Trade is an absolute necessity in a player driven game...

[Incarnate 34]

Trade is an absolute necessity in a player driven game such as Atlas, especially player-driven trade, and thus it needs a gameplay environment and infrastructure that will incentivize, encourage and support trade where it works on both PvE and PvP? But how and with what will we achieve this, and why would it work? I don't think it's as hard as it may seem, consider what would happen if all land claims would require a cost and upkeep, a cost in terms of materials used to craft it (possibly a small amount of gold as well), an upkeep paid with gold. It would seem that players/companies would have to focus on activities that would yield gold, one way or the other. Whether that be through hunting, treasure, building and taxating their good infrastructure, trade and piracy, and quite possibly other sorts of venues. But the important part here is that you can't claim more than you can support, and with claim flags being made into a thing you have to craft and with good reasons to support it, it would suddenly be very different and people wouldn't just around and spam-placing flags. Also, there is the question if a land claim should be contestable if its upkeep have been paid for, I do think that land claims that have it upkeep paid for in it's latest upkeep cycle, should NOT be contestable, as this would make it easier to maintain land claims as long as you maintain a steady supply of gold. Did you notice some keywords above that would be important to focus on?

..Treasure Hunting, Building and Taxating Infrastructure, Trade, and Piracy! Exactly why would these be important to the context of creating a gameplay environment and infrastructure that incentivizes, encourages and supports trade? All of these will be able to yield the player/companies with gold, and will be important if one wants to claim and keep land, one way or the other. All of these aspects are aspects that fits nicely into Atlas, and they also will have an actual self-balancing aspect to the game as well. Because, one can only keep as many land claims as one is able to keep paying for with gold, and what the player/company does to obtain the gold, are up to the players. I think this would both encourage, incentivize and to some degree support trade, especially if the food/water/vitamin, health and death system is also implemented as suggested above. Because with this people are forced to play in a more thoughtful and cautios way. It would also make various professions a lot more valuable and desired by other people, like for instance medic, farming and cooking would suddenly be a lot more important. Especially if land owners and
owners of certain building could also create jobs and set the wage. With the route of characters being very specialized in terms of skills, Trade would suddenly become even more important for people. It also means there would be a lot of people who're not skilled other types of disciplines, such as beastmastery, building buildings on land, wagon or shipbuild, armors, weapons & firearms, etc. This means that people would trade their skills or their goods, for gold or otherwise.

But hey, what about Piracy, that doesn't incentivize, encourage or support trade!? That is to some extent true, however what do you think Pirates do with what their loot they don't need? They trade it for more profit. But it does have another important effect, and that is traders need to be able to protect themselves and their goods, either through hiring people to protect them and their goods or be capable themselves, both on land and sea. So people could also make a living through selling their service as a mercenary.

But... Isn't piracy illegal and there are no punishments for it!? I'm glad you brought that up, because there certainly should be some laws against it in the game and it should be punishable through game mechanics and gameplay, but this is a topic for a different time, and likewise with making the piracy skill tree both land, ocean and -shipbased, I have intentions on bringing those up soon, so don't worry about those for now.

I am interested in knowing your thoughts on this @Jatheish and the community as well. Perhaps others have ideas similar to this or ideas that will support this even further.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Incarnate
Adding a line.

[LaiTash 156]

There won't be much trade without smaller companies since large ones are mostly self-sufficient as it is.

[Incarnate 34]

1 hour ago, LaiTash said:

There won't be much trade without smaller companies since large ones are mostly self-sufficient as it is.

Yes because of how the game is now, however but you also have to see the greater picture, because first of all once this game is released all progress is wiped, and in my opinion they should wipe it on several occasions during it's development, especially when it comes to various mechanics being introduced where they cannot accurately pinpoint if what they added was good or not good, but obviously before a wipe they should test it to see how it plays out.

Consider what happens if suddenly you have to craft the claiming flag, and placing the flag will actually cost you gold, and will also cost you gold to keep it based on the size of the territory and the landmass you've claimed, how rich it is, and so on. Suddenly, this would cause players/companies to focus on activities that will yield gold, so one can't just go about and spam claim flags, even more importantly, if one cannot afford the claim, then the player/company will lose it. This an aspect that is important on both PvE and PvP, and especially on PvP, it means that now one can't just send at lot of players to claim land because they have the manpower/player count to do so, now they actually need to be able to create the flags and they need to be able to support what they claim.

If they were to diversify the skill tree / displines more, so that one would actually have to choose specialization, then they would achieve something that would be closer to a class based system, and it would be good for trade, because trade isn't just trading commodities, it could also be trading your services, for instance you happened to be one who were proficient in for instance the use of firearms. You used an important keyword here - self-sufficient, which is exactly why they need the skill trees to be much more diversified, and even if they're a larger company, they will still need to work on collecting gold, so they can support their land claims, where trade could be an important pillar even for self-sufficient large companies. Because depending on what their company is about, say if they're company that deals with trading their service as mercenaries, then trade would be important for them, even if they're self-sufficient. Trade also means you don't have to rely on the gathering and crafting, because others are and you're just leveraging that through trade.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Incarnate

[Realist 504]

6 hours ago, Incarnate said:

Yes because of how the game is now, however but you also have to see the greater picture, because first of all once this game is released all progress is wiped, and in my opinion they should wipe it on several occasions during it's development, especially when it comes to various mechanics being introduced where they cannot accurately pinpoint if what they added was good or not good, but obviously before a wipe they should test it to see how it plays out.

Consider what happens if suddenly you have to craft the claiming flag, and placing the flag will actually cost you gold, and will also cost you gold to keep it based on the size of the territory and the landmass you've claimed, how rich it is, and so on. Suddenly, this would cause players/companies to focus on activities that will yield gold, so one can't just go about and spam claim flags, even more importantly, if one cannot afford the claim, then the player/company will lose it. This an aspect that is important on both PvE and PvP, and especially on PvP, it means that now one can't just send at lot of players to claim land because they have the manpower/player count to do so, now they actually need to be able to create the flags and they need to be able to support what they claim.

If they were to diversify the skill tree / displines more, so that one would actually have to choose specialization, then they would achieve something that would be closer to a class based system, and it would be good for trade, because trade isn't just trading commodities, it could also be trading your services, for instance you happened to be one who were proficient in for instance the use of firearms. You used an important keyword here - self-sufficient, which is exactly why they need the skill trees to be much more diversified, and even if they're a larger company, they will still need to work on collecting gold, so they can support their land claims, where trade could be an important pillar even for self-sufficient large companies. Because depending on what their company is about, say if they're company that deals with trading their service as mercenaries, then trade would be important for them, even if they're self-sufficient. Trade also means you don't have to rely on the gathering and crafting, because others are and you're just leveraging that through trade.

You are basing this on the notion that they will wipe after release. A lot of people were hoping that would happen during the release of ark. Jeremy himself the head of wildcard was the one that wanted to do the wipe. That is why my name is officialwipe on Twitter and still is.

too many people were against the wipe and it wasn’t just all of the Megas but a lot of people in small to beta tribes were against it as well. The real tipping point was when all of the other devs went to Jeremy and pleaded for him not to do an official wipe.

once Jeremy gave the statement he said it was ultimately the other devs that were able to change his mind. I am telling you this because I am the one person that I guarantee takes the official wipe even more serious than you do.

i will hope for one on here just like I did with ark. But on a realistic stand point I don’t believe they will do it. They are way too afraid of the backlash it would cause. Sure I can’t give you a definite certainty. But I can say that history does repeat itself and I am already seeing it happening before my eyes. 

[Incarnate 34]

19 minutes ago, Realist said:

You are basing this on the notion that they will wipe after release. A lot of people were hoping that would happen during the release of ark. Jeremy himself the head of wildcard was the one that wanted to do the wipe. That is why my name is officialwipe on Twitter and still is.

too many people were against the wipe and it wasn’t just all of the Megas but a lot of people in small to beta tribes were against it as well. The real tipping point was when all of the other devs went to Jeremy and pleaded for him not to do an official wipe.

once Jeremy gave the statement he said it was ultimately the other devs that were able to change his mind. I am telling you this because I am the one person that I guarantee takes the official wipe even more serious than you do.

i will hope for one on here just like I did with ark. But on a realistic stand point I don’t believe they will do it. They are way too afraid of the backlash it would cause. Sure I can’t give you a definite certainty. But I can say that history does repeat itself and I am already seeing it happening before my eyes. 

They've actually stated that they will be wiping the servers upon release, and if they don't do that they've made false advertisement, as that was part of how they advertised it on steam, and possibly other places. If they didn't advertise this with Ark, then it will be difficult to compare the two situations, as one of them can have legal consequences if they don't follow through.

Also, because there is a very big difference in the setup of Ark and Atlas, where one is geared towards many official servers, and the other geared towards one cohesive server stitched together by many servers. Also, with Atlas being advertised as an MMO, there will be pretty bad issues if they don't do a server-wipe upon release, as everyone who did not participate in the early access will find it almost impossible to find a place to be in the game.

I don't know how Steam feels about companies that does false advertisement on their platform, but as far as I know, they would most likely be banned from the platform. Why? Because they have advertised that the servers will be wiped upon release, and Steam a big enough to follow through with a class action lawsuit if they deem it necessary, especially if there are other things they've been conducting misleading marketing. And retroactively speaking, IF it's found that they have been conducting misleading marketing / false advertisement - people can retroactively get a refund, which could become a financial hit on them if enough people decided to go with a refund. And as far as I know, Steam keeps records of product page information, so if they have it on file, then they have all the proof need.

In regards to history repeating itself, I can only say unfortunately you're right, but hopefully they have learned to stand by what they say and especially what they advertise.

[Realist 504]

8 minutes ago, Incarnate said:

They've actually stated that they will be wiping the servers upon release, and if they don't do that they've made false advertisement, as that was part of how they advertised it on steam, and possibly other places. If they didn't advertise this with Ark, then it will be difficult to compare the two situations, as one of them can have legal consequences if they don't follow through.

Also, because there is a very big difference in the setup of Ark and Atlas, where one is geared towards many official servers, and the other geared towards one cohesive server stitched together by many servers. Also, with Atlas being advertised as an MMO, there will be pretty bad issues if they don't do a server-wipe upon release, as everyone who did not participate in the early access will find it almost impossible to find a place to be in the game.

I don't know how Steam feels about companies that does false advertisement on their platform, but as far as I know, they would most likely be banned from the platform. Why? Because they have advertised that the servers will be wiped upon release, and Steam a big enough to follow through with a class action lawsuit if they deem it necessary, especially if there are other things they've been conducting misleading marketing. And retroactively speaking, IF it's found that they have been conducting misleading marketing / false advertisement - people can retroactively get a refund, which could become a financial hit on them if enough people decided to go with a refund. And as far as I know, Steam keeps records of product page information, so if they have it on file, then they have all the proof need.

In regards to history repeating itself, I can only say unfortunately you're right, but hopefully they have learned to stand by what they say and especially what they advertise.

Hopefully they have learned. I haven’t seen it yet but who knows. People can change but they rarely do

[Sulfurblade 194]

We shouldn't be derailing this thread as its very on point the game needs an economy desperately !!!

[Incarnate 34]

2 minutes ago, Realist said:

Hopefully they have learned. I haven’t seen it yet but who knows. People can change but they rarely do

Well I do hope they have learned from their massively failed EA launch, because as far as I know, it's been one of the absolute worst game launches in history on this scale. It doesn't make it better that the game they were launching is an EA title, and that they had over 7k negative reviews on day one. But you know as they say, listen, learn and adapt. Hopefully they will listen to their community in regards to what I'm suggesting, where those suggestions I'm bringing here, have already been discussed in great detail with other gameplay/balance enthusiasts, who all saw the complete suggestion - which would be to big to fit here, at least for the majority to follow.

The complete suggestion encompasses a wide variety of things to improve the game as a whole and deals with a lot of the issues that we've seen with the game, where what I'm suggesting in terms of claiming land should cost initial gold and cost gold to keep, as well as materials to craft flags, is the primary suggestion I think that would tie a lot of things together, because it will as a result be creating a gameplay environment that incentivizes, encourages and supports to a good degree. Obviously other things needs to be changed in order to really make what I suggest truly shine. But playerdriven trade is definitely something think they should focus on getting to work, as it's a key ingredient in an MMO that is player driven - which Atlas happens to be.

[Incarnate 34]

Just now, Sulfurblade said:

We shouldn't be derailing this thread as its very on point the game needs an economy desperately !!!

I agree it does, and I think making land claims cost gold, both initially and in upkeep would to a great degree create a gameplay environment that incentivizes, encourages and supports trade, and I think it's the primary thing they need to change to make this happen, but obviously they need to implement more and change several things to make player driven trade and economy become something in the game.

[Case of the Scurvy 72]

Yes, it does... 

 

 

[Sulfurblade 194]

5 minutes ago, Incarnate said:

I agree it does, and I think making land claims cost gold, both initially and in upkeep would to a great degree create a gameplay environment that incentivizes, encourages and supports trade, and I think it's the primary thing they need to change to make this happen, but obviously they need to implement more and change several things to make player driven trade and economy become something in the game.

I don't agree 100 percent that it would make trade better but I think it would be a great mechanic none the less....

Putting an upkeep on flags makes sense in everyway it makes a player now have to consider is dropping anothe flag really worth it???

So from that perspective I love the idea and it certainly would get more people sailing around looking for booty!

But the process of sailing around looking for booty IS NOT TRADE...

Trade is trade the exchanging of one resource for another!!!  Or the purchase of a resource, don't get me wrong I love your idea and I think its a fine first step that will encourage people to get out on the ocean and even pvp to happen in ships out at sea....  but your idea really doesn't even begin to fix the issue of Trade...

 

It does however make gold more valuable and thus it will be far more usefull as a currency!

Edited January 9, 2019 by Sulfurblade

[Incarnate 34]

27 minutes ago, Sulfurblade said:

I don't agree 100 percent that it would make trade better but I think it would be a great mechanic none the less....

Putting an upkeep on flags makes sense in everyway it makes a player now have to consider is dropping anothe flag really worth it???

So from that perspective I love the idea and it certainly would get more people sailing around looking for booty!

But the process of sailing around looking for booty IS NOT TRADE...

Trade is trade the exchanging of one resource for another!!!  Or the purchase of a resource, don't get me wrong I love your idea and I think its a fine first step that will encourage people to get out on the ocean and even pvp to happen in ships out at sea....  but your idea really doesn't even begin to fix the issue of Trade...

 

It does however make gold more valuable and thus it will be far more usefull as a currency!

I'm not saying it will make trade better, but I'm saying it's one of the foundations that needs to be laid, as in doing so it will incentivize, encourage and support trade to a degree. Why do I think this? It's because it will make people focus on activities that will yield gold, where focusing on building and improving infrastructure certainly is one way to get gold, where Trade is quite possible one of the key things that will make that happen that helps both parties, unless the player/company is big enough to be able sustain both grinding for materials and various building projects. Trade would greatly speed up this process, and would be beneficial for both parties as it would free up manpower in the company to do other important tasks.

I know sailing around for loot isn't trade, and I'm not saying it is because I know it isn't, but it's one the activities that will yield gold, and gold is necessary to keep land claims.

Trade isn't just exchanging one resource for another, trade could just as well be a service rendered for a resource, commodity or other service rendered. Hence why I am saying, if they were to be diversifying the skill tree more, where they distinguishing between crafters and users who specialize in an items use - which I did in this suggestion: Armor, weapons & firearms use in the skill trees.

If they made the sort of changes I suggested there and here, it would make it possible for people to be more specialized, at the cost of relying on others for things you need, which also again incentivizes trade, whether for items or for services rendered, but the main point is, that it's another thing that would make trade more incentivized and encourages it. Because you may not be a shipbuilder and or a captain, but you may be in need of someone with a ship and the crew and experience to sail it, because you have a place you want to go trade - again trading services rendered for something. Unfortunately, the route they're going currently is that everyone should be self-sufficient and self-reliant which does the complete opposite of making trade an important aspect of the game.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Incarnate

[Sulfurblade 194]

I agree all around....  But these developers are blind, deaf, and dumb....  They don't listen to you and I....  They listen to the kiddy's that play ark and most of those kiddy's would prefer griefing and locking someone in a cage for days against there will...  To making a game with any tangible meat and potatoes to it...

[Incarnate 34]

Just now, Sulfurblade said:

I agree all around....  But these developers are blind, deaf, and dumb....  They don't listen to you and I....  They listen to the kiddy's that play ark and most of those kiddy's would prefer griefing and locking someone in a cage for days against there will...  To making a game with any tangible meat and potatoes to it...

Well, you may be right, however they might actually listen to me as I've already once helped them with an issue that has helped a lot of their players actually becoming able to play the game as I figured out why people weren't able to successfully load into the game servers, hopefully that was enough to make them listen more to what I have to say, I can only hope.

As it currently is, they're definitely taking the game in a direction that isn't healthy for the gameplay experience, especially not when considering they want it to be an MMO game, which hopefully they realize soon that they need to change a lot of things to make this happen.

[Dayum 16]

trading = traveling hours from A to B .... sounds fun ... oh wait ...

[Sulfurblade 194]

1 minute ago, Incarnate said:

Well, you may be right, however they might actually listen to me as I've already once helped them with an issue that has helped a lot of their players actually becoming able to play the game as I figured out why people weren't able to successfully load into the game servers, hopefully that was enough to make them listen more to what I have to say, I can only hope.

As it currently is, they're definitely taking the game in a direction that isn't healthy for the gameplay experience, especially not when considering they want it to be an MMO game, which hopefully they realize soon that they need to change a lot of things to make this happen.

I hope you can get thru to them because a True Sandbox MMORPG is a very rare thing and any and all that release I pray they do well, but its even more bitter when they don't...  The Game industry has no idea how starved the MMORPG genre is for a GOOD Sandbox....  We haven't seen one since Ultima Online and SWG...

[Incarnate 34]

1 minute ago, Sulfurblade said:

I hope you can get thru to them because a True Sandbox MMORPG is a very rare thing and any and all that release I pray they do well, but its even more bitter when they don't...  The Game industry has no idea how starved the MMORPG genre is for a GOOD Sandbox....  We haven't seen one since Ultima Online and SWG...

I completely agree, I do my best to try and get through, but it will be easier to get through if my suggestions get more attention and support.
Because if they can see that a lot of people are actually in support of what I suggest, then there is a higher probability that they will listen, as they did when they learned that my fix actually worked and actually got people who've been struggling for hours upon hours consistently into the game, then they knew there was something about the fix. They basically implemented my fix into the -lowmemorymode startup parameter, where in my opinion it should've been a seperate one. But either way, it has helped so many to be able actually play the game, including myself, both on this forum, Steam community, discord and users on other platforms. So I do hope they realize how important that is, because alot these folks could easily get a refund, even if they had 10+ hours in the game, simply due to the fact that they have to deliver a playable game upon purchase.

Atlas the potential to be so good, which it will only be if the devs makes it so, where the path of self-sufficiency and self-reliance won't make for a good MMO gameplay experience, it can for a single player game, but this isn't a single player game, and the devs really need to realize this. Where good player driven trade is a pillar of a good MMO gameplay experience.

[Zlax 41]

There are several things that needs to be implemented on top of just adding a gold cost to flags, else the megas will just claim all the rich lands and raid the rest.

Things needs to be considdering like, how far apart your claim flags are, and maybe even an increase in cost pr flag based on the amount of flags you have.

ie. if you have 10 flags each flag might cost 1gp, if you have 100 each flag might cost 10gp .. so that it scales massively the bigger you get. also to prevent people from simply claming land all over to go around the actual supplyers you would maybe designate a flag as your capital flag (with maybe a bigger cost and larger claim timer/declaim timer and upkeep cost) and then other flags gets an additional cost based on distance to this capital?

 

Not sure, cuz most megas would have the infastructure to simply split up into many smaller companies and ally between them, so not sure how to actually implement this to make life hard enough for megas while still bearable for everyone else.

 

IMO the devs really need to take a long hard look at what made EVE 0.0 work and steal all they can!

 

Hell even make freeports ACTUAL freeports, ie. have places where you can rent a stall and sell your shit like an auction house ect? Make it so that its not just a random newb zone, but an actual safe place to conduct trading, and then have the lawless zones you have to escape through to get back home with your stuff, or get to sell your stuff.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Zlax

[Sulfurblade 194]

21 minutes ago, Zlax said:

There are several things that needs to be implemented on top of just adding a gold cost to flags, else the megas will just claim all the rich lands and raid the rest.

Things needs to be considdering like, how far apart your claim flags are, and maybe even an increase in cost pr flag based on the amount of flags you have.

ie. if you have 10 flags each flag might cost 1gp, if you have 100 each flag might cost 10gp .. so that it scales massively the bigger you get. also to prevent people from simply claming land all over to go around the actual supplyers you would maybe designate a flag as your capital flag (with maybe a bigger cost and larger claim timer/declaim timer and upkeep cost) and then other flags gets an additional cost based on distance to this capital?

 

Not sure, cuz most megas would have the infastructure to simply split up into many smaller companies and ally between them, so not sure how to actually implement this to make life hard enough for megas while still bearable for everyone else.

 

IMO the devs really need to take a long hard look at what made EVE 0.0 work and steal all they can!

 

Hell even make freeports ACTUAL freeports, ie. have places where you can rent a stall and sell your shit like an auction house ect? Make it so that its not just a random newb zone, but an actual safe place to conduct trading, and then have the lawless zones you have to escape through to get back home with your stuff, or get to sell your stuff.

 

While I appreciate your input and most of your feedback is great...  Eve is not the role model for a good sanbox, if you want a boring and dull sandbox that pretty much revolves around PvP then eve is fine!!!  Wurm Online would be a far better Sandbox to look at to learn how a Sandbox should be!!!  But better yet Ultima Online....

[Incarnate 34]

29 minutes ago, Zlax said:

There are several things that needs to be implemented on top of just adding a gold cost to flags, else the megas will just claim all the rich lands and raid the rest.

Things needs to be considdering like, how far apart your claim flags are, and maybe even an increase in cost pr flag based on the amount of flags you have.

ie. if you have 10 flags each flag might cost 1gp, if you have 100 each flag might cost 10gp .. so that it scales massively the bigger you get. also to prevent people from simply claming land all over to go around the actual supplyers you would maybe designate a flag as your capital flag (with maybe a bigger cost and larger claim timer/declaim timer and upkeep cost) and then other flags gets an additional cost based on distance to this capital?

 

Not sure, cuz most megas would have the infastructure to simply split up into many smaller companies and ally between them, so not sure how to actually implement this to make life hard enough for megas while still bearable for everyone else.

Hell even make freeports ACTUAL freeports, ie. have places where you can rent a stall and sell your shit like an auction house ect? Make it so that its not just a random newb zone, but an actual safe place to conduct trading, and then have the lawless zones you have to escape through to get back home with your stuff, or get to sell your stuff.

Oh I agree, as I also stated above, this takes more than just this to make it work, but it's one the main things that needs to be changed for the game to take this direction.

I think it's equally important that the cost of the claim and the upkeep cost also should be based on the size of the claim, how rich the the land is terms of resources, it's climate and so forth. So basically a base cost and various variables and multipliers that affect the final cost, both initial cost but also the upkeep cost. I don't think it should be cumulative in terms of how many flags, but it definitely should be in terms the amount land claimed.

Another aspect I think that should be touched upon, is what you mention about a capital flag which would be a very good thing to implement, as that would also make it possible to distinguish between land claims connected to the main land claim and claims unconnected land claims. This would also make it possible to set different costs that would make it less favorable to have land claims that aren't connected with the main land claim. The cost of land claim that aren't connected with the main land claim should cost considerably more, thus making them less favorable. However I would say this, a land claim should only encompass the land and thus one should only pay for the part of the land that has been claimed. Where any land claim flag can be changed into being the main capital flag, when enough main land claims have been made to support it - this number should obviously be found what seems to work best.

So to make an example of a formula that could be used would be something down the lines of this:
Number of flags x (the type of the claim x the actual land mass x the quality of the land claimed) = Initial cost (a lower amount) // the upkeep (a higher number).

Obviously the above can probably be made even better, but it's just something to work from.

In regards to the freeports where you can rent a stall, I think that it is good idea, and it definitely is a step towards actually incentizing and encouraging trade. I also think they should make building much like the bank, at least for now, where people could list their offers and prices.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Incarnate

[LaiTash 156]

1 hour ago, Dayum said:

trading = traveling hours from A to B .... sounds fun ... oh wait ...

But this is a game about sailing... oh wait...

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

1 hour ago, Dayum said:

trading = traveling hours from A to B when knowing what to get at A to bring to B and how much to charge for it once you’re there .... sounds fun.

Fixed.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

This entire thread is a breathe of fresh air and a welcome change from screaming in all caps in half formed thoughts and exaggerated emoting. @Incarnate I agree that the game needs trading infrastructure to realize its potential. I also like mechanics that force players to weigh claiming choices as finite supportable options. Numerous thoughtful suggestions presented in the replies.

[Maffia 11]

If you think they are going to wipe after 2 years of Early Access, you got a world of hurt coming your way. 

Promises are broken all the time, especially in the gaming world.

[DOA 10]

Why trade? We are pirates. Just steal/pirate it.

Pirates have a 'friendly' trading post? That would be odd.