Treasure Transfer mechanics

[Majima Goro]

Currently, the only ways you can get a treasure are if the treasure spawns on your nation or if they you win a war against someone with that treasure
With the new rule making "buying treasures" illegal, I want to suggest a new way to trade treasures.

Before this however, let us discuss why treasure trades are needed.

1) Creates tension- When a mercenary is hired to steal a treasure, they do so on behalf of a third-party alliance. Since treasures directly affect the alliance's revenue, the one from which the treasure is stolen loses income while the one buying it increases that income. A 3% income boost for 40 days in an alliance making 100m+ a day is almost 120m. Plus, the color mechanics add more revenue for that particular color as well. Even a 12k increase per day is equivalent to 500k more income per person on that color. 200 people on a color would make around 100m more. Obviously, losing a treasure to someone is economically bad. Thus, if someone pays a merc to get a hold of a treasures from some other alliance, it is as good as a direct attack on the alliance, leading to complex politics.

2) Raiders- There are alliances in this game which are solely dependant on raiding, mercenary jobs and such to sustain their economy. They have for years captured treasures and sold them. A treasure can be sold for well over 100m. Having a way to sell treasures will fuel more wars, need for better anti-raider defenses and overall make treasure hunts more interesting.

3) Extra Cash- If a treasure spawns in your alliance, you can sell it to gain some immediate cash. Not only as an alliance, you can also sell the treasure as an individual as well. Treasures, as stated, can fetch the seller 100m or more. A treasure market is thus a great thing to have.

4) Peace terms- During alliance wars, the ability to dictate treasure transfers will make victories more sweet and defeats more bitter. This will lead to greater diplomacies in the background, creating more blood and drama.


With these in mind, the proposal is thus:

1) Selling treasures: There wont be any way to "sell treasures" as such. The mechanics will allow the "transfer of treasure". The transfer however  might have monetary incentives involved. When someone has a treasure, they can  visit their nation page. There, an option will appear below the treasure to "Transfer" the treasure. On Clicking it, it will ask you to enter the name of the Nation you want the treasure transferred to and it will then automatically transfer the treasure over to that nation.

2) Limits to transfers: Now, this mechanic has a lot of potential for abuse. People can use this to play hot-potato with the treasure when they are losing, meaning they will transfer the treasure when they are about to lose it. A few limits will be set to overcome this difficulty. Firstly, you cannot be blockaded when transferring the treasure. Second, you must not be in 3 defensive wars. Third, if you are in less than 3 defensive wars, you must not have any war(offensive or defensive) where you are at less than 50 resistance. Thirdly, the transfer cannot take place to a nation that is blockaded or is in 3 defensive wars or is in any war(defensive or offensive) where they are at 50 resistance or less. Fourth, when you receive the treasure via a transfer, you cannot send it to another nation via a transfer for 5 days(60 turns). If you have multiple treasures, this will only apply to the treasure(s) you have received in the last 60 turns via transfer.

An alternative to this can be making the treasures tradable but only on the global market.  They will be available to be bought or sold as normal resources are.

[Aqua-Corpsman]

I wholeheartedly support this. It would add another level of trade and politics to this game.

But one issue is that one alliance could just buy all of them. I think we should limit an alliance to 3 treasures or something.

[Majima Goro]

Just now, Corpsman said:

But one issue is that one alliance could just buy all of them. I think we should limit an alliance to 3 treasures or something.

That exploit is already fixed
Look up Treasure Island on the wiki

[Dryad]

16 minutes ago, AntMan said:

2) Limits to transfers: Now, this mechanic has a lot of potential for abuse. People can use this to play hot-potato with the treasure when they are losing, meaning they will transfer the treasure when they are about to lose it. A few limits will be set to overcome this difficulty. Firstly, you cannot be blockaded when transferring the treasure. Second, you must not be in 3 defensive wars. Third, if you are in less than 3 defensive wars, you must not have any war(offensive or defensive) where you are at less than 50 resistance. Thirdly, the transfer cannot take place to a nation that is blockaded or is in 3 defensive wars or is in any war(defensive or offensive) where they are at 50 resistance or less. 

I would propose that they just cant be transferred while you have any ongoing war. Its easier if there is one straightforward restriction... if there is a third and a thirdly then its probably too many to even count for some people.

I feel like with your current proposal for limitations it would be too easy to transfer the treasure away if only 2 defensive wars are filled. The 50 resistence thing is kinda useless unless the treasureholder is inactive, anyone would just transfer it away before it gets to that point. And then blockades are usually easy to break for an alliance, especially if it's a zeroed raider trying to steal the treasure. You would have to really fill all defensive slots just to pin the treasure and I feel like thats unnecessary if someone feels like they could beige the treasureholder without help. It also just becomes less incentiviced to attempt a steal the harder it becomes to steal it; if it just doesnt work with any ongoing war then that's the easiest scenario for stealing it.

But yeah, 100% agree that such a transfer mechanic would be nice.

[lightside]

100% agree with all this. I also agree it shouldn't be possible to transfer/sell them on a market if you are in a war. Also added put up my own suggestion in a different thread on a second change additional to this that would make them actuary cause conflict.

Edited May 26, 2020 by lightside

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Wendell]

He won't implement any of this. He only listens to Prefontaine.Nice suggestion though.

[Dryad]

26 minutes ago, Epi said:

This just makes worse the prior problem with treasures.

which were?

[Arawra]

The suggested limits seem pretty long and complex, instead I would propose that a treasure can only be transferred once upon spawning, and once again each time it gets stolen (does not stack, obviously).

Additionally, normal trade restrictions would apply, i.e. blockades prevent treasure transfer.

EDIT: I see Dryad already proposed similar criticisms along with a more effective solution, I probably should have read the replies first, oops.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Hime-sama

[lightside]

I think the only restriction on transferring/ selling treasures that is needed is to not be in a war. 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Matthew The Great]

I'd just have the limits be the treasure losing some value each time it's transferred before it resets, but lose no value if stolen in a raid.

[Majima Goro]

58 minutes ago, Matthew The Great said:

I'd just have the limits be the treasure losing some value each time it's transferred before it resets, but lose no value if stolen in a raid.

The 5 day cooldown essentially means the treasure can only be transferred 12 times in the 60 day respawn time
If 5 days seems too low, a 10 day cooldown might be better.
Also, it is a terrible idea. A treasure is bought because it increases income. If the value of the treasure is lowered, it becomes less valuable.

9 hours ago, lightside said:

I think the only restriction on transferring/ selling treasures that is needed is to not be in a war. 

I have thought about doing this but we already have the Resistance restrains+Cooldown+3 defensive war restrains.

The logic is that when a nation is under attack, they might send their treasure off to some friendly nation. The 3 defensive wars, cooldown and 50 resistance restrains make it fair game for others trying to steal the treasure. While this mechanic will mostly be used for Selling Treasures, the actual use of this mechanic is to transfer treasures to a safer place.

13 hours ago, Dryad said:

I feel like with your current proposal for limitations it would be too easy to transfer the treasure away if only 2 defensive wars are filled. The 50 resistence thing is kinda useless unless the treasureholder is inactive, anyone would just transfer it away before it gets to that point. And then blockades are usually easy to break for an alliance, especially if it's a zeroed raider trying to steal the treasure. You would have to really fill all defensive slots just to pin the treasure and I feel like thats unnecessary if someone feels like they could beige the treasureholder without help. It also just becomes less incentiviced to attempt a steal the harder it becomes to steal it; if it just doesnt work with any ongoing war then that's the easiest scenario for stealing it.

We should not make a mechanic that cannot be abused. The 50 resistance is useful when you combine it with a blockade. 
Plus, a three-man team will promote attacking in groups or working together. 
While I sympathize that this will mean more  work for raider, this atleast helps treasure trades to still be a thing.
Yes I agree that tougher restrains might have been more fair, but lax restrains like these have a chaos of their own

Edited May 27, 2020 by AntMan

[Theodosius]

+

 - 5 day cooldown (if gained through trade) on a treasure to prevent abuses (ping-ponging the treasure to prevent losing it)
 - instituting the same mechanics that apply to resources (can't trade treasures if you're blockaded)

Seems pretty straight forward and simple to make considering the mechanics for it already exist, no need to overcomplicate something if there's a simple way to do it

Edited May 27, 2020 by Theodosius

[Alex]

Yeah, I like this idea and I'm planning on implementing it. I'm glad there's a discussion about proper limits to prevent abuse.

I think disabling treasure trading in the instance of any war will likely disable most treasure trading, because there's really no way to prevent people from declaring on you.

Disabling trading while blockaded and to blockaded nations is smart and gives someone trying to steal a treasure a tactical strategy to pursue to ensure they get it. I also like the cooldown to prevent the aforementioned "ping-ponging" that would be a problem.

I don't think treasures should lose any value upon being traded.

 

One remaining question is how they should be transferred - should it be a one-way send, or should it be like a trade offer to the nation?

A one-way transfer leaves room for bad faith actors to lie and steal money. I.E. "I'll send you the treasure, just trade me $100m" and then you don't send the treasure. On the other hand, it would require some trust that way and a successful pirate could build credibility to extract a higher price for transferring treasures. This also isn't really any different than the previous system, which was more of less a good faith agreement.

A trade-offer system would let you set a price and require the other player to accept the trade before the transfer goes through. This creates more security for the buyer, but there could also make transferring treasures harder because of the delay in time between offer and acceptance, during which the treasure could become untradeable (e.g. due to blockade, or stolen in a war.)

The one-way system is easier to code, but I'd like to hear some feedback on which would be preferred from you all (the players.)

[lightside]

None of those restrictions are necesary. As long as a nation is at peace it shouldn't matter how often a treasure gets transferred. The only restriction needed is as I said before is that you shouldn't be able to transfer while at war. This way treasure working would work the same way

O Alex posted at the same time. I agree with Alex that it should be a trade offer system with set price agreements. Ideally we could have a market to public trade then

[Dryad]

27 minutes ago, Alex said:

I think disabling treasure trading in the instance of any war will likely disable most treasure trading, because there's really no way to prevent people from declaring on you.

They would still have to win the war. I think this would be the closest to how treasure transferring has worked so far. So far it has always been if you get hit then you need to win the war to keep the treasure. You would also still be able to transfer treasures as you please as long as you aren't at war which is really the only times treasures should have been sold using beige mechanics, otherwise its clear borderline slotfilling territory.

27 minutes ago, Alex said:

Disabling trading while blockaded and to blockaded nations is smart and gives someone trying to steal a treasure a tactical strategy to pursue to ensure they get it. I also like the cooldown to prevent the aforementioned "ping-ponging" that would be a problem.

I'm not against this really, but I think you should be aware that this will make it easier to defend a treasure compared to how it has been so far and that treasure stealing is already not common. You basically add a defense mechanism that hasnt existed before. I do think the anti ping-ponging cooldown is a good way to balance this, though maybe 5 days is a bit short, you will really have to squeeze the second attempt of trying to steal the treasure in there without any rebuild time.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

17 hours ago, Epi said:

They were designed to incite conflict instead they've only ever been traded to the richest alliances and helped further their lead.

this seems like a poor job by the seller if they also didn't make a large profit from them as well.

[Prefontaine]

21 hours ago, Deulos said:

He won't implement any of this. He only listens to Prefontaine.Nice suggestion though.

 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Yeah, I like this idea and I'm planning on implementing it.

[Alex]

1 hour ago, Dryad said:

They would still have to win the war. I think this would be the closest to how treasure transferring has worked so far. So far it has always been if you get hit then you need to win the war to keep the treasure. You would also still be able to transfer treasures as you please as long as you aren't at war which is really the only times treasures should have been sold using beige mechanics, otherwise its clear borderline slotfilling territory.

I'm not against this really, but I think you should be aware that this will make it easier to defend a treasure compared to how it has been so far and that treasure stealing is already not common. You basically add a defense mechanism that hasnt existed before. I do think the anti ping-ponging cooldown is a good way to balance this, though maybe 5 days is a bit short, you will really have to squeeze the second attempt of trying to steal the treasure in there without any rebuild time.

I'm not thinking a cooldown timer for transfer by war, just for voluntary transfer.

[lightside]

23 minutes ago, Alex said:

I'm not thinking a cooldown timer for transfer by war, just for voluntary transfer.

I really don't this is necesary. It will only harm traders. As long as tresures can't be transfered while at war it won't matter how often they get sold/resold

[Wendell]

4 hours ago, Alex said:

Yeah, I like this idea and I'm planning on implementing it. I'm glad there's a discussion about proper limits to prevent abuse.

I think disabling treasure trading in the instance of any war will likely disable most treasure trading, because there's really no way to prevent people from declaring on you.

You're quite the jester. I wish you would do this anyway without people complaining about your stubbornness.

[Majima Goro]

10 hours ago, lightside said:

I really don't this is necesary. It will only harm traders. As long as tresures can't be transfered while at war it won't matter how often they get sold/resold

Treasures should be tradable even while at war.

Take it this way: A pirate is in 3 defensive wars and has a treasure. He somehow wins one war and is able to transfer the treasure, provided none of his other wars are below 50 resistance and he is not blockaded. However, if just being at war prevents the treasure from being transferred over, an alliance can literally keep sending just one person to slot-fill the pirate, no matter whether he loses or wins, and then when the 5 days are over or just before the loss, they send a second one.
While trying to cover one exploit, you are making a bigger exploit possible.

Our objective shouldnt be to make the treasure stealing be easy or hard: we should focus mainly to make the expolits as little as possible.

 

 

12 hours ago, Alex said:

One remaining question is how they should be transferred - should it be a one-way send, or should it be like a trade offer to the nation?

A one-way transfer leaves room for bad faith actors to lie and steal money. I.E. "I'll send you the treasure, just trade me $100m" and then you don't send the treasure. On the other hand, it would require some trust that way and a successful pirate could build credibility to extract a higher price for transferring treasures. This also isn't really any different than the previous system, which was more of less a good faith agreement.

A trade-offer system would let you set a price and require the other player to accept the trade before the transfer goes through. This creates more security for the buyer, but there could also make transferring treasures harder because of the delay in time between offer and acceptance, during which the treasure could become untradeable (e.g. due to blockade, or stolen in a war.)

The one-way system is easier to code, but I'd like to hear some feedback on which would be preferred from you all (the players.)

The one way transfer will be able to fuel more conflicts, like, for instance in the example given, buyer B might decide to attack seller S due to non-transfer of treasures. It might spiral into a small skirmish or a full scale global
Trades wont be able to do this. One-way transfers have more scope for political arguments than trades.