International Diplomacy

[Powderhorn]

It looks like the International Diplomacy is the favored option for Development Plans Prioritization 2. It would be responsible for us to discuss how to implement these and give the developers ideas on just how this could be done.

Important questions to consider:

1. Should National Governments differ from nation to Nation?

1a. If so, should nations be able to change governments, and if so how?

2. How do players have a voice in their governments?

2a. If there is a national leader, how is that person picked?

2b. If there is a council, how are those members picked?

2c. If straight democracy, what are the implications, and are they good or bad?

3. What is the role of clans in all this?

4. What is the role of pirates?

5. How can national charters be implemented to create new nations?

6. Should PvP and/or RvR have a basis in PvE content?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Powderhorn

[Arvenski]

I don't see how 1 and 2 are all that important. My opinion is to just make to so that some nations are allies and some nations are enemies, try and balance it so that the nations of one side have roughly the same number of players (or if another balancing method can be found, that's fine too) as the nations on the other side, and let the players duke it out for a month or two. After that time has passed, reshuffle the alliances so that everybody's got a new set of allies and enemies, and let the fighting go on again. Occasionally, the devs might have to intervene if one nation is getting clobbered (maybe switch them over to the other side, or whatnot), but unless there's a crisis, they should just let the war happen. It can't be hard to beat the player-made diplomacy bollocks that we've got now...

Edited March 24, 2016 by Arvenski

[Powderhorn]

So you're advocating for international relations to be made artificially made from the developers, rather than organically from the players?

(It's a stance I disagree with personally, but must of course be welcome in what will ideally be a community brain storming session.)

[Henrik]

4. What is the role of pirates?

 

 

Well it is quite clear how you stand on that matter now is it!

[William the Drake]

Whatever the international diplomacy system, I truly hope it does not come with the ability to be dictated by one person in said nation: that is just asking for griefing and abuse. The same could be said of having clan-run diplomacy: a zerg clan (who may or may not participate in global conquest) could ruin the whole system.

I don't necessarily think it should be random, and I really want players to have a say in it, but knowing MMO players, as sophisticated, civil, and polite as we would like to see ourselves as, I really don't see a player-run mechanic really working, at any level. I seriously think it needs to be done via AI/Random.

Or perhaps have war/peace/and alliances implemented depending actions in game? For example (hypothetically) if Big bad England with their highest player population is bullying poor little France, the game could

• A have Sweden/Norway/Spain (A faction who is close/next to French AO) declare alliance with France (and thus War on England)
• A third party (U.S.A./Spain) Declare war on England (no alliance necessary with France
• Have any alliances England has broken (from alliance to peace)

I guess you could have war declared based on aggression by players (kind of like a map-wide "unrest" like PotBS had with ports) but again I feel that could be gamed and abused.

Also, not sure if gov't type matters. Seams a bit superfluous at this point; mostly seeing as almost all the nations, save the U.S., are monarchies, and even with the U.S. Sailors (or even citizens for that matter) do not vote on who to ally or go to war with, so that would be pretty similar.

Edited March 24, 2016 by William the Drake

[Arvenski]

So you're advocating for international relations to be made artificially made from the developers, rather than organically from the players?

Yes. What the players have made and are dealing with right now, is, in my opinion, a mess. 

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

It looks like the International Diplomacy is the favored option for Development Plans Prioritization 2. It would be responsible for us to discuss how to implement these and give the developers ideas on just how this could be done.

Important questions to consider:

1. Should National Governments differ from nation to Nation?

1a. If so, should nations be able to change governments, and if so how?

2. How do players have a voice in their governments?

2a. If there is a national leader, how is that person picked?

2b. If there is a council, how are those members picked?

2c. If straight democracy, what are the implications, and are they good or bad?

3. What is the role of clans in all this?

4. What is the role of pirates?

5. How can national charters be implemented to create new nations?

 

1. No, keep it simple for now. Maybe later we can revisit this.

2. No leader, no council, just a virtual King or whatever you wanna call it leader, which passes votes on which people can either vote or pass. Players can press suggestions to the virtual government and popular motions are then voted upon, at a certain rate.

 

For instance, a Spanish clan decides they want to take over a USA port, but the nations are neutral/not at war. They cannot buy a flag out right, they need to press the claim to the Spanish King. If more than say 10% of the Spanish pop presses the claim (the clan would have to convince other clans or their own members if they are big enough to press the motion), then the motion is moved to a referendum. The referendum would be available for all Spanish players to vote yes, no or simply abstain (either directly, or passively by not opening the motions/referendum interface). If the vote comes up as a yes, a server-wide message says that the King of Spain has declared a regional / land contestation war on the United States with the caseus belli "Take port X". Other motions can then be pressed for other ports, and voted upon again, etc. There could also be an "all out war" motion that if voted by the majority, would allow both sides to buy unlimited flags, etc.

 

In the same way, wars could be stopped by motions, voted upon, etc.

 

3. None whatsoever, keep it down to the individual members and private. Clans can however try to sway their members to vote as one. More power to them if they actually manage to do it.

 

4. A whole other subject, but I can imagine a similar system for them, where the default is war with everyone and where they can propose a motion to work as privateers for a nation, or have cease-fires... but not "peace"... No such thing as peace for pirates. Then again, pirates as a nation doesn't work too well, IMHO they should be able to use nation flags to pass as nationals and even play a role in swaying votes in all/any nations, covertly.

 

5. No new nations, because everyone and their mother will want their own and we'll end up with 956 nations and the notion will lose it's sense.

[Arvenski]

5. No new nations, because everyone and their mother will want their own and we'll end up with 956 nations and the notion will lose it's sense.

Agreed. 

[Powderhorn]

A few things: I had, in my mind, just assumed everyone wanted a player-driven diplomacy mechanic with an interface and all that. My own mistake, and I'm glad others are pointing out that that was a bit narrow of me.

National Charters are something that Admin has pointed out as something the team wants to do, so if it's not a good idea in your opinion, I'd argue it.

As far as where I stand on the pirates, I asked a question. Anything you derive from THAT is your own projection on me.

[mouse of war]

There will always be a tension between the idea of historical nations and the clans within those nations - this two level power structure is not working

1. Rogue clans that don't follow national policy undermine alliances - which is fine except though the rogues act outside national policy they are immune from any consequences

2. Supra-national player bases artificially unite multiple nations in permanent alliance

I believe that clans are the base unit of politics and policy.

If a clan has an alliance with another clan (of whatever 'nation') then you should be able to fight alongside that clan, share it's ports etc.

If a clan has declared war with another clan (of whatever 'nation') then they should be able to fight against them and capture their ports

[Powderhorn]

I believe that clans are the base unit of politics and policy.

If a clan has an alliance with another clan (of whatever 'nation') then you should be able to fight alongside that clan, share it's ports etc.

If a clan has declared war with another clan (of whatever 'nation') then they should be able to fight against them and capture their ports

Could you explore this more deeply? What you're suggesting sounds like it would effectively make each clan a de facto nation, if not de jure. This may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing.

Could you lay out different scenarios under your idea, and follow them through to how they might play out?

[ulysse77]

Hard to think of a perfect system, where everything is player controlled without any grief. I keep thinking of Europe Universallis system of war and the cassius belli, the reason of war. Maybe we can have different states of situation between nations  from allies to enemies.

 

Here`s a few relation ship status your nations could be: Allies, friend, neutral, enemies, war and peace treaty. At resest all nations would have a status with another nations: So France is a enemy of England. France can attack AI ship or Player but are not at war. After so many attack on each side, you are at war with each other, you can then attack each other port, but the system would create a reason of war, let say brits have a claim on Martinique. So the war start and if Britain hold all the port on Martinique for lets say a week, then a treaty is declared and all port of that island switch to Britain, all other port captured is reverted back to previous owner. And you can attack them for a few days, Once truce is over, you fall back to enemies. Some other nations would start at friends, you can`t attack other side player or AI, at neutral,  you can only attack AI, and at allies you can enter other nations port and join them in battle. If there`s no attack between enemies for a while they drop to neutral. Friends come from neutral nation who attack the enemies of your enemies .  and allies from two nations who are at war with a 3^rd one.

 

Anyway just an idea...

 

All the status change would be from the sytem, but would represent action made by players

Edited March 24, 2016 by ulysse77

[Powderhorn]

Ulyssee77, in your scenario, how would initial causus belli be assigned, if attacking a player neutral to yours turned said player pirate? Would it just come from sinking AI vessels, or something else entirely?

This raises another question: Should PvP and/or RvR have a basis in PvE content? I'll add the same to the OP.

[ulysse77]

well maybe the cassus belli would be assigned by the AI, based on where most action took place... Attacking a neutral player would not turn you pirate but maybe could psu you toward ennemies, (pretend it`s diplomatic incident)

 

PVE i think needs to be tied to RVR in some ways... Personnally it truly break immersion right now when i see tons of AI fleet sitting around another nation port, i understand it`s purpose is to grind but still annoy me in some ways.

 

 

I think the only other way to have full player diplomacy is trough clan and clan alliance. even though it`s not historic.

Edited March 24, 2016 by ulysse77

[Powderhorn]

So caussus belli would be randomly generated, and players would have to, as a nation, choose to accept or ignore it? (Please clarify if I'm not grasping your meaning.)

If so, how would players vote? A straight democratic "yay or nay" for all players? Clan leaders?

Further, how would you tie in PvE?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Powderhorn

[ulysse77]

no vote, you wouldn;t have any choice... in the matter...  you could tip the AI (lets call it admiralty in lack of better term) with you action.

 

lets say you are already enemies with another nations you can attack the other nations and AI fleet, each battle would send point to a pool.... if the sum off all the battle on OW reach a certain point a war would be declared between those two nations, admiralty would look at the map and where most actions took place, lets say around haiti and would say France at war with britain over Haiti, The war would end either when all the british port on haiti are captured by france and held for lets say 3 days, or if france fail to capture all port in a week, if France capture all the port in haiti and win the war, they keep the ports in haiti, all the other ports anywhere on the map would return to britain.

 

this is just something out of my head, didn`t really tought it trough, but im going on the basis that we are NAvy captain, no politician, we have to follow some "orders" and the only way to achieve that is if the "politician part" is not a player... in my opinion

 

on and PVE could tie with this in the mission generated could be in that area.... maybe those missions could help in teh decision to call for peace.... like if you attack so many AI fleet, france only need to hold to port for two days instead of three

 

Pirates in this scenario would be at war with everyone all the time...

Edited March 24, 2016 by ulysse77

[Powderhorn]

You don't need to hedge with "in my opinion" here This is really just a place to brainstorm ideas and see how they might play out.

Diplomacy is going to take a lot of hard thinking, something we as a community MAY be able to ease the burden of for the developers so they can code it.

[GrapeShot]

Using the same "we're ship captains not diplomats" logic mentioned above I've long argued that diplomatic relatonships should be meta to the game and out of the hands of clans.

One of the key facets of friendly/hostile relations would be the ability to port in friendly countries ports, establish trading posts in them, and the chaos that would result to trade from the declararion of war

As always, I say think trade, rather than artificial capture flags and timers, and you'll have a reason for pvp that is organic to the game.

And of course piracy is an economic rather than a diplomatic activity, and should be reworked -- citizen/scofflaw/pirate -- 3 tiered approach from honest trader through smuggler to out right thief with port access adjusted accordingly.

Edited March 24, 2016 by GrapeShot

[Powderhorn]

Grapeshot, who would you want to determine war and peace status, and how would you like that determination to be made?

[GrapeShot]

Either AI or a NA dungeon master. I would prefer the later assuming they could find somebody creative enough to make a backstory for the diplomatic mischief.

Of course the downside to that approach would be the players crying about bias and what-not.

Edited March 24, 2016 by GrapeShot

[Sam32120]

I feel that diplomacy should be decided by players. This would be a 3 tier system involving war/neutral/allied

War-no holds barred conquest and battles

Neutral-only ow battles no port caps

Allied-allied nations are treated as 1 nation with 2 flags and seperate diplomacy

Now the big question is how the players control this

1)only the top 3 clans(by size) can initiate a vote

2)for 24hrs after the vote is called all players in the respective nation can vote yes, no, or abstain

3)when a nation wants peace they must follow steps 1 and 2 and then the opposing nation also gets to vote(so that no one is forced peace by the enemy)

4)after a clan calls a vote there is a 3-7day cool down before they can initiate another vote

Pls let me know if you have any questions????

Edited March 25, 2016 by Sam32120

[Powderhorn]

Of course.

A couple ideas on my own I want to spit-ball, that I'll try to develop more when I'm not doing this from my phone:

Diplomatic options clan driven but player voted. Essentially clan leaders (of clans say, of 10 or more players?) can vote on an action, and, say, 75% agree, action goes to a player vote.

Player vote might be a simple up/down majority rules to "ratify" a declaration of war, peace, etc.

As far as national charters go, they could be good, requiring 150 players to sign on and take a port as a capital. However, would that capital be able to be taken, or not? Maybe it would have to be held for... a month? in order to gain "uncapturable" status.

[Prater]

I think the first iteration needs to be simple.  Have the game calculate the typical daily active player amount per nation.  Somehow take into account the ranks.  Try to calculate a national strength based off this.  Break up the nations into 2-3 groups based off this.  Allies can enter friendly ports, but pay a heavy tax in the store (to prevent resource stealing).  A side effect would be if you have an outpost, and it is captured, and after the war you find yourself allies with your previous enemy, you can get your stuff back sooner.

 

Have some type of victory conditions.   When one side meets the condition, switch up the alliances.  The victory conditions would need to be made so as a nation cannot be destroyed.  One condition could be each nation has a set amount of home ports other than the capital.  If one of these ports is captured and held on to for a week, that side wins the current war.  These home ports are returned when war is over.  The map is still dynamic because non-home ports that are captured are not returned.

 

Let's try something simple like that for a month and see if it works?

[FireBush]

Ok this is a big one. I feel the nations should have different governments based on what the actual government was. These governments should be controlled by players. How is where things get tricky. Lets assume the war system is something like you are at war ally or peace with the other nations (trying to focus on the governing not the how or way of politics). A country like the US is a democracy so every player (maybe every clan instead, its just easier to use clans as political parties) would vote on an action (war, treaty terms etc). 1 or 2 of the monarchies might be NPC controlled complete with stories about why they are going to war (maybe outsourced to the community on forums?). Where pirates and neutrals come in is allowing players to switch sides when they dont agree with actions. These 2 groups would have more of a tribal government system where only clans can take ports and there are expenses to trying to get things like top tier ships without the sovereign. You could go pirate or neutral then earn a pardon with a nation later lets say. Basically there should be a different way(RNGesus, STV voting, Majority Based 2 party voting, etc) for each nation to choose the leaders that choose the direction of that nation. Then overall to get things like top tier shipyards and things in ports the nations have to meet different goals based on the population size of the nation (pirates and neutrals would have to pay large amounts and have a clan owned port to get the same benefits as the nations and only for clan access.) It also allows things like treasure fleets and raids to be triggered based on national goals. (pirates can not trigger treasure fleets or raids of their own but can steal from any nation. Neutrals may have some care bear method to trigger smaller raids but no treasure fleets).

[Michael JD]

I believe it is unacceptable for a group within a nation to dictate whether or not I can sink/kill/capture a member of another nation.  I think we can see the obvious lack of success that a council has done for the United States of America.  I find it especially Ironic that you caused one of the largest clans in the faction to defect to pirate thanks to your antics.  Look at how eve online's political structure: their loose political infrastructure has created one of the most famous if not infamous in gaming history.