There are rich pirates in D'Hara

[BardicNerd]

Anaris is lucky enough to have the tools to easily find that info. And the knowledge to know where to look. It would probably take me hours to slog through the code to try and find that, and then figure out when that change was committed. Assuming I could even find it...

Ah, alright, fair enough.

It only took seven pages for Anaris to tell us this info. . . .

[Chenier]

Ah, alright, fair enough.

It only took seven pages for Anaris to tell us this info. . . .

I still think it's crap. Low odds of happening does not compensate for the fact that there is no way to reduce the risk. Warriors don't have troops randomly deserting if they do everything alright and keep stats high, they don't risk stumbling on their swords and accidently wounding themselves while just travelling, courtiers don't risk buildings crumbling on them for just sitting in a region. If at least we could hire guards, then if it happened we could blame ourselves for not getting any/enough if one loses thousands of gold to randomness.

[House Talratheon]

I still think it's crap. Low odds of happening does not compensate for the fact that there is no way to reduce the risk.

The low odds are the reduction in risk it self, would you rather have the risk of being robbed everytime you travel as a priest however hiring guards would make the success rate of successfully being robbed at 5% or just have a 5% chance of ever being robbed. The risk is still the same regardless your argument is illogical respectively.

Looking at it as an equation to hire guards you'd have to increase chances of a robbery occurring, in order to balance out the present equation which would take coding time and a perk that really changes nothing. It's best to let your argument die and leave this alone.

[Chenier]

The low odds are the reduction in risk it self, would you rather have the risk of being robbed everytime you travel as a priest however hiring guards would make the success rate of successfully being robbed at 5% or just have a 5% chance of ever being robbed. The risk is still the same regardless your argument is illogical respectively.

Looking at it as an equation to hire guards you'd have to increase chances of a robbery occurring, in order to balance out the present equation which would take coding time and a perk that really changes nothing. It's best to let your argument and leave this alone.

I won't insist further on this topic, but all I'm saying is that in games, random elements that affect you negatively are a lot less fun if you have no control over them than if you have at least some control over them. That's why most major games tend to preffer random positive elements rather than random negative elements, it's just more fun. ex: How Civilization used to think about implementing Dark Ages, but after testing implemented Golden Ages instead, as it was more fun for sensibly the same kind of mechanic and effect. BM is a game, games are meant to be fun, and random negative events you have no power over aren't fun. That's all I'm saying. Just knowing this mechanic exists will make some think "Do I turn this month-long trek into a two-month trek, just to reduce the risks?" And that's no fun either, regardless of whether something bad happens or not.

[Nosferatus]

My trader character also traveled without a unit across the inner sea and in one month got attacked two times by pirates, one time barbarossa bravly defeated them single handly, the other time they took 400 or so of his shiny coins.
It also didnt happen to me much, yet i figure its quite logical, both times ocured when i was traveling to a rogue region over sea.
Must have been al those deported Madinans from the civil war luring around Paisly and Port Raviel now.
Yep, they've always been scum.

PS, i dont think its overpowered at all and must say i like getting my characters robed once in a while for beeing to greedy not to pay for protection.

[Charles]

I have often thought that it would be interesting to be able to have unitless nobles join your entourage.  I am not sure what the implications would be...aside from protection for the noble.  Not sure whether this has been brought up before.

[egamma]

I have often thought that it would be interesting to be able to have unitless nobles join your entourage.  I am not sure what the implications would be...aside from protection for the noble.  Not sure whether this has been brought up before.

It's been rejected, because that removes player choice from the players, and encourages the 'zombie' 2nd character phenomenon.

[Kwanstein]

I won't insist further on this topic, but all I'm saying is that in games, random elements that affect you negatively are a lot less fun if you have no control over them than if you have at least some control over them. That's why most major games tend to preffer random positive elements rather than random negative elements, it's just more fun. ex: How Civilization used to think about implementing Dark Ages, but after testing implemented Golden Ages instead, as it was more fun for sensibly the same kind of mechanic and effect. BM is a game, games are meant to be fun, and random negative events you have no power over aren't fun. That's all I'm saying. Just knowing this mechanic exists will make some think "Do I turn this month-long trek into a two-month trek, just to reduce the risks?" And that's no fun either, regardless of whether something bad happens or not.

Ah, but piracy isn't random if there's a fixed percentage chance of it happening. Think of it more as a risk/reward thingy: is carrying around X amount of gold worth the 1/20 risk of being robbed? If not, then don't do it.

Civilization has these sorts of things as well: for example in Civilization 3 sending a galley into an ocean square carried a 50% risk of it sinking. However it could be rewarding, as by taking the risk you could potentially discover a new land early on in the game. Was the chance of having a galley sink in Civ 3 unfun? I don't think so, and I haven't seen anyone else complain about it either. On the contrary, I felt that it added an additional strategic element for more competitive players to take into consideration, as well as a fun gambling element for less competitive players.

My thoughts about it in Battlemaster are that it provides a minor benefit (lightly discouraging the use of priests as couriers) with no real drawback.

[Vellos]

My thoughts about it in Battlemaster are that it provides a minor benefit (lightly discouraging the use of priests as couriers) with no real drawback.

.... how is that a benefit?

[Kwanstein]

.... how is that a benefit?

Balance I'd guess, or maybe realism - the administration/devs/whatevers have said that discouraging priests as couriers is there intention. Regardless of the reason, it's furthering their ends and therefore it's beneficial

[Anaris]

It is not, and never has been, intended that nobles could carry around thousands and thousands of gold without a unit with no risk.

[Velax]

Bonds can't be stolen in this way, right?

[Indirik]

Correct. Only gold.

[Penchant]

Correct. Only gold.

It is good to be a trader than, though I actually always have unit when leaving the realm since I also have more than enough gold on hand to trigger this, well that and if I help a lord out by killing monsters in his region he might be more willing to sell.

[Charles]

The safety of a priest should be dependent on how many people in the region follow the religion.  If a priest is traveling in a region that has no followers then the priest would not have much protection.