chappy

The entire port battle system has to be revamped from the ground up. I suggest people think from scratch about how it should look. not just adjust the current system Better UI and communication in game about what events and port battles are coming up. longer lead times to the port battles. meaningful pvp and pve around the port in order to trigger said port battle creates intense and valuable screening and open sea style conflicts (then a timer counts down for the port battle start) smaller/medium trigger events leading up to the main port battle in the 1- 2 -3 hours before it. (small ships, medium ships, 3rd rates) - qualification for a port battle attendance should be based on contribution to the zone in order to trigger the port battle. buying flags should be removed altogether

now all that remains is to lock and do away with the tribunal system too. getting there

puts a whole new meaning to dazzle paint

you know the thread has reached the bottom when you start talking about the thread itself. metathread

Hi aussie We have cross paths previously i think on the forums goodluck finding a new home mate unfortunately based on your checklist we kinda fail all your requirements you were SLRN before? have your tried AUSEZ yet?

Another successful PVP night for the clan saw our best turnout yet and longest and more active battle so far. We visited the swedes last night and patrolled through their northern areas basing out of Fort Baai as we waited for the stragglers to join up from Christianstad. Initial contact was a very unlucky traders snow caught on the blind side of the fort Baai island. He was quickly dispatched and his 2000 iron dumped unceremoniously over the side. (this was pvp night! no time for econ here!) A basic cutter did jump in and sat there and i can only assume his job was to prevent us leaving with the spoils (which we didnt want) quickly while a response fleet formed Sure enough once he had been sunk we spawned on the OS and a net of SOLs was present. It was something along the lines of 1-2 Pavel, Bellona, 3rd, 2 trincs a connie and 2 essex and some smaller stuff. At this stage with 3-4 of us still enroute we had no way of dealing with this size fleet so we sailed towards Baai and allowed them to tag us at long range. We then disengaged from that chase and docked at baai for a few minutes for drinks and letting the others arrive. The wind was a bit terrible for the inbound guys so 4 of us did a quick recon NE of Fort Baai and stumbled on an essex. This was intercepted and quickly dispatched as well, along with the obligatory (apparently) spam about no honour cowards blah blah blah. Once everyone had formed we travelled SE towards Plymouth. By the time we had reached Plymouth another 2 trincs and 2 frigates were sunk (an actual battle rather than a chase which was refreshing) The next leg involved an incursion into the french waters. It was fairly quiet for the most part until we hit the area around Terre-Basse. Here we encountered a french clan i think it was an accidental meeting and we commenced the engagement with them .While we had one extra ship we were outgunned as they had a 3rd, a connie, 2 trincs and a surprise it looked like it would be a fun fight that we may not be able to carry but it was late and we decided to have a crack. The result was actually quite satisfying although we were unable to hold the field against the 2 heavier ships we stripped off their trincs and the surprise for the loss of only one ship on our part and then disengaged. incredibly enjoyable night, thanks to all the members for coming along

looks like it was fun fight. well done both sides!

or it just happens to be when you play and wish to have content just like everyone else that plays this game...

More pvp happening this weekend for anyone interested in a change of pace and scenery. With more and more discsussion about the other servers it would be worth pointing out now that we will assist anyone looking to switch servers and or nations that plays in the AU timezone before and after the downtime period.

i play between 10-12 i reject your assertion that setting a timer to that period of the day is trolling.

hmm. got swamped by polls no one has comments?

So this is very much a hot topic at the moment and there have been some recent suggestion threads dealing with voting and how to assign votes and weight votes etc. I want to put forward an alternative method that relies somewhat on the elite dangerous mechanic for factions I am going to do so in dot points and try to outline the basic principles it supports rather than present a 2 page tome on the subject. The principles: - Good GUI that supports information and decision making for all players. outside of the clan interface and structure. - Active involvement in the game as the method to weight the vote or 'say' of the player (irrespective of clan membership) - port capture mechanics linked to pve and pvp activity that generate vote points for future diplomacy shaping - actions in game based on the diplomacy outcomes that further feed into the players ability to influence the direction of their nation - aka: support the current objectives in order to gain influence and thereby shape the future objects to your own viewpoint - hardcode diplomacy outcomes that fall out of the actions of players in building up their loyalty and voting weight over time. ie: no actual vote clicking to make a clearcut yay or nay decision on a diplomacy outcome. - clan blocs are naturally present simply by the organised voting of the members of clans together for objectives. no further hardcoding or emphasis is placed nor needed on the power of clans to shape policy. if they are large enough and active enough they will naturally have appropriate weight to shape policy over time. how it works; -A new layer is added to the choices a player makes on joining the game. choose a nation, but also at any point, opt in or out of joining the admiralty. ie; contribute to war aims and abide by game hard coded NAPs.(non aggression pact) not being admiralty means the player is a private individual or privateer. as one wishes to label it. up for discussion. -On joining admiralty, player has the ability to earn loyalty, rank, xp, vote points whatever you wish to call it by conducting pvp or pve against the current targets.(max points) or just against the current nations shipping overall (some points but not as efficient) -Targets are voted on once per x days. lets say 3 for arguments sake, adjust as balance requires. One must be in the admiralty to vote at all. -Targets are ports. Only x (lets say 2-3 for now) targets can be voted in each round. As a result the targets chosen define which nations your side is at full war with for that round. - the round commences and the players proceed to attack the targets selected. - under the new port conquest mechanic, the targets create zones around each port where pvp AND pve count towards a trigger point for the commencement of a port battle. PVP is worth more - the intent is that it takes roughly 24-48 hours to build up enough points to trigger a port battle, depending on the activity of the defenders in counteracting it. -The port battle can either be at the moment the trigger is reached or based on an improved port timer system that is it occurs x hours (set by the defenders) after a trigger has been reached. giving them warning and time to prepare. (open to discussion) - players pvping and pveing in the zone earn points towards their status in their admiralty. both defensive and offensive play at the same time earns points towards the trigger for the port battle. - defending nations players are earning points as well which offsets the attackers points. its a constant battle to advance the attackers points to the trigger. Balancing required to ensure there is a good mix of successful preventions and successful triggers. i suspect the attackers points would need to be weighted in their favour (ie worth more) - players can still earn admiralty points overall by attacking shipping elsewhere that belongs to the nations currently at war with them pve and pvp. pvp worth more, these points wont contribute to the target triggers though. - players can attack shipping of other nations provided the NAP mechanic has not been triggered for that nation - the NAP mechanic involves a hardcoded prevention of attacking another nations shipping if the overall level of violence between those 2 nations has been at or below a certain trigger value in the previous 2 rounds. - the NAP can be broken by the voting round where the target selected is a port owned by the nation currently holding a NAP due to low levels of violence previously. This is a national declaration of war. - nations that have a NAP enabled will be able to enter the battles in zones in support of that nation, both open sea and port battle final events. - voting weight is based on contribution in the round just finished.This means that while you may not agree with the previous rounds targets, if you assisted in prosecution you will have the greatest weight available to influence the next round. - there is nothing stopping clans or groups of clans from agreeing to vote on specific targets. indeed it makes sense to do so. additional optional balancing. successful voted targets: the targets may get more and more difficult to vote in based on the relative strengths (in numbers of ports) of the 2 nations. IE in order for the pirates to vote to attack the last british town available, it will require nearly 90% say of the nations weighted votes to do so. alternatively it may only require a simple majority of votes to attack a port of the danes who are equal in numbers of ports. what this does; it prevents voting blocs (clans) from taking the nation to a total victory scenario unless the vast majority of the nation back this step. this models war weariness and willingness to negotiate the end of a war and helps to reduce natural imbalances that see nations subjugated and unable to come back into a position of economic stability.

additional thoughts why does the system of wars have to be based on votes of some form anyway. why cant it be based on in game actions that require organisation and numbers applied over a period of time. eg: conflict zones around ports. where actions undertaken of a pvp and pve nature in that zone over a period of days contribute to a declaration of war, or more specifically a conquest attempt on that port. this creates low level conflict that builds over time to a crescendo and a finale of a large battle or war between nations a similar system is curerntly in use in elite dangerous for their faction based content. you sign up for a faction (like we do for a nation) and then you start contributing. by earning points, respect, loyalty whatever you call it, you gain greater influence over the targets chosen in the following rounds. clans can still function and even sway the general direction of conflict by working together on the same content and then voting together on the future rounds but the fundamental principles that i endorse are that the actual votes mechanic is indivdual based and that your weight as an individual is based on your activity in the previous round of content.

I'd be curious to know whether you are in a clan and which one you are in if you are? clans do not work like parties unless the game forces them to. Clans are social organisations that allow teamwork and their own defined economic and crafting cooperatives. They only have political power if the system gives it to them. That being said, even in a system that allows votes purely for individuals they can still wield some unofficial power by creating voting blocs. and this if any is really the way they should have influence in any diplo system. not by hardcoding the diplo system around the clans. why is restricting the number of clans a good thing? that to me seems like blocking people from freely associating if they wish to play the game fully. i think if the clans are given hardcoded powers that circumvent or marginalise individuals and smaller clans what you WONT see is players giving up their small groups to join larger groups, what you WILL see is people giving up the game they cannot play fully without giving up their own group identities and social groups if your answer is that bigger clans are better for organising the port battles etc then i would answer you in advance by saying that is because the game has not armed the smaller groups and individuals (as it needs to do) with the ability to organise and contribute through GUI and information irrespective of clan membership. You are viewing the problem perhaps through the prism of the existing strategic gameplay rather than thinking from first principles.

First issue. no form of government chosen should be a permanent imposition. It should only be for a duration. (and short at that, say a couple of weeks or a month). secondly the voting mechanic needs defining? simple majority aka 51%? will require at least 2 votes as you will have to have a run off of the top 2 options. allowing a single vote means the option chosen could be determined by a mere 34% of the population that votes (which would be less than say 20% of the whole population of a nation i would wager) 1: not bad. however the period should be shorter. say weekly. The main issue i see is that in order to get one person voted out of a large batch of nominations (and there will be a large batch of noms) requires again multiple rounds of voting unless you are willing to accept a single round winner which depending on the actual number nominated could be even less than 10% of the nation populations votes in favour of. 2: totally and fundamentally disagree with your assumption that only clan leaders can be included. and definitely disagree with it being restricted to the top x largest clans. This council mechanic cannot be predicated on clans. I have said this in another post and will repeat it here. Clans are in the game as a social and internally organised group of like minded individuals. They provide social connection, teamwork within the clan for pve and pvp, communication advantages (use of ts servers and clan forums) and facilitate private cooperatives of trade and crafting. What they arent and should NEVER be, is the key element of control of a nations population. This may be the preferred method now that *SOME* players have chosen but it is simply because the tools and mechanics offer no better method. If the game is designed well, the individuals (whether in clans or not) will be empowered to have their say as individuals. Of course clans can act as blocs in such a system but the membership or existence of a clan should not be a prerequisite for involvement in the games many facets. ever. 3. again requiring the clans, this time even more selectively than in option 2 to clear the vote in the first place means that your involvement of the general population in step 2 is only ever on what is already sanctioned by 2 people maybe 3. ie: the question asked is one that the top 3 clans want asked. such that if the top 3 clans of the french nation only ever want an alliance with the dutch, that is the question that will be repeatedly asked. the population remaining may actually all prefer an alliance with the swedes but that vote is never offered. again the fundamental problem is that you assume that clans are more important than individuals. They are not. If the game is designed properly then clans arent actually required at all to be actively engaged in the full content and scope of the game. and that is the challenge for the developers to create the mechanics that support this approach.

Correction grim, the actual suggestion is that players MUST follow what is an unproven majority which quite likely is actually the minority but organised and vocal.

Pure speculation you have no way of knowing how much of the population is in you clan as a % nor do you have a way of demonstrating that a democratic principle was followed. There is always a very silent majority of players that are non aligned or not in clans in these games, they remain quite invisible until official statistics demonstrate the breakdown of players and even if they did, there is no game mechanic or rule that requires players or clans to conform with other peoples conception of how the game should be played. If a player plays the game within the game mechanics and ruleset there is simply NOTHING that another player can complain about. Furthermore, if members of DRUNK or RNON or individuals have text chat evidence of abuse directed towards them they should submit it to the admins and mods. This sort of behaviour is at very least worth game based punishment, and at its worst is illegal in many RL nations laws as online bullying and should be treated very seriously.

VDD - DanishNorge Clan does not agree with or condone this thread or OP. Furthermore on a personal level i would like to say that the OP and anyone that encouraged him to place this thread, supported him or agrees with his sentiment should be ashamed of themselves for daring to try and dictate the play of another player or clan in an open world pvp game where that group have followed the in game mechanics legitimately. This is a despicable attempt to discredit a group who are simply playing the game as they wish to play it. No agreement was made between the 2 nations as there is no way for the 2 nations to make such agreement in the game The only agreement that exists is between those clans from both sides that voluntarily submitted to such an agreement. Those clans make up only a certain % of the populations of each nation. I would suggest it is closer to 50% than any outright majority as well, as the silent many simply dont pay attention or speak up or get involved.

One needs to be very careful about hardcoding a System that prevents a subset or even potentially the majority of the nations population in doing what they personally want as individuals or smaller clans. I would suggest that in many cases the nations are comprised of 50% large organised groups and 50% smaller clans and solo players. they each have a right to play the full content of the game in a manner they wish Your system rewards clan players primarily and large clan players at that. And your specific system further rewards rank over game time or activity, which is problematic. Why is a player that spent a lot of time levelling in pve 3 months ago and plays now 1 hour a week worth more than a new player who is active 5 hours a day and mostly pvps? and why is that pve player from 3 months ago worth even more because he chose a large clan and the new player hasnt? The answer you gave is based on, indeed assumes that clans are needed to provide the organisation for portbattles. This is unfortunately the case currently you are right however I disagree it should remain the fundamental avenue for strategic gameplay. System tools, communications and fleet mechanics are needed to provide the organisation not clans. The rework of the strategic and diplomacy system needs to be more than just who allies with who and who declares war. it needs to be a complete revamp of the UI to enable coordination and communication between players (not just clans) much more easy. Any individual , whether clan or not should be supported by mechanics that allow him or her to create a fleet (large fleets that people can physically join with a button click through a menu or window interface at a port) to engage in strategic gameplay. Any individual should be able to contribute to the decision if they want to about who is the current war target, and choose not to be involved as well. Any player, clan or not, should be able to get a persistent overview of what fleets are available for their nation, where they are and how to join in. Once you do this properly, the assumption that large clans provide the strategic layer becomes defeated. as it should. Large clans should provide social, organisational economic and teamwork related benefits to players who want those things but they should not drive the nations diplomacy. The overal population should. *if* you go with a vote system, that system should not be predicated on the assumption that being in a clan is worth more. and it should factor in activity within the recent past (hours this week, pvp kills or some other battle rating) rather than overall game time (rank) returning to the actual question of diplo, wars and alliances. (after the UI is built to support better information and coordination between all players of a nation) Why can't clans and even individuals declare wars or targets? if the larger clans are of similar mind they will all declare war on the same nation, if a player logs on and sees that 49% of the nation has declared against the brits then they can make an informed decision about that themselves as well. thus enabling their involvement in the port battles. But smaller clans should be able to say no thanks or even i'd rather declare a clan war on x nation. A further mechanic can exist that forms the majority of clan declarations into an official national war declaration at a suitably high threshold, say 75% with attendandt bonuses or benefits at reaching this % in favour. , however those that declared against another nation are given a slightly different mechanic whereby they are declared privateers for duration of the period and get a set of pvp mechanics that revolve around that sort of activity. (port raiding for money/cutting out expeditions etc) Alliances on the other hand are tricky.. i suspect this is something that can only be solved through a full national vote mechanic , which again should be about recent activity of the player in terms of their vote weight and should not be linked to the clan status of said player either. (and would require a majority of players from both nations to fully engage) There should probably be a limit on the number of alliances. perhaps 2. It is worth noting i am in a clan, although im arguing against clan power hardcoding, as i see it is in the greater interest of the game.

VDD PVP night Easter Monday was quite enjoyable thanks to the members that attended and thanks to the brit players that showed up to make it memorable. We combined with several other clans and conducted a conquest fleet for Bone Cay in the AU Timezone. Unfortunately we were unable to make the port in the allotted time however much fun was had with our shallow water fleet punching well above its weight in the open sea, taking down an equal number of british ships that were on average heavier, including 2 surprises, a belle poule a renomee and a cerberus and a motley collection of similar sized ships to ours. If other australian players are interested in getting involved from other nations feel free to pm me in game or on forums for coordination or even swapping nations

VDD still open for interested parties that would like to choose the path less traveled and think outside of the box. Happy to take cross nation recruits can assist with the move and setting up in the danish ports etc.

clan auctions meh clan warehouse definitely.

VDD had another solid night of PVP on saturday night with our latest recruits joining us, proving that rank is not a blocker to having fun and being valuable in PVP on the open seas Thanks to those who attended and well done on the collection of ships taken as prizes and sunk. The final tally was 2 frigates 2 Renomees and a traders Snow for no losses.

all this use of analogies is getting confusing so you are suggesting that if a mechanic can be determined as abuseable, anyone that manages to use said mechanic incorrectly. even if it was purely accidental should be punished... wow.. goodluck populating a server after you apply that rule

Someone walking through said unlocked door does not immediately infer intent to steal though does it. Once again intent is not proven