Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Open letter to Game Labs regarding RNoN and DRUNK.


Recommended Posts

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

Yea but what if this one clan does not agree which is 10%.

 

There should be a system where there is a list of Enemies and Alliances for each nation. Then each CLAN can choose for themselves.

For this particular topic:

 

List for Sweden:

Denmark-Norway --- Allied --- Enemies

                                   KF         DRUNK

                                  HRE

 

then the members of the DRUNK clan will be shown as enemies on open world for Denmark-Norway.

 

You should not take away the freedom of players in a sandbox game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Then why shouldn't I be able to attack people disrupting Nation policy from inside? This is MY WISH? Why can't I play as I want - hunting pirates scums hiding under the Nation's flag?

 

Again, there should be or there shouldn't be a Nation concept in game. If there is a Nation concept - then there should be instruments either managed by players or admins to ensure NATION's policies.

 

If this is a game where everyone "plays like he/she wants" then let's disband nations and introduce clan wars.

 

You are talking about minority people which are "just playing like they want". What about majority of people wanting to play like a nation and whose intentions are actually hurt by this small minority? How can we play as a nation when there is no way to control a few outcasts from within a nation.

 

At least let lord commanders of captured port restrict usage of nation ports to the ones acting on themselves. They don't wanna play as a nation, they don't participate in RVR but they enjoy all profits from it (like captured port access and resources). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

How many people will buy new steam account and level them to a certain level (because of course you can't let every Jonker to vote, make it at least cmd-capt) to disrapt national police?

 

Not many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea but what if this one clan does not agree which is 10%.

 

There should be a system where there is a list of Enemies and Alliances for each nation. Then each CLAN can choose for themselves.

For this particular topic:

 

List for Sweden:

Denmark-Norway --- Allied --- Enemies

                                   KF         DRUNK

                                  HRE

 

then the members of the DRUNK clan will be shown as enemies on open world for Denmark-Norway.

 

You should not take away the freedom of players in a sandbox game.

Then make DRUNK also be showned as an enemy for KF and HRE. And restrict DRUNK members from using port captured by KF and HRE.

 

Or better if you want completely "do as you want" game just remove nations from game and leave only clans. 

 

Devs should decide what type of game they are making. Cause I personally don't wanna play "everybody do what you want" type of game where minority of players use benefits resulted from hard work of nation "dictators" (benefits like captured ports and resources) but at the same time is actively hurting their nation interest.

 

There is a place in game specifically for players like this - Pirate nation where everyone is supposed to act like he wants. But in reality pirate nation is the best organised nation (who would expect) because of the ability to sink such outcasts "playing like they want" on sight. Add this ability to other Nations and then the problem of DRUNKs and others like them will go away itself.

Edited by Vaan De Vries
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say u add an Alliance system

 

there is 3 options for players who spent atleast 14 Days in that nation and is higher rank than lets say kaptain. (and Active within the last 7days)

 

your opinion of country 1 hostile / neutral / allied

country 2... and so on

 

to get allied with country 1 both need to vote above 50% for that, why not more than 50%? becuse there is 3 options. 45% might vote Alliance 50% might vote  neutral and 5 enemy

 

it would only take one of the 2 nations voting enemy for a hostile relation.

 

 

as i see it its quite simple. becuse if some of those players of a nation is really unhappy with the situation they can still go pirate.

 

as for what u could attack with the diffrent stances towards other nations.

i was thinking neutral should give 1x xp and allied 0xp 0 Money / hostile more xp and Money

why u should be able to attack allies? becuse sometimes u might wanna have friendly practice rounds or something. just a thought..

 

maybe i should post this in suggestions instead..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow the big clans to vote? I don't like it. It's still not fair on the rest. Vaan you talk about the real life historical aspect of being an officer in the nations navy and you are right about the court matial thing. But we are talking about players commanding other players who aren't in their guild, and telling them what to do or be punished.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say u add an Alliance system

 

there is 3 options for players who spent atleast 14 Days in that nation and is higher rank than lets say kaptain. (and Active within the last 7days)

 

your opinion of country 1 hostile / neutral / allied

country 2... and so on

 

to get allied with country 1 both need to vote above 50% for that, why not more than 50%? becuse there is 3 options. 45% might vote Alliance 50% might vote  neutral and 5 enemy

 

it would only take one of the 2 nations voting enemy for a hostile relation.

 

 

as i see it its quite simple. becuse if some of those players of a nation is really unhappy with the situation they can still go pirate.

 

as for what u could attack with the diffrent stances towards other nations.

i was thinking neutral should give 1x xp and allied 0xp 0 Money / hostile more xp and Money

why u should be able to attack allies? becuse sometimes u might wanna have friendly practice rounds or something. just a thought..

 

maybe i should post this in suggestions instead..

 

what you want is a duel option,

Duel  will be next to your attack and you only get in a duel when both sides say "yes"

 

for attack neutral, remember the time we have neutral in pvp? attack neutral will give you pirate flag xD

Edited by Nash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 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.
  • 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.

Pirates shouldn't be able to craft SoL's, but able to join any nation for 1.000.000 gold.

This way Drunk could leave Sweden, fight on and be able to rejoin any time after a mutual agreement.

People could switch nations when they start disliking their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow the big clans to vote? I don't like it. It's still not fair on the rest. Vaan you talk about the real life historical aspect of being an officer in the nations navy and you are right about the court matial thing. But we are talking about players commanding other players who aren't in their guild, and telling them what to do or be punished.

 

Then what is your solution as a small clan for this matter. I know that we cant tell everyone what to do, heck, even when people acknowledge me as battle commander, some guys still refuse to listen to me in a battle 25vs25. We will have minority in every situation. But we need to make the best out of it.

Edited by Nash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open World clan tags would go a long way to solve some of the problems.

 

 

I quickly realized I could be flying the swedish flag and as a swedish citizen and former history student, I instantly selected Sweden. Now, I live in the very southern region of Sweden called Scania, and it's right next to Denmark. This ofcourse means that I, once again former history student, got a urge to sink danish ships.

 

A former "history student" you say? If you knew anything about history, and you come from Scania, you'd not be so enthusiastic about fighting Danes. I guess it's true that the Swedish educational system doesn't teach the Scanian students about their history before the 18th century, and I would've excused you if you didn't say you were a student of history. 

 

 

Oh, and...

W0N7EFL.png

Edited by Niels Terkildsen
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, I do hope declaring war on a nation does not require that nation to also agree to war with a 51% majority...

Then make DRUNK also be showned as an enemy for KF and HRE. And restrict DRUNK members from using port captured by KF and HRE.

 

Or better if you want completely "do as you want" game just remove nations from game and leave only clans.

 

 

Sounds like EVE. Do not want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is your solution as a small clan for this matter. I know that we cant tell everyone what to do, heck, even when people acknowledge me as battle commander, some guys still refuse to listen to me in a battle 25vs25. We will have minority in every situation. But we need to make the best out of it.[/

What makes you think the game will be better if you allow a few clans to dictate what an entire nation can do?

Like I said before if you have a decent charismatic leader people will want to follow him. If it's just your normal over inflated ego drama queen that you often find at the top of many clans then people will quite rightly simply ignore the idiot.

If you cannot unite a nation then it could be time your nation got a new leader. It should not need the devs to do it for you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow the big clans to vote? I don't like it. It's still not fair on the rest. Vaan you talk about the real life historical aspect of being an officer in the nations navy and you are right about the court matial thing. But we are talking about players commanding other players who aren't in their guild, and telling them what to do or be punished.I

I am basically for any poitical system - even controlled by devs. I prefer system based on council of most RVR envolved clans, yes (for me it seems to be the most "rightfull" in RVR context to prevent PVE people to declare peace with everyone), but I will deter to any.

 

Basically I am for ANY political system as long as it allows to hunt people not following nation decisions AFTER it was somehow decided. Cause I want from this games real RVR and Nation experience not just "I am allowed to do as I want and to piss on the Whole Nation's peace deal and you still can't sink me". Cause it just ruins the whole "age of sail" game for me. And I suspect I am not alone. I even suspect more people think like I do, then like DRUNK people do.

 

Seriusly, isn't it funny that the most organized nation in game currently is Pirates? Just because if DRUNK clan were in Pirates and decided to disrupt Pirates alliance with Danes there will be enough people among Pirates to quickly send all the DRUNK sailors to become a fish supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is your solution as a small clan for this matter. I know that we cant tell everyone what to do, heck, even when people acknowledge me as battle commander, some guys still refuse to listen to me in a battle 25vs25. We will have minority in every situation. But we need to make the best out of it.[/

What makes you think the game will be better if you allow a few clans to dictate what an entire nation can do?

Like I said before if you have a decent charismatic leader people will want to follow him. If it's just your normal over inflated ego drama queen that you often find at the top of many clans then people will quite rightly simply ignore the idiot.

If you cannot unite a nation then it could be time your nation got a new leader. It should not need the devs to do it for you.

 

I can't imagine any "over inflated ego drama queen" actually controlling a clan of more then 10 people.

 

For me people who say "We spit on majority of Sweden not wanting to fight with Danes, I WON'T STOP my sacred war against them!" look more like a drama queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand its offtop but since even admin added his comment I would like to propose clan wars.

Keep current system as it is but if councils/admiralities/leadership wants to force one or another peace or war decision they can declare war against rogue clans and keep them docked untill they accept the council or disband clan ( having in mind that in the future it will be more benefits being in clan than just a tag).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is your solution as a small clan for this matter. I know that we cant tell everyone what to do, heck, even when people acknowledge me as battle commander, some guys still refuse to listen to me in a battle 25vs25. We will have minority in every situation. But we need to make the best out of it.

The only fair way to do this in my opinion is in a similar way to how I think the PB timer thing should be, and that is for it to be free of player interference. Apart from nations ruled by military dictatorship, most real world countries have a political system where the military has no say on how things are run in their country and the foreign policy. So I feel that NA should be the same. Players shouldn't be able to say "don't attack them because we are friends" when they are only really talking for their own guild. Now if there was some kind of 'party political system' where players can vote for a certain 'party', like every month for example. Each party has its own agenda and preferred enemies and so on. The 'party' then gives out fleet orders and when these orders are carried out players get some bonus gold or XP or whatever. Bit like admiralty missions but on a national level.

And perhaps allowing for some kind of 'dissent' mechanic or 'unrest' within a nation that can boil over into civil isn't so farfetched an idea.

It's not perfect but atleast it's not one group bullying another,

Edited by Morey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think the game will be better if you allow a few clans to dictate what an entire nation can do?

Like I said before if you have a decent charismatic leader people will want to follow him. If it's just your normal over inflated ego drama queen that you often find at the top of many clans then people will quite rightly simply ignore the idiot.

If you cannot unite a nation then it could be time your nation got a new leader. It should not need the devs to do it for you.

I never say lets big clan do what they want. I want some ideas from small clan members, you cant just tell people no then not contribute anything. And I'm in my 3 men clan at the moment so I'm not a big deal or anything.

And even when you united your nation, some guys will not happy about it and they will find a way to destroy everything...

Edited by Nash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only fair way to do this in my opinion is in a similar way to how I think the PB timer thing should be, and that is for it to be free of player interference. Apart from nations ruled by military dictatorship, most real world countries have a political system where the military has no say on how things are run in their country and the foreign policy. So I feel that NA should be the same. Players shouldn't be able to say "don't attack them because we are friends" when they are only really talking for their own guild. Now if there was some kind of 'party political system' where players can vote for a certain 'party', like every month for example. Each party has its own agenda and preferred enemies and so on. The 'party' then gives out fleet orders and when these orders are carried out players get some bonus gold or XP or whatever. Bit like admiralty missions but on a national level.

And perhaps allowing for some kind of 'dissent' mechanic or 'unrest' within a nation that can boil over into civil isn't so farfetched an idea.

It's not perfect but atleast it's not one group bullying another,

 

good idea on this. For every "enemy" nation you have 2 parties: friendly or hostile. If you join friendly, you can enter their ports for trading and helping during port battle (you can sink your counter part here, everyone happy). Obviously, we need a big cool down on switching party!

 

The only problem I see for this system is alt account, people will use this system to enter their enemy ports.

Edited by Nash
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good idea on this. For every "enemy" nation you have 2 party: friendly or hostile. If you join friendly, you can enter their ports for trading and helping during port battle (you can sink your counter part here, everyone happy). Obviously, we need a big cool down on switching party!

 

The only problem I see for this system is alt account, people will use this system to enter their enemy ports.

I personally think that with some fine tuning this system can work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

i would recommend the reputation system from jumpgate: classic...

 

best solution i ever saw for these kind of problems... 

 

if u want to check it out, play it for free @: http://jumpgate-tri.org/

 

 

every player has reputation to every nation in the game and by attacking players/npc of another nation u got minus rep and there nation turned hostile to u... if a lot of player did this, your nations turned hostile to each other... and of course u also got a small bounty on your head by attack a non hostile nation... if they were in war, there was no bounty

 

if u wanted to end your own hostility or the war, u were able to perform missions for the hostile nation (and of course every other in the game) to gain positiv reputation towards them... 

 

so if a lot of player decide to do special missions for another nation, u were able to get an alliance with this nation... 

 

jumpgatej_ssphsqs.jpg

there were no diplomatic system... the game reacts on how the players play the game... for me by far the best system i ever saw in over 17 years of mmo's

 

 

 

cheers, abuu

Edited by Abuu
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should just implement diplomacy, and all players who want to vote can vote pro or con a peace or war treaty. Lets say each nation can have one war treaty and one peace treaty. If you attack a nation you are at war with, you have an XP or gold multiplier (as a reward) and if you fight a peace nation you get a negative XP or Gold multiplier. So every player can still do whatever he wants to do, he would just be less pursuaded to do it. If as a sweed you want to fight the danes at 0,5x the XP and Gold go ahead.

 

As a side note, why would you insist on taking danish ports, if you want to cap ports, cap some other ports? Why would you specificaly want to sink Danes, sink some other nations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would recommend the reputation system from jumpgate: classic...

best solution i ever saw for these kind of problems...

if u want to check it out, play it for free @: http://jumpgate-tri.org/

every player has reputation to every nation in the game and by attacking players/npc of another nation u got minus rep and there nation turned hostile to u... if a lot of player did this, your nations turned hostile to each other... and of course u also got a small bounty on your head by attack a non hostile nation... if they were in war, there was no bounty

if u wanted to end your own hostility or the war, u were able to perform missions for the hostile nation (and of course every other in the game) to gain positiv reputation towards them...

so if a lot of player decide to do special missions for another nation, u were able to get an alliance with this nation...

there were no diplomatic system... the game reacts on how the players play the game... for me by far the best system i ever saw in over 17 years of mmo's

cheers, abuu

Too much PvE for a PvP game.

Peace through PvE isn't enjoyable IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow the big clans to vote? I don't like it. It's still not fair on the rest. Vaan you talk about the real life historical aspect of being an officer in the nations navy and you are right about the court matial thing. But we are talking about players commanding other players who aren't in their guild, and telling them what to do or be punished.

Eherm....for you DRUNK and RNON:

 

You get the choice to be in a nation or be a pirate when you create your character. The explicit question is this: How is your flag design and do you want the disadvantage of not being able to attack people with the same flag (there is a sort of protection in this mechanic since 99.99% from your own nation actually wants to play as a member of that nation and not turn pirate. The implicit question, which is not atm supported by game mechanics is this: Do you wan to play with organized diplomacy?. If you feel bad that someone or some mechanic might overrule your own egoistic preferences regarding who you should attack, you should chose pirate. As it is now DRUNK and RNON could belong to any clan, because their primary argument seems to be: Nobody should decide our diplomacy- We want to play the game as we see fit...and the game mechanics allows us to do that!- Well fine...you are playing according to the game mechanics, but do not pretend that you belong to a nation if you just want to follow you own nose. To be just a little honest you should have chosen "pirate" as your option.

Admitted as the game is now it is not transparent who has a majority or any other quantifiable reason for deciding diplomacy, but by the small numbers of DRUNK and RNON compared to the people who used a lot of time making some sort of diplomacy for their nations it should be obvious that you are not the majority (I know: You will not accept majority rule....and what does that make you?): As the game mechanics are now it still supports you with the protection of the flag and the protection any agreement with the nation you "chose" when you started playing. Because your clan tag is not visible in OW you can gank players who think they have an agreement with your "chosen" nation. You also are protected from attacks of the majority of your nation who have no way of trying to make diplomacy work. There are a couple of words for people who hides behind a flag of a nation they dont want to work with: Cowards and hypocrites. I hope that the game mechanics in the future at least lets us see the tag of the clans in OW so they cannot be used to protect pirates.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...