Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Srupl

Concreted Politics / Diplomacy [PVP One]

111 posts in this topic

As we all know, the diplomacy in Naval Action is not really dynamic. Maybe it's supposed not to be... Considering changes and achievements of diplomacy in last months...

- Swedish Nation joining Danish-Spanish-French Alliance

- Treaty with Spain to help them recover playerbase and get a buffer zone.

- Christmas Truce that went quite well and queit.

- Pirates slightly leaning towards cooperating with British after they've been treated like trash by other nations.

 

Think that's it... Of course someone will sooner or later like always suggest forced diplomacy that game chooses, not us... So the alliances change automatically between nation from time to time... That would be the worst mechanic ever. The playerbase is too small to cause any diplomatic changes. In past it was enough for 1 or 2 big clans to cause a war with other nation. Now? It takes like majority of clans to do anything, but everyone likes as it is. The diplomacy and alliances are concreted for months and months.

Enemy alliance wants US to go to war with British saying that it would potentially fix night flips... I haven't seen any diplomats working towards but maybe I am mistaken. It is more likely never going to happen without good reason. Why? Because we've been in alliance for months or maybe even longer. We helped each other so many times. We can't go with another nation without getting anything, more likely another ally to replace US? Well... The only nation that's not not hated / the least are Swedes. They used to be allies and yet still majority in our nation votes positively. Would it be a good reason to go to war with US? Not even close, as it would screw our outposts an economy. Nonetheless  there appears a new problem called sometimes "lunch flips" - basically PBs during the time most come back home or eat a lunch / dinner...

Edited by sruPL
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sruPL said:

- Danish - US truce upon threats of attacking Savannah and Wilmington. Broken by Danes, leading to aggresive response from US Nation "nightflipping" some regions.

Not true. 

17 minutes ago, sruPL said:

Enemy alliance wants US to go to war with British saying that it would potentially fix night flips... I haven't seen any diplomats working towards but maybe I am mistaken.

Danish Diplomats and later Danish and Swedish together, approached the US to discuss this option a while before Christmas.

17 minutes ago, sruPL said:

-Pirates slightly leaning towards cooperating with British after they've been treated like trash by other nations.

In what way was Pirates treated like trash by any nations? Spain and France both even gifted pirates several regions after the server reset so they would have access to crafting and territory. The sole reason pirates are now hitching their wagon to the British is because it is the easier choice to team up with the largest alliance.

 

PS: May I ask one thing. Is the purpose of this topic to discuss diplomacy options, or to discuss the viability of diplomacy mechanics? It is not clear to me from the OP. If the latter is the case then I would suggest this topic is in the wrong forum. 

Edited by Anolytic
11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sruPL said:

The playerbase is too small

Nuff said. Big alliances are needed because of regional bonuses and very limited ressources

21 minutes ago, sruPL said:

Nonetheless  there appears a new problem called sometimes "lunch flips" - basically PBs during the time most come back home or eat a lunch / dinner...

This ia basically a response to the nightflip issue

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love how the pirates hate on us for taking a silver port when the US nightflipped their other silver port quite some time ago and they now conveniently ignore that :P And no doubt La Vega is going to be a free handout before the Danes take it, so there goes the complaints about 'trading' regions. Too bad, pirates could've been cool now that most of the muppets left 'em.

If you want to claim that the Danes broke the Christmas treaty, then you'd might as well claim that the Dutch broke the treaty with the Spaniards when they screened for the US against the "spirit of the treaty" too. If you don't want an argument over these things you gotta at least try to be objective.

The lack of balls for anyone to change anything in the diplomatic field sucks.

Edited by Aegir
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, sruPL said:

As we all know, the diplomacy in Naval Action is not really dynamic. Maybe it's supposed not to be... Considering changes and achievements of diplomacy in last months...

- Swedish Nation joining Danish-Spanish-French Alliance

- Treaty with Spain to help them recover playerbase and get a buffer zone. Broken by Spain.

- Christmas Truce that went quite well and queit.

- Danish - US truce upon threats of attacking Savannah and Wilmington. Broken by Danes, leading to aggresive response from US Nation "nightflipping" some regions.

-Pirates slightly leaning towards cooperating with British after they've been treated like trash by other nations.

 

Think that's it... Of course someone will sooner or later like always suggest forced diplomacy that game chooses, not us... So the alliances change automatically between nation from time to time... That would be the worst mechanic ever. The playerbase is too small to cause any diplomatic changes. In past it was enough for 1 or 2 big clans to cause a war with other nation. Now? It takes like majority of clans to do anything, but everyone likes as it is. The diplomacy and alliances are concreted for months and months.

Enemy alliance wants US to go to war with British saying that it would potentially fix night flips... I haven't seen any diplomats working towards but maybe I am mistaken. It is more likely never going to happen without good reason. Why? Because we've been in alliance for months or maybe even longer. We helped each other so many times. We can't go with another nation without getting anything, more likely another ally to replace US? Well... The only nation that's not not hated / the least are Swedes. They used to be allies and yet still majority in our nation votes positively. Would it be a good reason to go to war with US? Not even close, as it would screw our outposts an economy. Nonetheless  there appears a new problem called sometimes "lunch flips" - basically PBs during the time most come back home or eat a lunch / dinner...

Who is this guy? In wich nation is he playing? Is he diplomat or any nation?

French don't want US to go against british. Ofc everyone attacking our ennemy is welcome but we are not working for that. We are working on making our alliance great again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rediii said:
1 hour ago, sruPL said:

Nonetheless  there appears a new problem called sometimes "lunch flips" - basically PBs during the time most come back home or eat a lunch / dinner...

This ia basically a response to the nightflip issue

I don't completely agree with this. The port battles that have been set have been within European afternoon/evening prime-time and in a time window which was popular for European nations while we had the Lord Protector defence windows. However Santo Domingo was somewhat disappointing in numbers, and I hope that we will be moving the attack times around a bit to find times when we can have fun and proper battles without suffering so much the broken screening and attached griefing.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sruPL said:

As we all know, the diplomacy in Naval Action is not really dynamic. Maybe it's supposed not to be... Considering changes and achievements of diplomacy in last months...

- Swedish Nation joining Danish-Spanish-French Alliance

- Treaty with Spain to help them recover playerbase and get a buffer zone. Broken by Spain.

- Christmas Truce that went quite well and queit.

- Danish - US truce upon threats of attacking Savannah and Wilmington. Broken by Danes, leading to aggresive response from US Nation "nightflipping" some regions.

-Pirates slightly leaning towards cooperating with British after they've been treated like trash by other nations.

 

Think that's it... Of course someone will sooner or later like always suggest forced diplomacy that game chooses, not us... So the alliances change automatically between nation from time to time... That would be the worst mechanic ever. The playerbase is too small to cause any diplomatic changes. In past it was enough for 1 or 2 big clans to cause a war with other nation. Now? It takes like majority of clans to do anything, but everyone likes as it is. The diplomacy and alliances are concreted for months and months.

Enemy alliance wants US to go to war with British saying that it would potentially fix night flips... I haven't seen any diplomats working towards but maybe I am mistaken. It is more likely never going to happen without good reason. Why? Because we've been in alliance for months or maybe even longer. We helped each other so many times. We can't go with another nation without getting anything, more likely another ally to replace US? Well... The only nation that's not not hated / the least are Swedes. They used to be allies and yet still majority in our nation votes positively. Would it be a good reason to go to war with US? Not even close, as it would screw our outposts an economy. Nonetheless  there appears a new problem called sometimes "lunch flips" - basically PBs during the time most come back home or eat a lunch / dinner...

Of course if the Dutch allies the British are not supporting the Dutch anymore it does throw in other options too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note about the alliances being concrete:

We have some weird voting cycles at the moment that would make it harder to mix up the alliances, if it was desired. For example, France right now can vote for Spain or the Dutch.  However, if France wanted to swap allies Spain for the Dutch it wouldn't work, because the Dutch can only vote for Denmark or Sweden at the moment.  Similarly, the Dutch can vote about Sweden, but the Swedes can't vote about the Dutch.  (This is all correct assuming there are no zeros in the politics grid appearing as a dash).

So if, for example, the US and the Danes wanted to switch alliances, good luck figuring out the voting cycles and communicating that to enough players in both nations.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment, mechanics wise, politics and voting are a false feature. Switching alliances is not a real option because you practically have to drop out of every alliance first. Devs might as well just disable voting in the politics tab and lock down the alliances as they are now.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sruPL said:

 

-Pirates slightly leaning towards cooperating with British after they've been treated like trash by other nations.

 

I have to laught.

Fact 1: After the wipe, Spain gave the pirates several regions near their own capital. France, one at Haiti.

Fact 2: Before the wipe, Brits+US+Dutch alliance conquered almost all of the ports ownered by the pirates, even those near Mortimer Town. That alliance treated so good the pirates that several of them left the game or turned nationals.

Edited by Intrepido
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I have to laught.

Fact 1: After the wipe, Spain gave the pirates several regions near their own capital. France, one at Haiti.

Fact 2: Before the wipe, Brits+US+Dutch alliance conquered almost all of the ports ownered by the pirates, even those near Mortimer Town. That alliance treated so good the pirates that several of them left the game or turned nationals.

It's obvious the pirates suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pablo Frias said:

It's obvious the pirates suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

Plus some "rewritting history" by british players.

Also I forgot another fact. Several days ago the Brits attacked Sant Iago.

 

So please, dont give us lessons of how some nations treats others.

Edited by Intrepido
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pointless to talk about diplomacy or politic as long as the current system is active.

Some good suggestions were made, such as having only one Ally max, adding real neutral Faction position, war possible only within Faction vicinity, purchase of Pirate temporary support,etc...

The main issue to improve diplomacy depth would be to get rid of "historical" behaviors (Spain or French typicaly enemies of Brits, etc...) but only build limited alliances with strict objectivity linked to virtual NA world mechanics & ressources.

I believe Coalition system is one reason of the current general lack of interest in NA, with pointless diplomacy issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not speak for my clan or (cough) nation, but being a pirate, I have no allies. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sruPL said:

 

- Treaty with Spain to help them recover playerbase and get a buffer zone. Broken by Spain.

 

Wrong. Spain never broke that treaty

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Celtiberofrog said:

It's pointless to talk about diplomacy or politic as long as the current system is active.

Some good suggestions were made, such as having only one Ally max, adding real neutral Faction position, war possible only within Faction vicinity, purchase of Pirate temporary support,etc...

The main issue to improve diplomacy depth would be to get rid of "historical" behaviors (Spain or French typicaly enemies of Brits, etc...) but only build limited alliances with strict objectivity linked to virtual NA world mechanics & ressources.

I believe Coalition system is one reason of the current general lack of interest in NA, with pointless diplomacy issues.  

Since day one from the diplomacy patch I suggested to try another diplomacy option, neutrality. Unfortunately, empty ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you force two nations to be enemies by excluding them from an alliance, if they don't want to fight eachother its almost the same as being allied. It'll be just like before alliances, one nation screening for their allies and vice versa. If you would force dutch and brit to not be allied, they would probably still treat eachother as allies, maybe aside from some rogue clans/members. Unless you motivate two nations to fight eachoter, you can go around forcing alliance breakups by limiting the number of alliances, it will just change nothing in the field and will only cause more frustration.

Its probably easier to balance the alliances by motivating new players to join the less populated factions. Maybe make it easier for players/clans to swap nations (in regards of BP loss).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Danes & Spain claim that they never broke any treaties. I wasn't making any of these treaties so I don't know what really happened, I just say what I heard from my side. 

Answering the guy who asks "who are you". I am a British Diplomat, but my diplomats work limits to very few tasks and usually I do not participate in global treaties between alliances. 

Is the thread about PvP 1 diplomatic situation or current in-game diplomacy/politics mechanics? Both. Thus, that's why I made a thread in National News to include and start the discussion of PvP 1 situation.

I agree that without any Diplomacy / Politics overhaul, changing current concreted situation is almost impossible.

 

It is kinda sad that this game is either alliance A or alliance B + Pirates that are either neutral or part of these alliances. It would look much more interesting if it was 2v2v2 with Pirates helping these who pay more or going by their own interest. Would be more dynamic, but I believe that current playerbase does not really make it realistic for setup 2v2v2...

Edited by sruPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirates have been treated like trash because after adding system that allies can enter friendly ports, help defend Port Battles not only via screening, Pirates became like a second lesser important ally for most, because all what they could do is screen, that could not enter your Port Battles and support you in. I don't know the whole story behind it, but there is some in deep bad experience from past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sruPL said:

OK, Danes & Spain claim that they never broke any treaties. I wasn't making any of these treaties so I don't know what really happened, I just say what I heard from my side. 

Answering the guy who asks "who are you". I am a British Diplomat, but my diplomats work limits to very few tasks and usually I do not participate in global treaties between alliances. 

Is the thread about PvP 1 diplomatic situation or current in-game diplomacy/politics mechanics? Both. Thus, that's why I made a thread in National News to include and start the discussion of PvP 1 situation.

I agree that without any Diplomacy / Politics overhaul, changing current concreted situation is almost impossible.

 

It is kinda sad that this game is either alliance A or alliance B + Pirates that are either neutral or part of these alliances. It would look much more interesting if it was 2v2v2 with Pirates helping these who pay more or going by their own interest. Would be more dynamic, but I believe that current playerbase does not really make it realistic for setup 2v2v2...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

Plus some "rewritting history" by british players.

Also I forgot another fact. Several days ago the Brits attacked Sant Iago.

 

So please, dont give us lessons of how some nations treats others.

Are you going to keep spraying this bull crap around? Using timers that suit you best and claiming it's EU prime-team is stupid enough. Sant Lago never was a real attack and you know it. Do us a favor and keep this bull crap to yourself next time. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sruPL said:

OK, Danes & Spain claim that they never broke any treaties. I wasn't making any of these treaties so I don't know what really happened, I just say what I heard from my side. 

Answering the guy who asks "who are you". I am a British Diplomat, but my diplomats work limits to very few tasks and usually I do not participate in global treaties between alliances. 

 

Ok, so you claim that you are a British Diplomat and you don't know what really happened with those treaties, but you opened this topic claiming that Spain and Denmark broke those treaties......

So, we can say you have no idea what you are talking about, right?

If you are a diplomat for the British, we can say that the British have a diplomat who doesn't know what he is talking about....

Well done, keep with that brilliant job you are doing :D

 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Captain Alexander said:

Are you going to keep spraying this bull crap around? Using timers that suit you best and claiming it's EU prime-team is stupid enough. Sant Lago never was a real attack and you know it. Do us a favor and keep this bull crap to yourself next time. Thank you.

Bull crap like yours ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0