Forms of goverment

[Sam32120]

Ok this is gonna be a long one so sorry in advance

It is clear that a diplomacy system is aways off, however the biggest challenge will be how to change a nations status I propose there be 3 different types of govt in game which would be voted on during the 1st week after server wipe.

1) monarchy:

A player is voted in to office in the first week of the game. This person can make decisions autonomous of the people's will. The changing of the nations attitude in this case has a 3 day cool down. On the first week of each month a "satisfaction of the people" vote occures. If the satisfaction rate is below 30% then a new monarch is elected.

2) republic:

This is a semi democratic system in which the to 50% of clans leaders in a nation(by populations of the clans) are placed in a council. These counselors then elect a head of house from thief dance whom can put forward votes about changing national policy. These votes have a 5 day cool down.

3) democracy

This system combines the clans and "commoners". The top 3 clans leaders (again by population) can call a faction wide vote to change the diplomatic status towards a nation. In order for a vote to reach the national population 2 of the 3 clan leaders must agree to it. These votes have a 7 day cool down

I welcome questions and constructive criticism

Edited March 30, 2016 by Sam32120

[LodeSterre]

Can I add another? I'm not particularly a fan of all the power resting with clans and their leaders. Which seems to be what your options are, for the most part, even the democracy one places large amounts of power to clans by getting to choose who and when. I ran independent for a while and will probably eventually return to it and don't want my fate entirely determined by a 'chosen few.'

Constitutional Monarchy/Westminster System (Bicameral based off UK):

Monarch: A voted on 'monarch' who would act as diplomatic voice and bring treaties to the populace, like your first suggestion. Or even the largest clan's leader for a 'real monarchy,' also likely to be one of the most active people in the game/faction anyways.

House of Lords: Clan leaders hold this post and are the voice of their respective clans. I don't really care about population limits (like your largest 50%), except maybe >5 in clan. Those that don't meet the 5 (or whatever it is) are regarded as 'independents.' (Commons)

House of Commons: Independents elect their own representatives. Maybe 10-20 people depending on faction size. Or it could even be a random, you're a representative this month thing to ease the difficulty in election implementation. If a person abstains from a vote, they're not tallied toward total vote count for a majority.

Monarch puts diplomatic agreement to vote. Simple majority in both houses passes resolution. >75% in either house overrides a veto by the other house. This could also come in handy if port defenses and faction 'taxes' get implemented. Since it would be more likely to be blocked in the lower house (I have little faith in rabble rule, but we should have a voice.) it would require wheeling and dealing between clans or monarch and clans to pass the >75% mark to pass. Or even monarch to Commons if that were easier for some reason, could sweet talk/bribe for a resolution to pass. Both houses member lists would be published of course.

There's my constructive idea to add to yours

Edited March 30, 2016 by LodeSterre

[Sam32120]

I like your ideas, however there were 2 reasons why I wanted to give power to the larger clans

1) in a diplomatic/govt system clans would work like parties

2) by ensure only large clans have the authority it prevents people from making to many clans

I also wanted to keep the basic forms of govt simple

That being said your idea would be great in the long run when the mechanics are fully fleshed out and there's a larger player base

Thanks for the idea if you got any more I'll bet they're worth posting!????

[chappy]

Ok this is gonna be a long one so sorry in advance

It is clear that a diplomacy system is aways off, however the biggest challenge will be how to change a nations status I propose there be 3 different types of govt in game which would be voted on during the 1st week after server wipe.

1) monarchy:

A player is voted in to office in the first week of the game. This person can make decisions autonomous of the people's will. The changing of the nations attitude in this case has a 3 day cool down. On the first week of each month a "satisfaction of the people" vote occures. If the satisfaction rate is below 30% then a new monarch is elected.

2) republic:

This is a semi democratic system in which the to 50% of clans leaders in a nation(by populations of the clans) are placed in a council. These counselors then elect a head of house from thief dance whom can put forward votes about changing national policy. These votes have a 5 day cool down.

3) democracy

This system combines the clans and "commoners". The top 3 clans leaders (again by population) can call a faction wide vote to change the diplomatic status towards a nation. In order for a vote to reach the national population 2 of the 3 clan leaders must agree to it. These votes have a 7 day cool down

I welcome questions and constructive criticism

 

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. 

[chappy]

I like your ideas, however there were 2 reasons why I wanted to give power to the larger clans

1) in a diplomatic/govt system clans would work like parties

2) by ensure only large clans have the authority it prevents people from making to many clans

I also wanted to keep the basic forms of govt simple

That being said your idea would be great in the long run when the mechanics are fully fleshed out and there's a larger player base

Thanks for the idea if you got any more I'll bet they're worth posting!

 

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. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by chappy

[chappy]

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.

Edited March 31, 2016 by chappy