War and Peace

[vazco]

As Christendom mentioned, the only way to do this  - to force some system on people - is to do this clan based, and probably have clan owner decide. If people don't like decisions, they can always leave clan and form their own - which gives balance to all decisions.

Unlike Christendom though, I think current diplomatic system works just fine. Everyone knows whom he can or can't attack. Clan system will solve some problems and introduce others - the main one being snowballing due to very limited access to resources, and huge barrier of entry for new clans. This would have to be addressed - then clans would probably work great.

[Fenris]

3 minutes ago, vazco said:

Imagine a real situation from the game - Danes have BF, who has their enemies and friends, and rest of the nation has their own enemies and friends. How voting would work for them? If vote goes bad for one side, they would simply go around the system. You can't force people eg. to screen for someone just because some system decided they're allied. You also can't force people to not to screen for someone - for the same reasons

Just blame the unpredictable, notorius BF

 

[vazco]

1 minute ago, Fenris said:

My only problem is that EVERYONE needs a clan then, even independents, casuals, PVE players, and so on. and if they are not on a friendly list, they can easily be attacked, which leads to same old "gonna leave the game, getting ganked all the time" under circumstances.

It's easy to fix - if you're not in the clan, only other nations can attack you. Thats how it's sometimes done in other games.

[vazco]

Just now, Fenris said:

Just blame the unpredictable, notorius BF

 

That's not only BF. We have the same problem in every nation. Iroquis Confederacy in Commonwealth, Onion Knights in US, Cabal in Sweden, 7UP and DedWhateverTheirName clan in Dutch. I don't even mention GB. It's a repeatable pattern.

[Fenris]

Just now, vazco said:

It's easy to fix - if you're not in the clan, only other nations can attack you. Thats how it's sometimes done in other games.

So if not a clan member, then you are a nation member and clans cant attack you? What about smaller clans, 1 man clans? If they don`t make it on the friends list?

[Fenris]

Just now, vazco said:

That's not only BF. We have the same problem in every nation. Iroquis Confederacy in Commonwealth, Onion Knights in US, Cabal in Sweden, 7UP and DedWhateverTheirName clan in Dutch. I don't even mention GB. It's a repeatable pattern.

Ok, was trying to make a joke, didn`t work. My fault.

[vazco]

4 minutes ago, Fenris said:

So if not a clan member, then you are a nation member and clans cant attack you? What about smaller clans, 1 man clans? If they don`t make it on the friends list?

It was already discussed before. The conclusion as I remember was that you can't attack other clans in your nation unless you're on the enemy list with them. In your case then a single person clan would have to be quite aggressive in some way to be targetted.

[Fenris]

1 minute ago, vazco said:

It was already discussed before. The conclusion as I remember was that you can't attack other clans in your nation unless you're on the enemy list with them. In your case then a single person clan would have to be quite aggressive in some way to be targetted.

Well if it works that way, then it would be a good solution.

[vazco]

From diplomatic point of view clan-based RvR would work.

It just wouldn't work due to snowballing, unless it's adressed. If eg. a clan can block all trade in a given port, we'll have a situation like with introduction of rare woods - some nations were excluded from woods needed for RvR. A workaround was found - using alts. Without this walkaround, people would start quitting, as nation with advantage would have means of blocking others from competing with them. With clans, it can be the same.  It would be even worse, as it would life miserable not only for other nations, but also for clanless people and other clans. It's a huge potential for destructive power.

It can be solved though. Some percentage of goods produced by port should always go to nation and some to potential smugglers, just to avoid snowballing and to make game without alts possible. It would still get a big advantage to clans, yet wouldn't cripple others.

[van Veen]

To be honest, I do not think that clan based system would work. And since the devs are making historical games, I do not think, they will go for clan based RVR. 

But anyway, the suggestion I made was based on the fact that there is no official status of war and peace, and I think that this is something that is missing. Which attribute defines to which faction you belong (clan, nation) does not really matter. 

[Old Crusty]

3 hours ago, vazco said:

We already had alliances modeled in game and it didn't work.

It's next to impossible to create a system which would work with all diplomatic interactions between nations, as they're very complex, dynamic and non - trivial. There are situations when a nation is allied with half of another nation and in war with the second half. 

Nations already inform about their status on the forum. Building tools to simplify this would be ok. Building some artificial diplomacy limitations will never work. 

You obviously didn’t read my suggestion at limiting the amount of Nations a nation could ally with.

[jpjchris]

Nations will only work if mechanics are implemented for mass hierarchy. 

In the interest of realism, I would wholly advise against such mechanics for pirates. However, for nations? An intriguing idea, to say the least.

Edit: Inb4 politics simulator 2018.

Edited August 16, 2018 by jpjchris
For the lulz

[Old Crusty]

I am very saddened when I read all the responses about coming together as Nations and working together as teams.

   I have never seen so many selfish, hateful, egotistical, and just general shit attitudes in a single thread than I do with Diplomacy and getting people to play as a team.

[vazco]

21 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:

You obviously didn’t read my suggestion at limiting the amount of Nations a nation could ally with.

I did read your suggestion, it addresses only one problem of megaaliances. It doesn't address a different, bigger one - diplomatics in game are just like eg in Sengoku-Jidai Japan. They're much more interesting and complex than a simple peace and war mechanics. There are fractions, multi level treaties, betrayals and turns of events, leaders and contenders. There's even propaganda, limited casus bellis etc. 

No point of limiting this real diplomacy with something flat and one-dimensional imposed on players in game. We had this, it didn't work. 

Clan based system would just recognize that there are fractions. It doesn't mean that there would be only clan wars, as if clans work together they have a profit of working as an united nation and sharing resources, fighting against other nations. It just gives an ability to wage civil wars or separate diplomacy where it's already separated. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by vazco

[Farrago]

Clan owners should have options for their ports:

Only clan access

Only clans on friendly clan list

Only nation access

Open to all

Green on green is allowed

This encourages both clan and national diplomacy. It would give nations the ability to police their own waters.

If clans don't cooperate or allow other clans in their ports would see a drop in tax revenue and  could find themselves in a civil war.

Clanless or solo players could form their own clan and establish relations with other clans or they could continue to go it alone using national ports or smuggling.

A clanless player who wants to participate in RVR can temporarily join a port battle clan as a hired gun. 

A clan that farms its own new clanless or solo players could and should quickly arouse the ire of other clans.

For all this to work well, at least clan affiliation should be visible in OW. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Farrago

[Christendom]

Bottom line, the only way alliances work is if they are forced upon you via game mechanics... just like the old system.  With the inclusion of forged papers people now have the ability to switch alliances and it makes the stalemate we had last time of east vs west a bit less troublesome.   

Currently most of the larger nations have problems from within that end up putting off players and causing them to quit.  GB is and has always been a mess.  Same with the US.  France has timezone issues where the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.  Spain has internal issues with diplo policy.  In short, without forcing alliances on the entire nation doesn’t seem to work well when the game is broken up on the clan level that it currently is.  We need to go back to the old system or jump head first into the full clan based.  

People want to play the game how they want to play it.  Maybe some one who’s been around more than a month might find that to be selfish, but really it’s just preference.  Forcing players to be apart of a nation and having to cope with internal politics is just the wrong way to go.  

Edited August 16, 2018 by Christendom

[Hethwill]

[Christendom]

15 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

Devs forcing alliances or issuing missions to a nation to attack certain point is another way to go.  A better option than our current system I think

Edited August 16, 2018 by Christendom

[SeamanStaines]

10 hours ago, vazco said:

As Christendom mentioned, the only way to do this  - to force some system on people - is to do this clan based, and probably have clan owner decide. If people don't like decisions, they can always leave clan and form their own - which gives balance to all decisions.

Unlike Christendom though, I think current diplomatic system works just fine. Everyone knows whom he can or can't attack. Clan system will solve some problems and introduce others - the main one being snowballing due to very limited access to resources, and huge barrier of entry for new clans. This would have to be addressed - then clans would probably work great.

I don't agree that everyone knows or that the diplomatic system works. Only those that follow the forum (which is difficult) and those involved with negotiations have an up-to-date picture. . Even if an alliance is known, not everyone follows it. Often there are simply too many clans with different opinions to get any consensus. If (as suggested) when someone disagrees and forms their own clan the situation only gets more complicated. So despite imperfect mechanisms I believe an alliance system is required to bring some order to the chaos.

[vazco]

14 minutes ago, SeamanStaines said:

So despite imperfect mechanisms I believe an alliance system is required to bring some order to the chaos.

The problem is that alliance system will bring more frustration and chaos than order. Who should be responsible for setting the status? Why and how should he be chosen? What if majority don't like his decision, or if he goes inactive? Creating a system which supports all this on a nation level is an issue. This can work well only on a clan level.

In case of an automatic system which would enforce ROE, you can have a situation in which someone just betrayed you by eg. screening out your screeners, and you can't even join your screeners in a fight. You can also have a situation in which alts, or smaller yet dedicated clans with different views, influence the outcome of war an peace mechanics and impose bad diplomacy on others.

[Lovec1990]

I agree on aliances but it needs to be done by game and be RNG every start of new month during maitanence ai would randomly choose diplomatic situation between nations.

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

14 hours ago, Oberon74 said:

Any voting is a terrible idea.  It means that a possible 49% of players are unhappy.  Even if the win percentage is higher, you have no right to tell any other player how to play the game.

This is a by any alliances system needs to be clan based.  Would love to see a trade war feature to be used to trade ports to other clans in the same nation friendly like or by hostile take over.  

Cost could be VM to declare the war on one port of a clans.  You have one week to flip it and do the PB.  Only those clans can fight inside the PB.  Winner gets control of port.

make it costly with a long cool down to prevent abuse.

[Sir Texas Sir]

9 hours ago, Christendom said:

Devs forcing alliances or issuing missions to a nation to attack certain point is another way to go.  A better option than our current system I think

Didn’t one of the missions dev hinted at was like this.   Take a certain port?

[Hethwill]

Some clans don't do politics other than diplomatic incidents. Not on purpose mind you, but just because they read "enemy player", and "enemy player" has only one meaning really.

You cannot herd wolves into a sheep pen.

[Raf Van Boom]

I woudn't mind such a system in place, it seems well thought out - war should be driven by economics so if you beat one nation to a dust there should be an option for said nation to negotiate some sort of a ceasefire.

Perhaps it's time this game had some sort of a story behind it, cause right now it does not. What's the time period? Why is everyone at war, etc. There has to be a story or else anything that's done won't make much sense anyway.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Le Raf Boom