation" does is to control whether changing nation relations affect you personally or not.

If you have two LoMs, then your served nation will be Personal (rather than one of the "real" nations).
This means that if nation relations change, your own relations are NOT updated to match.

That actually gets really very close to what @Jason Maffettone is requesting, even without any code changes being made at all.
Of course by paying attention, you could prevent bad stuff from happening.
But the current level of complexity there is already such that it is easy enough to lose track and make a mistake due to changing nation relations.
I know @Grey Roger plays like that; maybe he can give a short overview of how that currently works.
If that would suffice, then we don't need to do anything further.

@Hylie Pistof got caught out by that once, where he was fired upon by a fort of a technically friendly nation, and he couldn't figure out why.
Turns out he had entered that port before under a flag that was friendly to that nation at the time,
that fort remembered him for flying that flag, but now that nation was hostile, so the fort fired on him!
He completely did not see that coming, but technically the game was right to do that.

 

[Grey Roger]

If you have two LoMs, then your served nation will be Personal (rather than one of the "real" nations).
This means that if nation relations change, your own relations are NOT updated to match.

That actually gets really very close to what @Jason Maffettone is requesting, even without any code changes being made at all.
Of course by paying attention, you could prevent bad stuff from happening.
But the current level of complexity there is already such that it is easy enough to lose track and make a mistake due to changing nation relations.
I know @Grey Roger plays like that; maybe he can give a short overview of how that currently works.
If that would suffice, then we don't need to do anything further.

On the other hand, I mostly play storylines. Relations are static in those, so I never run into the problem. But the whole idea of a single LoM having your relation tied to its nation, but multiple LoM's letting you take your chances with varying relations, was in part my idea - a privateer with multiple LoM's has to be more careful not to attack the wrong target and either lose one of the LoM's or even end up being branded a pirate. (In particular, you need to watch what you're doing in the "Assassin" storyline, which gives you LoM's for both Spain and England, nations which are at war with each other... This is necessary for the plot to work under the current relations system, and it gets even trickier when you make peace with Holland later in the story.)

@Hylie Pistof got caught out by that once, where he was fired upon by a fort of a technically friendly nation, and he couldn't figure out why.
Turns out he had entered that port before under a flag that was friendly to that nation at the time,
that fort remembered him for flying that flag, but now that nation was hostile, so the fort fired on him!
He completely did not see that coming, but technically the game was right to do that.

Depends on your point of view. As you'll have gathered, mine is a bit different, and that encounter was a major reason why I added the toggle to allow forts and ships to not remember you if you're friendly.

That incident does show, though, that altering the way relations work can indeed ruin the game for some people. So I repeat, randomly wrecking someone's career through no fault of their own is likely to do it even more.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Depends on your point of view. As you'll have gathered, mine is a bit different, and that encounter was a major reason why I added the toggle to allow forts and ships to not remember you if you're friendly.

I very much know.

That incident does show, though, that altering the way relations work can indeed ruin the game for some people. So I repeat, randomly wrecking someone's career through no fault of their own is likely to do it even more.

Absolutely true. That is why I am saying that IF this is to be done, it must definitely have a toggle.
This really thoroughly depends on player preferences: Do you want "straightforward zero to hero" gameplay or do you want "anything goes and you have to deal with the consequences" gameplay.
I reckon they're both valid approaches, but definitely very different from each other.

Personally I like the concept on that second one, as it is far more realistic and has a lot of unexpected gameplay potential.
It is also excessively more complicated (so lots of development time and testing required!) and will really confuse and/or frustrate people who don't understand the concept and/or simply do not want it.

Also, because the second one pretty much relies on the unexpected, very thorough testing will be even more important than usual.
If it isn't thought through very carefully, then it can have all sorts of unintended side-effects that we really don't want.
So it's risky for sure.

For the time being, my opinion is that this idea certainly has merit,
but since "Free Play + 2 LoMs + False Flags" gets very close to this behaviour already, I think it would be wiser to stick with what we currently have for the time being.

 

[Grey Roger]

Absolutely true. That is why I am saying that IF this is to be done, it must definitely have a toggle.
This really thoroughly depends on player preferences: Do you want "straightforward zero to hero" gameplay or do you want "anything goes and you have to deal with the consequences" gameplay.
I reckon they're both valid approaches, but definitely very different from each other.

I want "what you do has consequences and you have to deal with them" gameplay. What I don't want is "all of a sudden you suffer a massive random penalty regardless of what you do" gameplay.

It is also excessively more complicated (so lots of development time and testing required!) and will really confuse and/or frustrate people who don't understand the concept and/or simply do not want it.

And those people will then either stick with an earlier version, making any other development a waste of time; or ditch the game entirely in favour of one they find to be more enjoyable.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I want "what you do has consequences and you have to deal with them" gameplay. What I don't want is "all of a sudden you suffer a massive random penalty regardless of what you do" gameplay.

The difference there is "what YOU do" versus "what the game world does". With that first option, the player is technically 100% in control.
With the second one, they can try to guide their own path, but do not actually have full control over it.

As long as you are in control, you can deliberately go from "zero to hero" with virtually no unintended setbacks.
But if the game world starts throwing random stuff at you for you to deal with, then unintended setbacks are to be expected and become part of the gameplay.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I reckon both approaches are valid and it is purely player preference that separates the two.
Which also means that by my reasoning, both approaches have a place in the game.
And since they're so obviously incompatible, when done, this will require a toggle for sure.
That way, the player gets the choice over what he wants, rather than us vetoing either one of them.

And those people will then either stick with an earlier version, making any other development a waste of time; or ditch the game entirely in favour of one they find to be more enjoyable.

And that would be stupid, plain and simple.
If a toggle doesn't exist that people really do want, then that can always be added. You know that to be true, because we've done that many times before.

To finalise here: IF this is to be done (which I think would be unwise for the time being), then a toggle MUST be added.
I've been saying so since post #6.

 

[Jason Maffettone]

Another possibility is to create a courts marshal event if you are accused. You can turn yourself in and we could have a panel at a table where you plead your case. There could be a chance you are acquitted with bonuses/penalties depending on your rank and reputation.

If you are found guilty there could be a jail break in the night where you crew springs you from prison and you slink away.

There could also be a cumulative penalty simply for having been accused so if it keeps happening the chances of the trial going badly increases. Accusations, especially in an honor-based culture, can be damning even if baseless.

There could also be the possibility that a third party nation might welcome you into their ranks if you are renowned enough—seeing it as an opportunity to bring a skilled captain into their service. There is a huge role playing potential here.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

There is plenty of potential there. And plenty of work too.

 

[Grey Roger]

A thought: instead of a toggle, perhaps have a few Free-Play characters to whom this is likely to happen. (Julian McAllister, for a start. ) Make it clear in the character description that governments don't trust him and will drop him like a hot potato given half an excuse. Then players have fair warning and don't need to edit files to enable or disable this.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

But then what if you want it on a character that doesn't have it set by default?

I'd envision this toggle to also affect such features as whether non-quest officers of yours can get killed during sea battles.
It is quite a different approach to the game logic, so in this case I wouldn't mind having a toggle on it.

 

[Levis]

A thought: instead of a toggle, perhaps have a few Free-Play characters to whom this is likely to happen. (Julian McAllister, for a start. ) Make it clear in the character description that governments don't trust him and will drop him like a hot potato given half an excuse. Then players have fair warning and don't need to edit files to enable or disable this.

In that case you want to have say an attribute for a character which goes up everything to do an act of treason. Players like Julian McAllister will start with an higher value. The higher this value the higher the chance something bad happens (like the thing @Jason Maffettone sugested). You could add something which make this value goes down over time again (which sounds reasonable).
You could add a toggle which just makes sure this value will never rise or stays 0.