Open letter to Game Labs regarding RNoN and DRUNK.

[Erik Eriksen]

The whole situation is bad and will only frustrate more people to leave the game. These smaller nations needs everone working together to stand a combative chance versus the bigger nations. If we cant have peace agreements that works and lets us focus fire then we stand litle chance in the long run. One can only feel the frustration of some aspects of this game more and more these days.

 

Lets hope this diplomacy update gets here sooner rather then later.

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

I think every nation has had problems with uniting the nation and making every head facing the same way. This is also part of the game. Although i may not agree with DRUNK's way of adressing their disagreements with their nation's diplomacy, i have to give them credit for having fun(where the game is about after all)

[Sir Robert Calder]

It is good that a majority of players on your faction are willing to come to a compromise and create a council that puts forth democratic decisions for your faction's survivability. On the other hand, DRUNK players should not be taken to the tribunal by playing the game as it's presented in its current state. With the introduction of diplomatic mechanics, it's my hope that players who decide to disrespect the faction's overall diplomatic aims will be treated immediately as a pirate -- just as the current game already treats traitors attacking the nation they've pledged allegiance to.

 

Until then, DRUNK is perfectly within their right to disobey their faction's council. While I understand that can be frustrating, [DRUNK] should simply be labelled as not representative of your council's actions and ultimately left to their own devices. No need to lambast their players or call foul play.

[charognard666]

Well, Drunk and Rnon are 2 abominations, but they re in their rights. It's to your nation council to make them enter in your council politic line. If you can't, you can tackle them and help your allies by giving informations about your rogue clans. 

 

In fact all we need to solve this problem is a clan vs clan war option, in order to turn them red.

[Belize]

Well, Drunk and Rnon are 2 abominations, but they re in their rights. It's to your nation council to make them enter in your council politic line. If you can't, you can tackle them and help your allies by giving informations about your rogue clans. 

 

In fact all we need to solve this problem is a clan vs clan war option, in order to turn them red.

 

As long as KF and HRE Members are insulting us, i dont see any chance at all to be part of this so called council. beside Nortman nobody of DRUNK ever got punished for insulting in the chat. And i also never saw someone of us insulting in the chat.

 

and to be honest, in the early hours after the downtime, the sweden chat is nice and friendly, as long as some "special" people from the big clans are not online and make the chat toxic.

 

And for me its impressive that 2 such "unimportant" clans can create such a huge impact within 2 factions. Everybody know whats up, anybody knows that RNoN and DRUNK are just small clans dont follow the lines of their "councils", and nevertheless you fear a War between Swe and and Denmark?

[charognard666]

Well some times ago we had the same problem in the french nation with lmo, but by talking with them we succes to make them à part of our council and make them working with us. Why cant u make the same and working together for your entire nation and stop your ego war ? In fact at the end you ll simply succes to puting your nation in a very bad situation...

An another solution is simply to display clan tag in OW

Edited March 29, 2016 by charognard666

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

The fact why people make such a fuss about these small rogue clans is beyond me. People know by now that these clans do not follow their nations policies. People act like they are ruining the nation while these rogues are only a small part of it.

If it takes this little effort to upset the entire nation, I think they have reached the goal of a rogue clan: creating choas, and making their name bigger.

Untill there is no diplomacy feature in NA, I dont see anything wrong in their action. (Not saying i agree with them)

Tldr: Grow a pair of balls untill a national diplomacy feature is implemented. The bigger clans should be above these legal provocations by minor rogue clans.

[Dala]

yep from now on we should ignore the fact that they capture ports ans so on.

[Guest]

People act like they are ruining the nation while these rogues are only a small part of it.

If these small parts just do some PvP wirh nations you are in peace with nobody would care. But when they do start Port Battles on ports that have been negotiated between major clans of two nations than this is going upset these two nations and making chaos.

[Ronald Speirs]

This game can turn toxic at times, well it has gotten worse ever since PB were added, the tribunal posts about "rogue clans" are a jokes and should be deleted, maybe we need a reset and shutdown port battles and go back to just OW battles for now till we find a better solution, less stress and anger till they have a diplomacy system ready, though i do fear that if it isn't implemented right that it could cause a multi nation power and cause more issues then its intended to fix.

[Vaan De Vries]

We need a diplomacy system that will allow the majority of nation to ban such pirate scum from the nation. Because unfortunately currrently there is not much anybody can do.

 

From the global perspective of RVR nation should capture and defend ports. Clans like DRUNK can only capture undefended port of gank someone. Therefore they are no use for their nation. They play only "how they want to play" and that's their right. Now Devs should give nation the instruments to ensure decisions of nation councils (of the clans able to participate in RVR) so now nation can play "how the nation wants".

 

Like being able to give loyal nation captains to attack these "privateers" on sight and don't allow them to dock at the nation port. If they wanna play pirates - let them play pirates. This will fix the problem of such rogue clans oncce and for all.

 

P.S. If you don't care about your nation and don't wanna be a part of it (and DRUNK obviously don't care, that in rea lwar against the Danes Sweden would be reduced to one port, especially when at the same time engaged in the war with us) nation shouldn't care about you. If you wanna play for yourself - play pirate.

 

P.P.S. Currently everything is messed up in game. Pirates capture port after port sailing SOLs and doing all nation stuff. And at the same time we have shitload of rogue clan gankers sailing under nation flag but playing like a pirates...

Edited March 29, 2016 by Vaan De Vries

[Nash]

that moment when pirate has better way to solve thing than nation

if a small clan in pirate goes "rogue" other pirates can sink them 24/7 but as a nation we dont have such "tool"

Edited March 29, 2016 by Nash

[The Spud]

The resemblance with real life politics is fantastic. The people decide it would be for their best intrest that we would start a sort of "governement" (read council). This creates a platform of democracy as it represents the majority of players in that nation. And it can be a platform of comunication between nations. The resemblance doesn't stop there though.

 

Most people will not question the authority of this governement, but some will say that this governement is not dealing with the best interest of the nation and start to rebel (like Drunk does).
Drunk is saying, don't mind us, just let us do what we want to do. As the council is against these actions this makes DRUNK outlaws and traitors of the nation.

As the majority of the council, representing all players in the swedish nation, are against attacking the danes, you should agree to disagree and stop attacks on denmark.

[admin]

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

[mouse of war]

LOSS free. You die, nothing happens.

 

Captain Obvious strikes again!

[Dala]

the risk of pve nations is extreemly small as it would require a mutual agreement from bith sides for an alliance to happen.

in addition the drive for pvp is large. But it must be some controll. Chaos is exhausting

[Nash]

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

 

Make it 80% and 20%, since 51% is no good enough

[Baron Quertier]

Doesn't matter what percentage, why should any amount of players who paid the same price for the game have to do what a handful of 'elected' players say. Some of the good people of EDR wanted to brand the small guild I belong to as pirates because we didn't want to follow the 'command' of CSNF. Well I didn't elect or vote for anyone to 'take command'. We sorted our differences out by talking and We are still on a friendly footing, we don't get in eachothers way at all.

[arikuza]

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

 

How about one free nation? If you want alliances, peace/war treatment, just separate from your nation and be free! Like pirates. But pirates have negative connotations, and pirates - just one part of big free nation.

[Vaan De Vries]

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

51% vs 49%? Really? Areyou kidding me? From what we are seeing in this thread and the one nearby it's more like 95% vs 40..people! This games is about Nations! If you wanna let every small group of pleyers do what they want then disband the whole nations thing and historical resemblance and let it be just multiple wars between different clans. 

 

If any small group of players (10%) wanna do smth different than the majority of nation - let the nation ban this group into Pirates - cause that's what pirates actually did in RL and should do in game - playing as they want listening to nobody (until they would be sank, of course).

 

For now we have Pirates playing as a kick-ass Nation (on PVP1 they are holding about 1/3 of all ports) sailing in SOLs and capturing ports like crazy and we have a lot of rogue clans in different nation who don't participate in RVR and just wanna gank every player from the nation(s) they personally don't like (essentially playing like Pirates should do - outcasted, outlawed and listening only to themselves).

 

Few simple mechanics (Restrict pirates from sailing on SOLs, restrict pirates capturing ports, add nation the abilities to ban players from the faction) and everything will be in order again.

[Baron Quertier]

I think the 51% and 49% were just an example from admin, don't get you knickers in a twist.

[Fletch]

There is nothing wrong with the current system in my opinion.

No body can force anyone to play the game a certain way. The only rule, set in stone is you cant kill your own team mate without being made a pirate.

Diplomacy is driven by big clans but they cannot and should not be allowed to control what every single individual does under his nations flag.

Some leaders in games are truly great people worth following, more often than not though leaders of clans and online guilds are hyper sensitive drama queens with over inflated egos. Should the entire population be made to follow the whims of one of these types?

Under the current system a charismatic figure with patience and hard work should be able to unify a nation or at least the vast majority of it. Should a major clan leader be able invoke a rule that makes people follow his wishes?

Never in a million years for me.

Stop asking the devs to spoon feed and micro manage people for you and start doing your own diplomatic work instead.

[Mighty Bouff]

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

 

Or just leave it as it is, works fine as far as I can see. If (player designed) councils agree a ceasefire etc that is up to them, if they can't police it between themselves (using existing game mechanics) then clearly they aren't strong enough to dictate terms.

 

Any imposition by a 'majority' on the rest of nation is going to end badly. How many alt accounts do you think would get created, or people switching nation for one day, to 'fix' the result?

[Vaan De Vries]

Doesn't matter what percentage, why should any amount of players who paid the same price for the game have to do what a handful of 'elected' players say. Some of the good people of EDR wanted to brand the small guild I belong to as pirates because we didn't want to follow the 'command' of CSNF. Well I didn't elect or vote for anyone to 'take command'. We sorted our differences out by talking and We are still on a friendly footing, we don't get in eachothers way at all.

 

Because the game is marketed to be about NATIONs fighting during age of sails. The majority of NATION should have right to restrict the minority. And if minority don't like it this minority should be hunted down like pirates. When you are choosing to play in a nation (not as a Pirate) you became a Nation's officer. What typically was done to the officers who didn't follow orders. Such officer was court marshalled. Any other way it's not possible to maintain the Nations concept - better then disband nations completely and introduce just clans fighting in a Naval setting.

 

There are 2 ways to inflict the Nation policies:

1. By voting among biggest clans participating in RVR (again, because game is mainly marketed as RVR game)

2. By explicitly managing nation allies/enemies by devs.

 

I prefer the first way cause it has more "sandbox" feeling, but I will accept the second way, too.

 

Currently when we have nations only "on paper" but there are a lot of people playing as pirates but sailing under nations flags it breaks the game. In some time people will start to leave because of that. And it will be actually more people than the small groups disrupting national policies.

[Nash]

Doesn't matter what percentage, why should any amount of players who paid the same price for the game have to do what a handful of 'elected' players say. Some of the good people of EDR wanted to brand the small guild I belong to as pirates because we didn't want to follow the 'command' of CSNF. Well I didn't elect or vote for anyone to 'take command'. We sorted our differences out by talking and We are still on a friendly footing, we don't get in eachothers way at all.

 

we might need civil war then xD

you can overthrow the current "supreme leader" with yourself