Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mugsy

Solution to the current diplomacy/nation/clan problems

Recommended Posts

Over the last few weeks its become apparent to me that the current diplomacy system is not managable.

On 2 occasions I have seen our coalition forge alliances with coalitions in other nations only to have them undermined by a single clan that nobody can police or punish. 2 sides enact diplomacy and then any clan who refuses can strike out at the other nation from protected ports making them invulnerable to being attacked back but free to attack eventually disolving the entire alliance see RAE in the alliance of spain/britain.

In my opinion the clans that go rogue and attempt to disrupt alliances by attacking ports while hiding in protected territory are not to be punished they are only doing what the game allows them to do. That being said the system makes no sense and creates heartache for hundreds of players because of as little as 25 who decide that's what they want to do. 

The following is my solution to the current problem, I believe it will encourage clans to cooperate and forge lasting alliances while at the same time allows internal clans and coalitions to rise up and go to war with each other within a nation creating more than the current diplomatic landscape of 7 Factions because it allows endless sub factions to fight each other within factions creating complex cross nation and internal nation politics.

1. Each nation should have somewhere between 5 and 12 uncapturable ports.
These may or may not need to be in the same location but could even allow nations to branch out creating divisions in the nation map lines by for example spain might have a cluster of 4 uncapturable ports at la habana and 4 uncapturable ports at cartagena de indias giving them access to all their resources in both locations and allowing new players to those locations to never be oppressed and chased out of the game before they even get to see whats good about it. I would put some kind of industry negative production buff on those ports somewhere between 50-75% output so players are encouraged to setup buildings in capturable ports but worst case scenerio they at least have somewhere to fall back and create industry and can never have their individual fun or warfare capabilities reduced beyond a certain point. There would always be hope of turning a fight around knowing the flame of your nation cannot be completely extinguished beyond repair.

2. Clans should own any ports their members are Lord Protector for with control over who may dock.
Docking access options would allow lord protectors or clans to set who may dock in their ports. Example if the port is British there would be a checkbox to allow all british players to dock at this port, to allow other specific other nations to dock at this port, to allow certain clans from any nation to dock at this port and of course to deny certain clans from any nation to dock at this port. It's more likely that this setup would be tedious and best managed by the clan leader rather then each lord protector but it could be good for a lord protector to have his own override control allowing him to create custom docking setup in the event a clan wants to establish a cooperative dock for members of another nation without giving them access to all the clans ports, this could be for war reasons or trade reasons but offers a more interesting political landscape as well as diplomatic options and cooperation. 

3. Clans should be able to form physical alliances with clans from other nations that cannot be broken by individual members and must be disolved or withdrawn from by the head of clans.
This allows certain clans to work together without being undermined by other clans from their nation or individuals within their own clans. It encourages advanced complex politics of clans in one nation working with other clans or mercenaries from other nations to help achieve their own personal agenda.

4. Clans should be able to go to war against clans or players within their own nation.
By allowing clans to go to war against others in their own nation the larger nations like britain and usa can be more divided internally as they fight for power within their nation. The current politics are rather stagnant with huge 2 side wars drawing every nation into them simply because of lack of options there are only 7 factions and only so many combinations of diplomacy even less based on the player base of certain nations.

5. Add far more ports to the game
With nations potentially fighting internally and having 2-3 sets of uncapturable port clusters allowing the 7 nations to have 14-21 stronghold locations there would be far more division around the map and more places for clans to find their own little corner of the world to control. In the event all servers are merged more ports will certainly keep it interesting.

6. Add more resource production and npc trade ships/convoys to freeports.
I would like to see freeports producing every resource presumably via trade but allowing and even encouraging pirates to setup in freeports and migrate away from their 'pirate empire' to claim a small corner somewhere and make money striking fear into merchants and clans operating in the region while treating the freeport almost like a pirate cove. Freeports might even allow players to create any industry rather then restricting them however such buildings would have a far higher extraction cost and lower production making them possible but only in a dire situation or when you have no other ports nearby and not very effecient.

7. Do not allow level 3 shipyards in freeports.
With rogue clans and pirates setting up in freeports i don't believe they should be able to build 3rd rates and above in such secure territory. I would see a game where pirates are encouraged to move into freeports and harrass areas but i do not believe they should be able to wage all out war from freeports like unloading massive rate fleets to screen nation wars for cash.

8. Add a set of building upgrades for the Lord Protector allowing him to collect a portion of trade/market taxes, improve garrison soldiers and fortifications.
This just creates a benefit to controlling ports and encourages internal power struggles as well as clan cooperation to upgrade the defenses of important ports at huge expense.

9. Add custom clan icons inside the port circles and recolor the circle background to match the nation color, also make pirates and danes ports more distinguishable.
To create a sense of expansion and ownership and to watch clans spread across a region it would be cool to see all the icons on the map inside the circles to watch clans expanding their borders.

10. Allow a lord protector to transfer his title to any other player in the game.
Sometimes deals are struck or players no longer want to play. We currently have a player with 8 ports who quit and we can no longer touch those timers, allow a quick method to transfer the title of Lord Protector to another player remotely for the purpose of diplomacy as well as leaving players or those taking vacation. Some members simply don't want to manage their port timers these members should have the option to relinquish the title to another clan member who will.

11. Display port timers and dock access on the map including friendly port timers.
I'm sick of making defensive and offensive photoshop maps of port timers and updating a port timer spreadsheet for our clans 40 ports it's a game not a job, why not give us that information on the map itself so i don't need to keep building them.

12. Allow a 25 player pb fleet and give them priority access to a port battle
When fighting around populated areas we've have found clanless players in low level ships are jumping into port battles before experienced clan members in powerful ships can get in if the Port Battle fills it disrupts the entire attack. Allow for a 25 player 'raid' fleet or something that simply marks other fleet members visually and secures a place for each player in a flag carriers raid fleet for 3-4 minutes. Allowing them to get into a port battle before public players nearby can join. The same could also be done for members of a clan who own a port that are defending.

13. Flags may only be purchased in nation starting ports or your clans owned ports. Also flags may only be planted during 2 hour window and last until end of window.
Currently the longest you can be forced to defend is 4.5 hours if your port window is 22-24 and the enemy buys a flag at 23.59 and holds it until 00.59 to plant you may then be stuck in a battle for another 90 minutes. Meaning that even though your defensive watch started at 10pm you could be forced to defend until almost 2.30 in the morning. I believe this could be reduced to 3.5 hours while allowing flags to be run further then they currently can. If the flag lasts for the duration of the 2 hour window buying it at the start of a window would give you 2 hours to attack allowing your fleet to travel further. While also enforcing that the enemy must plant the flag during the window means you wont be stuck up an extra hour if they choose to buy it at the last minute. This system could be tweaked even further if say the capture window was 2.5 or 3 hours long but the battle ended at the end of the capture window. Meaning their time inside the port was not a flat 90 minutes but based on how early they get into the port to start the battle, waiting too late could cost the fight. This also reduces the amount of time required to defend and makes it more accessible to casual gamers to participate and doesn't require players to stay up past reasonable hours.

These changes are not designed to be historical but are suggested to improve the game and make it far more enjoyable for everyone to play the current system is burning players out and they are leaving we need a more interesting system where politics shift faster and more locally/internally from far more factions making the game more interesting and less frustrating with people in your own nations that you can't attack.

Edited by mugsy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we keep the actual game politics out of it Intrepido i know you're spanish i've read the spanish forums. This is not the place to dredge up the past or get emotional I simply want to raise some issues that i believe may improve the game and make it more enjoyable for new players or those not heavily invested in the wars of the world and I have no interest in discussing the Spanish/British fallout or any of the many reasons from both sides that led to the eventual fallout.

Many of these changes would actually have kept more spanish players in Spain during the height of the war rather then the ones that turned to play other nations or games as they had nowhere else to go. They would also serve to strengthen small nations and divide larger nations making it a fairer playing field for the smaller nations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with increasing the number of uncaptureable ports. 

 

I think your ideas also revolve too much around clan play, minimizing the role of solo players in diplomacy.

 

I'm not sure why a simple voting system can't suffice. For example. want to declare an alliance? All players above a certain rank within the nation have an opportunity to vote. If the vote passes, the game mechanics change and you can no longer attack ships of your new ally. This would apply to all players, even those who voted "no" for the alliance.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 ports may give you all resources now

 

but what when there are more types of ports than just oak ports, teak ports, pine ports and fir ports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with increasing the number of uncaptureable ports.

I think your ideas also revolve too much around clan play, minimizing the role of solo players in diplomacy.

I'm not sure why a simple voting system can't suffice. For example. want to declare an alliance? All players above a certain rank within the nation have an opportunity to vote. If the vote passes, the game mechanics change and you can no longer attack ships of your new ally. This would apply to all players, even those who voted "no" for the alliance.

Hope you did a suggestion with this mechanic, because its as simple and easy as brilliant.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the number of ports or unconquerable ports is not a solution. We need mechanics that brings less, but more intense fights in border zones and does not allow switching multiple ports every day. Capturing of a port should be a great achievement for the faction and losing one should be painful loss. But now, there is no reason to own multiple ports because resources production buildings messed this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the number of ports or unconquerable ports is not a solution. We need mechanics that brings less, but more intense fights in border zones and does not allow switching multiple ports every day. Capturing of a port should be a great achievement for the faction and losing one should be painful loss. But now, there is no reason to own multiple ports because resources production buildings messed this up.

This is where internal clan wars within nations and lord protector taxes could come into play. Nations currently have too much territory you only need 4 ports to run everything and since you can dock at any port in your nations territory it isnt too hard to find 4 ports with all the resources for your clan to setup a crafting operation out of. 

However if clans could refuse docking to other players from their own nation or particular clans it may create alliances within nations and more infighting to create scarcity where there currently is none at the moment we are just letting everything burn in britain on pvp1 its literally pointless defending half the map when you don't need the ports. However that being said we now have 5 or 6 other clans setting up in our HQ port as they flee they collapse of the empire this is creating a bigger drain on local resources supplied by ports and ultimately there should be some governing reduction on port industry production based on the number of buildings inside the port working that resource. If this was the case we would lock docking access to some of these other clans and public nation players to stop them from accessing our ports to increase our own industry building resource production and then they would seek what we control creating more conflict inside nations creating more intense fights without sailing across the whole map as we only need to exist around 4 ports near us and hold our territory.

This system could even facilitate more elaborate setups. We currently have our hq in a hemp/oak/iron port and nearby is another hemp/oak/iron port in an ideal system we would keep access to public in our hq encouraging players to come in use the market(lord protector taxes), run missions enabling them to guard our waters from raiders without realising and run industry if it pleases them in a packed environment with a high production penalty due to the number of players. While we keep all our other ports on clan access only allowing us to run our industry at a very minimal production penalty and sell all our excess materials in our market which is currently lived in by 5 other clans. I mean this is an ideal situation for us obviously but the ownership setup would be highly sought after by other clans within our nation and we would have to manage a complex system of alliances to maintain our position in this area. 

It is not fun teleporting across a nation defending every port in it, we found our players losing interest in the game and just generally burning out. It would be far more interesting to have a self interest in 4-8 ports and to defend them at all cost perhaps even renting docking access out to other clans so they can run high production industries in a private setup and assist with our defenses. If ports on the other side of the nation burn it may have nothing to do with us if we have no defense pacts with those clans but right now its not nearly that interesting, it's simply frustrating trying to manage a nation with a whole collective of players who all have opinions on what to do but don't all pull equal weight when it comes to getting it done and ultimately almost all of the battles we've fought in have had nothing to do with our own personal gain and although large our clan has fallen behind in xp and assets while fighting to capture 40+ ports in our clans name for our nation they give us no added benefits for owning them.

Edited by mugsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capturing of a port should be a great achievement for the faction and losing one should be painful loss.

That's the biggest issue with current port battles.  It's too easy to set up undefended port battles and flip a bunch of ports every night.  It happens so fast that every time I look away, the map has changed dramatically and I'm forced to spend hours evacuating trapped ships or sailing them to a new front.  A single port battle should be the highlight of the week: a rare and special occurrence, not a dime-a-dozen event every night.

 

Back on topic, the current diplomacy system (or lack thereof) is seriously hurting the game.  I like these proposals because they address many of the issues we've had.  Lord Protectors going on vacation, clans violating agreements with other nations, etc.  I especially like the idea of conflicts and alliances being clan-vs-clan, in addition to nation-vs-nation.  It would go a long way to breaking away from the problematic "historical" nations as they currently stand.  Especially if national diplomacy was randomized every week, while clan diplomacy remains as long as both clans agree.  

 

As far as individual players vs clans, I believe that clans SHOULD have more power than the individual player.  Clans have put forth the effort to organize themselves in pursuit of power, prestige, and to play the conquest meta.  Individual players who refuse to put forth a minimal effort to join a clan and educate themselves about the general strategic and political situation cause more harm than good when they mess around with Port Battles.  They're almost as bad as the mythical "undecided voter" in US presidential elections.  Without education, organization, and effort, you'll end up with an idiot in charge and disaster as the only possible result.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, don't like it.

 

Item 2

 

"Docking access options would allow lord protectors or clans to set who may dock in their ports. Example if the port is British there would be a checkbox to allow all british players to dock at this port, to allow other specific other nations to dock at this port, to allow certain clans from any nation to dock at this port and of course to deny certain clans from any nation to dock at this port. "

 

No player or clan should have this much power in a nation, to dictate who of their own nation who has the right to dock in a port, or who in there nation has the right to trade with outside nations through non free ports is too much power for a puny clan leader.  Can a clan of countrymen who disagree with this policy stage an attack against their own nation to remove this restriction/control?

 

This whole system still relies largely on the current port battle mechanics which I believe are too broken to base any new system on.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at the moment they can't even stop pirated from fighting each other mechanically which is apparently not allowed.  I doubt there is even a diplomacy system being worked on.  If there is then it has to have something to do with regional capitals having clan ownership and voting or some sort of mass voting system but i can't see any evidence that either are happening fast at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, don't like it.

 

Item 2

 

"Docking access options would allow lord protectors or clans to set who may dock in their ports. Example if the port is British there would be a checkbox to allow all british players to dock at this port, to allow other specific other nations to dock at this port, to allow certain clans from any nation to dock at this port and of course to deny certain clans from any nation to dock at this port. "

 

No player or clan should have this much power in a nation, to dictate who of their own nation who has the right to dock in a port, or who in there nation has the right to trade with outside nations through non free ports is too much power for a puny clan leader.  Can a clan of countrymen who disagree with this policy stage an attack against their own nation to remove this restriction/control?

 

This whole system still relies largely on the current port battle mechanics which I believe are too broken to base any new system on.

Under the system i proposed yes any clan may attack clans ports of their own nation to fight for lord protector of the port to call how its operated. It would create a system where clanless players tend to stay around the nation capitals/uncapturable ports, run their missions, trade, industries, level up and get recruited by clans. While clans would be out capturing ports in the name of the empire but governing how they are run while under their control. Instead of 7 nations fighting each other this system has the potential for endless numbers of internal clan wars as the strongest clans in a nation form alliances and fight for power inside the nation.

It creates a system where clans need to unite to protect from outside nations but also need to watch themselves and keep their allies close to protect their nations internal power structure. The system i proposed would offer 8-12 uncapturable ports for each nation offering multiple clustered port choices of location to build a home for any clan or player without a home of their own. The only benefit of living in a captured port would be a higher resource output from industries due to lower numbers of industries operating in the port.

Edited by mugsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the system i proposed yes any clan may attack clans ports of their own nation to fight for lord protector of the port to call how its operated. It would create a system where clanless players tend to stay around the nation capitals/uncapturable ports, run their missions, trade, industries, level up and get recruited by clans. While clans would be out capturing ports in the name of the empire but governing how they are run while under their control. Instead of 7 nations fighting each other this system has the potential for endless numbers of internal clan wars as the strongest clans in a nation form alliances and fight for power inside the nation.

It creates a system where clans need to unite to protect from outside nations but also need to watch themselves and keep their allies close to protect their nations internal power structure. The system i proposed would offer 8-12 uncapturable ports for each nation offering multiple clustered port choices of location to build a home for any clan or player without a home of their own. The only benefit of living in a captured port would be a higher resource output from industries due to lower numbers of industries operating in the port.

 

 

Still don't like it.  

 

The way you just described it they may as well let every clan have it's own nation, and a bunch of neutral ports that anyone can use fully.

 

I also think your approach is backwards on two fronts.  

 

One, I don't believe that mechanics should be built to enhance internal national division, players do that all on their own without help.  It's clear from PvP 2's almost constant migration of clans from nation to nation that there is enough internal strife already.

 

Two, I think your approach is good at describing what life is like when your nation is winning, having a few extra ports to hand out to all the clans, but offers very little to a nation that is small and losing, and in fact would make being on the losing side even worse if your not in the most powerful clan nationally.  It also allows for you to be losing while on the winning side, being locked out of all but the default ports, with a large clan able to effectively block you from entire areas of the game.

 

Traveling in "national" waters and being denied access to all ports in the area because you happen to be a loner or in the wrong small clan, would given the amount of time it takes to get around the map be one of the most intolerable things I could imagine.  Especially if all the good PvP action was in that player controlled Zone, and the only place to port for repair was hours away due to "friendly" lock out.

 

You have to approach these things not with the "what would I like if I was winning", but rather with "what I would tolerate if I was losing".  If you would not personally tolerate the situation of being on the losing end, then you need to re-examine the losing or lone wolf scenario.

 

The situation that would arise from what you describe, the possibility of players deciding to lock their own nationals out of areas, would for me be utterly intolerable.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, don't like it.

Item 2

"Docking access options would allow lord protectors or clans to set who may dock in their ports. Example if the port is British there would be a checkbox to allow all british players to dock at this port, to allow other specific other nations to dock at this port, to allow certain clans from any nation to dock at this port and of course to deny certain clans from any nation to dock at this port. "

No player or clan should have this much power in a nation, to dictate who of their own nation who has the right to dock in a port, or who in there nation has the right to trade with outside nations through non free ports is too much power for a puny clan leader. Can a clan of countrymen who disagree with this policy stage an attack against their own nation to remove this restriction/control?

This whole system still relies largely on the current port battle mechanics which I believe are too broken to base any new system on.

I will say this. Ine thing i miss from potbs to NA ( which i hope gets put in) was players running for governor of a port and having the power to dictate certain things.

While they could not out right stop a country from docking , they did have the ability to set the taxes that each nation had to pay at that port. It had to be raised slowly over days amd weeks if the same government ran the port.

This was acually fun because ports ran by corrupt or lazy governors fell into disarray and defense suffered.

I wouldnt mind seeing that implemented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this. Ine thing i miss from potbs to NA ( which i hope gets put in) was players running for governor of a port and having the power to dictate certain things.

While they could not out right stop a country from docking , they did have the ability to set the taxes that each nation had to pay at that port. It had to be raised slowly over days amd weeks if the same government ran the port.

This was acually fun because ports ran by corrupt or lazy governors fell into disarray and defense suffered.

I wouldnt mind seeing that implemented.

 

 

I don't mind the idea of setting some values, or having some control with checks and balances.  It's the idea that this person could ban at will an entire clan supposedly from their nation, essentially attacking their access to the game, when attacking them on the open sea would have obvious consequences. (Turn Pirate)

 

National ports are national assets.  To give reasonable control of such an asset for the betterment of the entire nation is one thing, to give it as a piece in a possible internal struggle is another thing all together.  

 

Whatever rules are set to the port MUST apply to all members of the same nation. Be it taxes, access, repair costs, whatever.  Port management should not just be an escalation of the warehouse buy/sell with the "controlling" clan reaping all the rewards.  

 

A rising tide lifts all boats, and this is how port expansion should be modeled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the idea of setting some values, or having some control with checks and balances. It's the idea that this person could ban at will an entire clan supposedly from their nation, essentially attacking their access to the game, when attacking them on the open sea would have obvious consequences. (Turn Pirate)

National ports are national assets. To give reasonable control of such an asset for the betterment of the entire nation is one thing, to give it as a piece in a possible internal struggle is another thing all together.

Whatever rules are set to the port MUST apply to all members of the same nation. Be it taxes, access, repair costs, whatever. Port management should not just be an escalation of the warehouse buy/sell with the "controlling" clan reaping all the rewards.

A rising tide lifts all boats, and this is how port expansion should be modeled.

Yes banning cant be allowed or it will turn into playground justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think is a matter of 5 or 10 uncaptureable ports. You can have an agreement between clans, but since there is no superior form of government, any player can be entitled to do as they please, and that might have consequences nation-wide and the rest of the nation has to suck it up. Thing is... We need in-game diplomacy tools. Either clan to clan or nation-wide. But if there is no way to govern a nation then who sets the standings towards other factions?

 

An ally should be able to dock in your ports and set outposts in there, that would be great for economy too. But then, who is the governor? Under which criteria?

 

It is not easy but undoubtely something needs to be done. Otherwise nations always will have "rogue" clans that go against the majority doing their rightful gameplay of not giving a fuck about politics. But then again, influencing how the rest are seen or the consequences upon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any solution like the OP's that assumes Clans should play a role in the politics of the Nation is already starting from the wrong point of reference.

 

Clans should be about grouping, friends etc.

 

The politics should be decided by players not clans. Nothing good can come from a clans running a nation. That forces people into giant zerg clans and removes the voice of the players based on what clan they play in.

 

Any mechanic regarding diplomacy has to be player based only or it will severely hamper the game. You need to go any further then Eve for examples.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mechanic regarding diplomacy has to be player based only or it will severely hamper the game. You need to go any further then Eve for examples.

Well, you have the CSM ballots as an example. It is player-based, yet people votes whatever others tell them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had done #1 from the beginning, they would have saved themselves a lot of grief.

Yep the Eve high security protection system works by protecting new players from being destroyed before they even figure out how to play the game.

I suspect a number of players have joined this game tried to level up near the starting area and been smashed so hard by players that they've just left the game or rolled to another nation. Particularly when a nation is down to its last ports and there's nowhere to go it doesn't seem very appealing to play there or at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big  part of the problem is allowing players and clans to decide politics AT ALL. Clans are subnational units. Politics and diplomacy were the prerogative of the king and his government in Europe, not ship captains.  The king decides who to fight, as captains we fight the king's enemies.

 

One way of doing this in the game would be to automate diplomacy, i.e, the game decides who is at war, who is allied, and who is neutral.  This would change periodically, as the alliance system in Europe shifted and yesterday's allies became today's enemies.  This could be quite random, since during the period covered by the game, everybody fought everybody else at some time.  Players could be given some input into the conduct of the war itself by earning "victory points" by naval victories and port captures.  Whichever nation (clans and individuals together) accumulates the most victory points by the (automated) end of the war would be the victors and perhaps get to keep one or two ports--the rest would be given back, as was usually the case in most peace settlements of the era.

  • Like 1

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  

×