chappy

The entire port battle system has to be revamped from the ground up. I suggest people think from scratch about how it should look. not just adjust the current system Better UI and communication in game about what events and port battles are coming up. longer lead times to the port battles. meaningful pvp and pve around the port in order to trigger said port battle creates intense and valuable screening and open sea style conflicts (then a timer counts down for the port battle start) smaller/medium trigger events leading up to the main port battle in the 1- 2 -3 hours before it. (small ships, medium ships, 3rd rates) - qualification for a port battle attendance should be based on contribution to the zone in order to trigger the port battle. buying flags should be removed altogether

now all that remains is to lock and do away with the tribunal system too. getting there

puts a whole new meaning to dazzle paint

you know the thread has reached the bottom when you start talking about the thread itself. metathread

Hi aussie We have cross paths previously i think on the forums goodluck finding a new home mate unfortunately based on your checklist we kinda fail all your requirements you were SLRN before? have your tried AUSEZ yet?

Another successful PVP night for the clan saw our best turnout yet and longest and more active battle so far. We visited the swedes last night and patrolled through their northern areas basing out of Fort Baai as we waited for the stragglers to join up from Christianstad. Initial contact was a very unlucky traders snow caught on the blind side of the fort Baai island. He was quickly dispatched and his 2000 iron dumped unceremoniously over the side. (this was pvp night! no time for econ here!) A basic cutter did jump in and sat there and i can only assume his job was to prevent us leaving with the spoils (which we didnt want) quickly while a response fleet formed Sure enough once he had been sunk we spawned on the OS and a net of SOLs was present. It was something along the lines of 1-2 Pavel, Bellona, 3rd, 2 trincs a connie and 2 essex and some smaller stuff. At this stage with 3-4 of us still enroute we had no way of dealing with this size fleet so we sailed towards Baai and allowed them to tag us at long range. We then disengaged from that chase and docked at baai for a few minutes for drinks and letting the others arrive. The wind was a bit terrible for the inbound guys so 4 of us did a quick recon NE of Fort Baai and stumbled on an essex. This was intercepted and quickly dispatched as well, along with the obligatory (apparently) spam about no honour cowards blah blah blah. Once everyone had formed we travelled SE towards Plymouth. By the time we had reached Plymouth another 2 trincs and 2 frigates were sunk (an actual battle rather than a chase which was refreshing) The next leg involved an incursion into the french waters. It was fairly quiet for the most part until we hit the area around Terre-Basse. Here we encountered a french clan i think it was an accidental meeting and we commenced the engagement with them .While we had one extra ship we were outgunned as they had a 3rd, a connie, 2 trincs and a surprise it looked like it would be a fun fight that we may not be able to carry but it was late and we decided to have a crack. The result was actually quite satisfying although we were unable to hold the field against the 2 heavier ships we stripped off their trincs and the surprise for the loss of only one ship on our part and then disengaged. incredibly enjoyable night, thanks to all the members for coming along

looks like it was fun fight. well done both sides!

or it just happens to be when you play and wish to have content just like everyone else that plays this game...

More pvp happening this weekend for anyone interested in a change of pace and scenery. With more and more discsussion about the other servers it would be worth pointing out now that we will assist anyone looking to switch servers and or nations that plays in the AU timezone before and after the downtime period.

i play between 10-12 i reject your assertion that setting a timer to that period of the day is trolling.

hmm. got swamped by polls no one has comments?

So this is very much a hot topic at the moment and there have been some recent suggestion threads dealing with voting and how to assign votes and weight votes etc. I want to put forward an alternative method that relies somewhat on the elite dangerous mechanic for factions I am going to do so in dot points and try to outline the basic principles it supports rather than present a 2 page tome on the subject. The principles: - Good GUI that supports information and decision making for all players. outside of the clan interface and structure. - Active involvement in the game as the method to weight the vote or 'say' of the player (irrespective of clan membership) - port capture mechanics linked to pve and pvp activity that generate vote points for future diplomacy shaping - actions in game based on the diplomacy outcomes that further feed into the players ability to influence the direction of their nation - aka: support the current objectives in order to gain influence and thereby shape the future objects to your own viewpoint - hardcode diplomacy outcomes that fall out of the actions of players in building up their loyalty and voting weight over time. ie: no actual vote clicking to make a clearcut yay or nay decision on a diplomacy outcome. - clan blocs are naturally present simply by the organised voting of the members of clans together for objectives. no further hardcoding or emphasis is placed nor needed on the power of clans to shape policy. if they are large enough and active enough they will naturally have appropriate weight to shape policy over time. how it works; -A new layer is added to the choices a player makes on joining the game. choose a nation, but also at any point, opt in or out of joining the admiralty. ie; contribute to war aims and abide by game hard coded NAPs.(non aggression pact) not being admiralty means the player is a private individual or privateer. as one wishes to label it. up for discussion. -On joining admiralty, player has the ability to earn loyalty, rank, xp, vote points whatever you wish to call it by conducting pvp or pve against the current targets.(max points) or just against the current nations shipping overall (some points but not as efficient) -Targets are voted on once per x days. lets say 3 for arguments sake, adjust as balance requires. One must be in the admiralty to vote at all. -Targets are ports. Only x (lets say 2-3 for now) targets can be voted in each round. As a result the targets chosen define which nations your side is at full war with for that round. - the round commences and the players proceed to attack the targets selected. - under the new port conquest mechanic, the targets create zones around each port where pvp AND pve count towards a trigger point for the commencement of a port battle. PVP is worth more - the intent is that it takes roughly 24-48 hours to build up enough points to trigger a port battle, depending on the activity of the defenders in counteracting it. -The port battle can either be at the moment the trigger is reached or based on an improved port timer system that is it occurs x hours (set by the defenders) after a trigger has been reached. giving them warning and time to prepare. (open to discussion) - players pvping and pveing in the zone earn points towards their status in their admiralty. both defensive and offensive play at the same time earns points towards the trigger for the port battle. - defending nations players are earning points as well which offsets the attackers points. its a constant battle to advance the attackers points to the trigger. Balancing required to ensure there is a good mix of successful preventions and successful triggers. i suspect the attackers points would need to be weighted in their favour (ie worth more) - players can still earn admiralty points overall by attacking shipping elsewhere that belongs to the nations currently at war with them pve and pvp. pvp worth more, these points wont contribute to the target triggers though. - players can attack shipping of other nations provided the NAP mechanic has not been triggered for that nation - the NAP mechanic involves a hardcoded prevention of attacking another nations shipping if the overall level of violence between those 2 nations has been at or below a certain trigger value in the previous 2 rounds. - the NAP can be broken by the voting round where the target selected is a port owned by the nation currently holding a NAP due to low levels of violence previously. This is a national declaration of war. - nations that have a NAP enabled will be able to enter the battles in zones in support of that nation, both open sea and port battle final events. - voting weight is based on contribution in the round just finished.This means that while you may not agree with the previous rounds targets, if you assisted in prosecution you will have the greatest weight available to influence the next round. - there is nothing stopping clans or groups of clans from agreeing to vote on specific targets. indeed it makes sense to do so. additional optional balancing. successful voted targets: the targets may get more and more difficult to vote in based on the relative strengths (in numbers of ports) of the 2 nations. IE in order for the pirates to vote to attack the last british town available, it will require nearly 90% say of the nations weighted votes to do so. alternatively it may only require a simple majority of votes to attack a port of the danes who are equal in numbers of ports. what this does; it prevents voting blocs (clans) from taking the nation to a total victory scenario unless the vast majority of the nation back this step. this models war weariness and willingness to negotiate the end of a war and helps to reduce natural imbalances that see nations subjugated and unable to come back into a position of economic stability.

additional thoughts why does the system of wars have to be based on votes of some form anyway. why cant it be based on in game actions that require organisation and numbers applied over a period of time. eg: conflict zones around ports. where actions undertaken of a pvp and pve nature in that zone over a period of days contribute to a declaration of war, or more specifically a conquest attempt on that port. this creates low level conflict that builds over time to a crescendo and a finale of a large battle or war between nations a similar system is curerntly in use in elite dangerous for their faction based content. you sign up for a faction (like we do for a nation) and then you start contributing. by earning points, respect, loyalty whatever you call it, you gain greater influence over the targets chosen in the following rounds. clans can still function and even sway the general direction of conflict by working together on the same content and then voting together on the future rounds but the fundamental principles that i endorse are that the actual votes mechanic is indivdual based and that your weight as an individual is based on your activity in the previous round of content.

I'd be curious to know whether you are in a clan and which one you are in if you are? clans do not work like parties unless the game forces them to. Clans are social organisations that allow teamwork and their own defined economic and crafting cooperatives. They only have political power if the system gives it to them. That being said, even in a system that allows votes purely for individuals they can still wield some unofficial power by creating voting blocs. and this if any is really the way they should have influence in any diplo system. not by hardcoding the diplo system around the clans. why is restricting the number of clans a good thing? that to me seems like blocking people from freely associating if they wish to play the game fully. i think if the clans are given hardcoded powers that circumvent or marginalise individuals and smaller clans what you WONT see is players giving up their small groups to join larger groups, what you WILL see is people giving up the game they cannot play fully without giving up their own group identities and social groups if your answer is that bigger clans are better for organising the port battles etc then i would answer you in advance by saying that is because the game has not armed the smaller groups and individuals (as it needs to do) with the ability to organise and contribute through GUI and information irrespective of clan membership. You are viewing the problem perhaps through the prism of the existing strategic gameplay rather than thinking from first principles.

First issue. no form of government chosen should be a permanent imposition. It should only be for a duration. (and short at that, say a couple of weeks or a month). secondly the voting mechanic needs defining? simple majority aka 51%? will require at least 2 votes as you will have to have a run off of the top 2 options. allowing a single vote means the option chosen could be determined by a mere 34% of the population that votes (which would be less than say 20% of the whole population of a nation i would wager) 1: not bad. however the period should be shorter. say weekly. The main issue i see is that in order to get one person voted out of a large batch of nominations (and there will be a large batch of noms) requires again multiple rounds of voting unless you are willing to accept a single round winner which depending on the actual number nominated could be even less than 10% of the nation populations votes in favour of. 2: totally and fundamentally disagree with your assumption that only clan leaders can be included. and definitely disagree with it being restricted to the top x largest clans. This council mechanic cannot be predicated on clans. I have said this in another post and will repeat it here. Clans are in the game as a social and internally organised group of like minded individuals. They provide social connection, teamwork within the clan for pve and pvp, communication advantages (use of ts servers and clan forums) and facilitate private cooperatives of trade and crafting. What they arent and should NEVER be, is the key element of control of a nations population. This may be the preferred method now that *SOME* players have chosen but it is simply because the tools and mechanics offer no better method. If the game is designed well, the individuals (whether in clans or not) will be empowered to have their say as individuals. Of course clans can act as blocs in such a system but the membership or existence of a clan should not be a prerequisite for involvement in the games many facets. ever. 3. again requiring the clans, this time even more selectively than in option 2 to clear the vote in the first place means that your involvement of the general population in step 2 is only ever on what is already sanctioned by 2 people maybe 3. ie: the question asked is one that the top 3 clans want asked. such that if the top 3 clans of the french nation only ever want an alliance with the dutch, that is the question that will be repeatedly asked. the population remaining may actually all prefer an alliance with the swedes but that vote is never offered. again the fundamental problem is that you assume that clans are more important than individuals. They are not. If the game is designed properly then clans arent actually required at all to be actively engaged in the full content and scope of the game. and that is the challenge for the developers to create the mechanics that support this approach.