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

OpenWorld Politics - What can i kill?

Recommended Posts

I thought I would put up a post since we're getting a lot of questions asking us who is allowed to be killed etc. I think it is wise to clarify it as a diplomatic based discussion

This how the rules work Based on the Stance of the nation.

NAP/Trade - ANY MILITARY SHIP IS ENGAGEABLE  - Traders are left to trade freely. This means the trader is the leader of the fleet. It may have escorts that are military under AI control.  Having military player escorts puts you in the engageable status

WAR - ALL SHIPS ARE ENGAGABLE ANYWHERE - This is where RvR starts.

NEUTRAL - ALL SHIPS ARE ENGAGEABLE.  Sailing into national waters and killing is a move towards war. Trading is at own risk. RvR doesn't happen here you must declare a warning of war and the a War Dec.   Warning of war can be via diplo channels or forums but a nation should have the opportunity to tell players to change their ways.

ALLY -  NO SHIPS ARE ENGAGEABLE in any waters.  You can ask for fights with them but you shouldn't be trying to gank each other  you are friends trying to have fun.

 

So in clarification, unless there is an alliance in place ALL MILITARY SHIPS IN CONTROL OF A PLAYER is fair game to anyone.  Doing it in their waters may lead to war but it is still all content.  The diplomats should all be enforcing that OW PVP is encouraged for military ships.  Traders are only at risk from people at war with them or general pirates.

 

Nation Stances are at this post

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fastidius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Fasti (not that I am killing anyone YET). Are our "allies" in agreement, because that is important that it is a bilateral agreement?

Seaman Stains (SCAR) - [Southern Cross Armed Rebels]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A National Board in game is sorely needed so players that do not follow the forum and do not pay big attention to Nation chat do have the latest updates.

In my point of view NAP/NEUTRAL is the same. I advocate for Trade Protection measures outside a open war. Any ship flying a smuggler flag is a "outlaw" by the maritime standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would certainly be useful but we must remember that this would all be on the "honors" system.  There is no in game mechanic to enforce things like "NAP/Trade - ANY MILITARY SHIP IS ENGAGEABLE" or "ALLY -  NO SHIPS ARE ENGAGEABLE in any waters".

Uninformed players will do what they do, and some solo privateers choose not to observe the pleasantries of these arrangements since they are looking for PvP and may not care about RvR or diplomatic arrangements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These categories need to be revised for post wipe game.

War and Ally are are self explanatory and stay the same. But as Red Duke mentioned above, trading status is much different now as this rules set Econ has far more reaching game effects than it did last year.  Smugglers are now a potential threat to a nations welfare.  Letting them run around freely is not always a good thing.  Trading done at Nuetral ports protects the nation as long as smugglers can be sunk freely. So we really need a review on Nuetral and NAP.   Quite frankly, any nation that doesn't put restrictions on smuggling as part of its treaties are just being stupid. Also there needs to be a function for persona nongrata clans that are exempt from treaties. This whole system is to rigid and assumes all nations are homogenous hive minds or otherwise only have solo trouble makers. That is not the case. Treaties could specify letters of mark situations directly in them to take care of troublesome clans.

Like it or not, this is a game of clans with national tendencies and not a game of nations with clans.

Edited by Bach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion, change the basic format of political ties as follows:

Add the following clarifications to each treaty no matter which type.

 LOM= Letter of Mark exceptions, a simple list of clans or players not included in the treaty at this time.

TE= Territorial exceptions, area or ports in the game exempted from the treaty at this time

Treaty Types:

War = all out war with possible territorial or Clan exceptions

Allies = All out friendly with possible territorial or LOM exceptions

NAP + Free Trade = No aggression including traders and smugglers.

NAP+ National Trade = No aggression including traders but not including smugglers. Smugglers may be sunk.

NAP+No Trade= No aggression but all foreign cargo ships in home waters may be sunk.

Neutral = no RVR, any ship may be sunk anywhere but no RVR actions taken.

 

Example-

France - Dutch = Nuetral + LOM (player Bach, Pagan and Teutonic)

France - Britain = War + TE (no fighting in starting zone counties)

France - Denmark = NAP+Free Trade or FT

France - Sweden = NAP+ National Trade or NT

France - USA = Ally + LOM (Clans Purge, Bork, Rovers) 

France - Sweden = NAP + No Trade + TE (may RvR over Basse Terre county)

Edited by Bach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably need a scenario that is more in line with the current relationship between France and Denmark.

It's not War but it's not Ally either as there is no cooperation/coordination on anything RVR related.  Its NAP/Neutral in that RVR is restricted but it also includes a ban on any open world PvP -- traders and military ships alike.

Now whether or not that relationship is a good one and should be a server standard when using formal definitions, that is a separate question entirely.  But if you want to have a list that does respect that type of relationship, there is at least one entry missing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Red Duke said:

Any ship flying a smuggler flag is a "outlaw" by the maritime standards.

This is an interesting point that I had not thought about.

There is room for a "NAP with Protectionism", meaning we don't kill each others' ships EXCEPT for outlaw flagged traders which may be killed on sight.

Outlaw flagged traders may be entering our ports and siphoning our goods, basically committing economic warfare. Non-outlaw flagged traders would be given a pass since they can't enter our ports.

So it's a NAP but you can't come into our ports. (This is pretty much what the Swedes want, too.)

3 minutes ago, Arsilon said:

You probably need a scenario that is more in line with the current relationship between France and Denmark.

Yeah, the hard definitions of the first message don't really cover the situations players actually come up with.

What we wanted with Denmark (CCCP) from the start was a "neutral" setting -- we sink you, you sink us, no RvR. To them, though, there is no such thing as "neutral" or "NAP/Trade", even. You are either 100% at peace with them or 100% at war. It was why we found them to be impossible to deal with. Anyone can make a French alt, go sink some CCCP and we'll probably be at war again because CCCP does not understand the politics of a real nation.

So we are 100% at peace with them to avoid a return to night-flipping games but we are not their ally. If I saw a Dane 1st rate being killed by literally anyone, I would laugh and take a screenshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fastidius said:

Having military player escorts puts you in the engageable status

The other thing I was thinking about was with respect to escorted Traders.  If the server was just 2 nations, then I can see a scenario where if you bring a warship into territorial waters, its fair game and so are the traders it's escorting.

However, in a game where Danish waters could be full of Swedish, British, Pirate, etc. players, running escorts for those traders should be allowed (and in some cases would be insane to NOT actively escort vs passively escort with a fleet military ship).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if they bring military into danish waters it's unlikely that taking out a trader would be their main issue.

 

there sounds like there is another category of NAP that is total non combatant.   which sucks because OW pvp is a much for the game to function

 

Edited by Fastidius

Share this post


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

well if they bring military into danish waters it's unlikely that taking out a trader would be their main issue.

 

there sounds like there is another category of NAP that is total non combatant.   which sucks because OW pvp is a much for the game to function

 

Plenty of Swedes with the odd Brit and Pirate go into Danish waters to hunt French trading between French/Danish capitals for one example.

 

And while I may agree with you that total non-combatant category is bad for the game long term, that doesn't mean that it isn't in the current state of diplomacy agreements made.  Perhaps if we disallow it as a 'recognized status' we can force its elimination!

 

 

 

 

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  

×