Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slim McSauce

Why Civil Wars are Necessary

Recommended Posts

Maybe they're making the fair point that the U.S. has an absurd coast line uninterrupted by free ports, relative to every other nation in the game?  :ducks:

That said, I'm in huge support for the return of Outlaw battles for every nation.  It was the primary thing that made us take the black on Global.

Edited by Wraith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, z4ys said:

Have you tried to talk?

I'm gonna stop you there. Yes nations should work together, but nations are also made up of clans, all of whom have their own goals which may interfere with each other.

Forcing people to 100% always work together, doesn't magically breed teamwork, it actually makes us despise each other even more because we can't settle things without being fake kind and diplomatic with each other. If my clan wants to piss off the British while everyone else wants to ally, I'm still going to attack British ports and ruin the ally for the rest of my nation while I sit and laugh because I can so easily troll whoever I want with no repercussions.

Not having civil wars is not fun, not realistic, nor faithful to the sandbox element this game thrives on. It's actually anti-gameplay.

 

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get out of your corner and attack somebody - btw there are nearly a dozen nations to choose from, not only Great Britain ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Batman said:

Just get out of your corner and attack somebody - btw there are nearly a dozen nations to choose from, not only Great Britain ;)

Those are examples, I wasn't speaking from a real game perspective.

Also you're defending lack of gameplay mechanics, in favor of ignoring the problem. That's pretty indefensible

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Maybe they're making the fair point that the U.S. has an absurd coast line uninterrupted by free ports, relative to every other nation in the game?  :ducks:

That said, I'm in huge support for the return of Outlaw battles for every nation.  It was the primary thing that made us take the black on Global.

Outlaw battles are a petri dish of exploits and mingery and we're rightly removed. Rediis solution of allowing temporary in nation hostilities in PBs is more than enough to solve the issue of rogue/alt clans minging around uncontested with ports and RVR, which negatively that nations experience, and the server experience as a whole.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I'm gonna stop you there. Yes nations should work together, but nations are also made up of clans, all of whom have their own goals which may interfere with each other.

Forcing people to 100% always work together, doesn't magically breed teamwork, it actually makes us despise each other even more because we can't settle things without being fake kind and diplomatic with each other. If my clan wants to piss off the British while everyone else wants to ally, I'm still going to attack British ports and ruin the ally for the rest of my nation while I sit and laugh because I can so easily troll whoever I want with no repercussions.

Not having civil wars is not fun, not realistic, nor faithful to the sandbox element this game thrives on. It's actually anti-gameplay.

 

ScreenHunter_156-Oct.-13-14.53.jpg

You are looking for the dark grey area. But with 2 mules you wont find it. Listen to them find the reason work on it "together". I mean in the end its bad for them as well. But its a good feature to wake up a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, z4ys said:

 

You are looking for the dark grey area. But with 2 mules you wont find it. Listen to them find the reason work on it "together". I mean in the end its bad for them as well. But its a good feature to wake up a nation.

So can I presume you agree with the suggestion?

Share this post


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

So can I presume you agree with the suggestion?

I dont see a suggestion. Its just some thought without thinking about consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prussia has internal conflict before. You saw how it ended. I'm not sure if promoting that is good for any nation. 

If your goals don't match the goals of the others, leave the nation and join another one that does. What would be best is the revolution charters that the devs have talked about long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil Wars is the suggestion, I honestly feel bad I have to say that. I would hate for someone to have to point out the blatantly obvious to me. No offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sella22 said:

If your goals don't match the goals of the others, leave the nation and join another one that does. What would be best is the revolution charters that the devs have talked about long ago.

Care to explain these revolution charters and how they'd work?

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Outlaw battles are a petri dish of exploits and mingery and we're rightly removed. Rediis solution of allowing temporary in nation hostilities in PBs is more than enough to solve the issue of rogue/alt clans minging around uncontested with ports and RVR, which negatively that nations experience, and the server experience as a whole.

How has removal of outlaw battles changed this in any way? I don't recall you ever having played pirate, and can personally attest to the fact that internal conflict within the pirate nation was handled swiftly and efficiently via duels or out and out blockade.  Open this up to clan vs. clan port hostility and you have your Civil War.

The only "expoiting" being done using Outlaw battles was safe zone tagging by King of Clowns, et al. and hiding and running in battles.  Both of these and their effects on RvR, etc. can be minimized with simple post-battle timers which allow for screeners to tag before a hiding fleet can join a port battle, and to disallow Outlaw battles within a safe zone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Civil Wars is the suggestion, I honestly feel bad I have to say that. I would hate for someone to have to point out the blatantly obvious to me. No offense.

"Care to explain these revolution charters and how they'd work?"

 

I would say use the forum "Search" function.

 

But I would hate for someone to have to point out the blatantly obvious to you.  

 

No offense.

Edited by Vernon Merrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wraith said:

How has removal of outlaw battles changed this in any way? I don't recall you ever having played pirate, and can personally attest to the fact that internal conflict within the pirate nation was handled swiftly and efficiently via duels or out and out blockade.  Open this up to clan vs. clan port hostility and you have your Civil War.

The only "expoiting" being done using Outlaw battles was safe zone tagging by King of Clowns, et al. and hiding and running in battles.  Both of these and their effects on RvR, etc. can be minimized with simple post-battle timers which allow for screeners to tag before a hiding fleet can join a port battle, and to disallow Outlaw battles within a safe zone.

I wouldn't mind outlaw battles for all nations, I advocated for it not too long ago. But what I draw from their removal is that they were problematic. If they were re implemented to not allow ally tagging to delay, avoid, or disrupt gameplay then I'm all for it, more to the sandbox. 

If there's one I think we can agree on, its that fighting out your differences is much, much funner than talking them out. Much more effective too.

Share this post


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

I wouldn't mind outlaw battles for all nations, I advocated for it not too long ago. But what I draw from their removal is that they were problematic. If they were re implemented to not allow ally tagging to delay, avoid, or disrupt gameplay then I'm all for it, more to the sandbox. 

If there's one I think we can agree on, its that fighting out your differences is much, much funner than talking them out. Much more effective too.

In my opinion, I think they were removed because it was easier to code than fixing them. Laziness won out over creating a more interesting, effective mechanic.

And I totally agree, fighting out the differences is definitely more interesting and creates possibilities for more interesting dynamics than spewing garbage in Nation Chat all night long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would indeed be cool if we could declare a rebellion/civil war. maybe with the coming of the political system again the devs decide to add more in-depth systems for leading a nation and conducting diplomacy with other nations (the previous system was way to easy and small to be taken seriously).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

not allow ally tagging to delay, avoid, or disrupt gameplay

How can "code" interpret human intentions ?

It doesn't.

Share this post


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

"Care to explain these revolution charters and how they'd work?"

 

I would say use the forum "Search" function.

 

But I would hate for someone to have to point out the blatantly obvious to you.  

 

No offense.

Being petty gets us nowhere. I'll do us the honors and post what I found here, so the information is on hand.

policy and clan functional in some form will appear in the game. 

also there will be revolution charters - we are more and more like this idea. 

A clan owning the XX ports will be able to declare itself a separate, destroyed country (from a historical list). 

-Admin, Feb 1st 2016

 

I think its safe to say that this idea is LONG long forgotten, or has already been implemented with the hardcore nations. Either way the problem still stands, and solutions need to be found; and there ARE solutions beyond just playing the game differently

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I can think of some historical context that may help.

The British LET the Spanish take a known pirate port for them, then the Spanish withdrew for some unknown reason letting the British government reassert control over the colony. 

The British in turn gave the Spanish a colony back they had captured a year earlier.

 

So the point is... pay or ask another nation to take it, form alliances, work with others outside of YOUR nation to solve the problem.  

The tools are there, you just refuse to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define rogue? Maybe the one clan that opened the port is not rogue but the rest of the nation is? What makes a clan rouge? Because they think different than you? Who is right who is wrong?

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, z4ys said:

How do you define rogue? Maybe the one clan that opened the port is not rogue but the rest of the nation is? What makes a clan rouge? Because they think different than you?

Now take this exact mentality to diplomacy, "What makes your clan right and my clan wrong?" "No I do not agree with that sir!"

You know what settles this? A fight. Because who are we to decide what is the right and wrong decision in a nation, and who are we to verbally convict another because of theirs?

The two sides fight, the side with the most and best players is right. Thats how it should be settled. Voting with your hands, so to speak.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd first embargo their contracts before anything else. Also contract a foreign power to intervene.

That part of social aspect is also content.

  • Like 2

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

×