"Such is a lord" - Simple politics and alliances part 1 - HEAVILY MODERATED

[McFatts]

I think a lot of the concern over land and port battles would be reduced if it were possible to buy land from NPCs/players - As I assume marrying into the Lordship provides either no land or only a one-time lump of it.

I like this idea as it gives someone who can't pvp or port battle a voice, but right now the economy and money system is a bit broken.  I could simply buy a ridiculous amount of land if it had a set price.  This would make gold once again the main currency instead of the current one, labor hours. 

[Anymn]

I really like this system. However, I think some things are lacking.

 

Some players are playing this game on a more individual level, and might disagree with their nation's leaders. Therefore, I propose nation switching.

For example: if I don't like where my nation is going (e.g. declaring peace with everyone), I suggest that as a player without voting rights, I will have the option to leave the nation and join another nation.

Doing this will give me a fixed time of 1 month to re-integrate (*learning the language*) before I can take part in political affairs in my new nation.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Anymn

[admin]

I really like this system. However, I think some things are lacking.

 

Some players are playing this game on a more individual level, and might disagree with their nation's leaders. Therefore, I propose nation switching.

For example: if I don't like where my nation is going (e.g. declaring peace with everyone), I suggest that as a player without voting rights, I will have the option to leave the nation and join another nation.

 

 

 

You can't declare peace with everyone

[Eishen]

 ...

 

With this opposition and rebels thing i fear it has a really big potential to destroy a nation. Make sure that ONLY really much players base is needed to start a civil war. And no ALTs.

 

How do you try to avoid that alternative Chars of an enemy nation starting a rebellion?

 

 any need to avoid this?   A bunch of low level alts would mean nothing more than losing time for the "conspirators" , High level alts ... are they real adds? ...

 

I think it only cames to having consecuences to your acts,  when  a number of players "lose" a rebellion (i.e. not controlling a port in x number of days) they should be make pirates.

[Mr. Starbuck]

• how will htis work out on PvE? Will it even be implemented there
• Concern: big clans will benefit the most from this system, small clans or even solo players will get their arse's kicked due to the link between labour hours and estates. Clan leaders might actually decide what's happening on servers then. I predict: this will lead to a great amount of frustration. 

do not give the fate of naval action in-game nations in the hand of a small amount of people. War and peace mechanics need to be set by algorithms balancing the game out and mantaining an equal chance for everyone.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Mr. Starbuck

[Deadstuff]

this looks Awesome!! this wil turn big boring discussions in a bloody fight wich is wat we want this change wil increase people joining pvp.

 

I would love to see that lord protectors can give away ports to friendly's/allies.

 

lets just throw it in and see how it works I am Excited!!

 

you can't break what is already broken right?

 

EDIT: I think it also kinda wired that the player performing the best in a portbattle becomes lord protector. for example

if a clan attacks a port and does a coördonated attack on the enemy I could join that portbattle and be the only guy not joining the tactical line. I could be shooting from the gaps in the friendly line on enemies and that way gain one after the other assist without putting myself in any significant danger. This way I could become the lord protector. And the players who sacrificed there ships and because of that made the portbattle a sucses are being left out.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Deadstuff

[Hugo van Grojt]

This is our last last warning. Captains 

 

Lord nelson was a 1st Duke of Bronte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte,_Sicily

 

He got this for military achievements.

We said in the first post that

• If you don’t own land you can exhibit heroic feats – then you can become a lord and get land by lets say winning a lot in PVP

As this is a very important topic captains who cannot read properly will be removed from forums in a friendly manner for 7 days (by withdrawing positng), because their feedback becomes useless if they cant understand what is being discussed.  This topic is very important and we don't want people who cant read giving us feedback. We apologize in advance but we want to only focus on things that are relevant in this discussion

 

Dear Admin,

 

my apologies for not elaborating on my point in more detail. I did read the notes. So, please let me clarify:

 

When it comes to the RvR aspect of the game and especially larger scale PvP, there are many heroic actions taken by captains that do not get registered as a success by the game. Currently, only the amount of damage done is being calculated by the game and "kills" and "assists" are the only basis for the current reward system for gold and XP. To me, your initial suggestion reads like you now want to also grant political power to hose with the most "kills" and "assists" in addition to the gold/XP rewards.

 

And this is where my criticism came in:

In PvP, most of the time, I am the guy that is shooting down the sails of enemies, keeping them tagged so others with slower ships (or unfavourable wind) can catch up and kill the enemy. Being a smart captain is rewarding by itself, so previously I did not mind leaving most PvP engagements with only 20 XP and barely enough Gold to pay for the repairs. After all, we won the battle, right? I deliberately choose to be in screening fleets instead of the port battle fleet - but your suggested land ownership reward systems means that I would be stupid to do so (in game terms), if I want to become a member of parliament (which I do).

 

I read your proposal as suggesting that players that do anything else but "deal damage" / "be part of the 25 man team in a port battle" will now be additionally handicapped by reduced political power in the nation.

 

So, whatever merits you base that gathering of political power on - you need to keep in mind that you will encourage/push players into playing a certain way based on the rewards you give them. And this means that you have to be very careful in defining those rewards. I hope I was more clear this time around. Politics are a very sensitive topic and I believe that you cannot properly implement a true political system based on measuringf ingame stats (damage dealt, port battle participation). You need to introduce a human factor (for example pressing "like" on an enemy captain that has performed well in battle, automatically grant more "land" to clan leaders/officers that manage larger ingame communities (clans), have "political parties" implemented that players can choose in addition to their clan membership or mechanics like that ...)

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

Hugo van Grojt

[Jeheil]

Great Topic, perhaps some granularity to the nature of alliance

 

• Neutral (don't attack each other, that is all)
• Trade Alliance (allow each other to trade in each others ports), OW skirimishes still possible, no port capture enabled
• Full Alliance (as per your alliance comment).

 

I think labour hours should be a trait based on 'regional holdings', if you hold lets say the majority of Haiti or all of Panama you get a labour hour bonus to any crafter in those ports (and only when in those ports).

 

I like the idea of representation, I am thinking about this.

 

[Marten van de Voerde]

 

• Lord protector is a person who earned most victory points in the port battle (port assault flag will be abandoned)

 

As it was already asked - can we trasnfer that tittle to another player? As title will be given based on results, not planning it might land in hands of person not interested in executing any responsibilities given, or simply not having enough time to execute them properly.

What with situations when a person will  take a break from game (leaving on vacations for example)? Historically such a person would have at least a temporary replacement.

[Hugo van Grojt]

[...] you cant even read [...]

 

I detest this accusation, please assume that EVERYONE in this thread has the ability to read. Thank you.

 

But on topic:

 

The worry of the posters that you quote is that the suggested gathering of political power is very tightly connected to "grinding your way to the top", giving the 24/7 players political power on top of the already hefty gold/xp rewards. The critics you quote just fear that the proposed system, as we understand it, can be VERY vulnerable to abuse, because players in sandbox games always find a way to "game the game". All proposed roads of gaining political power in the game are very closely associated with grinding ("elite port battle team", "elite gank squad", "economic monopolist with 10 alt accounts") and do not have enough of a human (community vote) factor.

 

Grindable land ownership (through PvP / buying power with gold) can be an ENTRY threshhold to the political system - "you need to be an active player in order to vote" - but it should not be the only deciding factor in making decisions for your nation - which is a living community that should not be governed only by the richest meta-gamers. This is a valid concern and I am optimistic that the devs will find a way to mitigate the problem and introduce more community-based tools for politcs.

 

Hugo

[Anymn]

You can't declare peace with everyone

But that also wasn't the point of my reply. 

[Wyspa]

I feel like the system is good mainly because it give power into hand of people who are actively fighting in PVP. Yes it can mean that biggest clans are getting more controll, however I feel that smaller but very active clans can be represented much better too, since only few but dedicated players can get a lot of land and in return get their votes in parliament. That means big clans have to consider their smaller counterparts if they are active in the war effort, since a couple of active small clans grouping together possibly can outvote bigger ones.

 

Let's be honest here, Gankers and PvE players shouldn't really mess with politics too much since they have no idea what they will be deciding on. If you do not participate in Wars and PBs you probably don't have knowledge to decide on those matters wisely.

 

So I like the system but it feel like there is still more to do. it is true that some people really helping in war effort can be left out:

• Screening PvP players
• Crafters contributing to warfare
• Clan Leaders busy with "administrative" work

I feel like this "land" system needs some kind of goods redistribution system. Let's say that clans can set some kind of tax payed in newly aquired land assets by the members. So if Clan leader set tax rate to 50% half of land acquired by clan members automaticly lands in "clan assets pool". Then clan leaders and officers can redistribute these assets to other clan members.

Also it would be nice if any player could pay tribute in assets personally to any other player of same nation. So let's say I have a friend crafter that often crafts me ships and I don't need much assets and I'm willing to give them to him so he can get more labour hours.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Wyspa

[victor]

Let's be honest here, Gankers and PvE players shouldn't really mess with politics too much since they have no idea what they will be deciding on. If you do not participate in Wars and PBs you probably don;t have knowledge to decide on those matters wisely.

 

 

But maybe crafters should. So it will be important to know if (and to what extent) one "non affiliated" player - in order to establish a facility - shall own itself land in the port and/or ask permission to the clans that - through Lords - own ports.

 

Moreover it would be essential to know how the war status (peace, war, alliance) will affect engagement rules against players and IA spawns (eventually distinguishing trade ships and war ships).

Edited April 26, 2016 by victor

[Jeheil]

There will be no front lines. If you don't intercept the assault fleet it can sail anywhere. There will be no assault flag as well. 

No more 10 battles per day + longer cooldowns. 

 

I am not sure with this bit, although assault flags are a game mechanic, they do make up for the fact you can launch an attack and engage a port in an hour. In real life an assault fleet would rarely go unnoticed, I wonder with such a mechanic if defences would be able to 'rally' in time...or would it just be a ninja/empty port-a-thon.

 

Will there still be capture windows....if not...then what is to stop for example the Aussies...snaffling up all the ports while them there US/Euro's snooze n work ?

 

And why no more 10 battles per day ? which cool downs do you refer too ?

 

I very much like the nature/ideas of the voting system and am in favour of it being a reward for national conquest, the power in the hands of a relatively small number also works (coz thats how lords n shizz worked way back then).

 

However it seems they are accompanied by a significant but as yet not explained port conquest (new) system. All for new etc. but I wonder what you mean by cool downs...and I like 10 battles a day (well not 10...but say 4....), the cycle of NA seems to be, craft, fleet, earn during the weekdays and the biffo is on from Thursday to Sunday....if weekends become too tame.....

[Eishen]

But maybe crafters should. So it will be important to know if (and to what extent) one "non affiliated" player - in order to establish a facility - shall own itself land in the port and/or ask permission to the clans that - through Lords - own ports.

 

 

 

If "land"  is tradable well stablished crafters will have much to say on politics , even if "non affiliated" , as "nobles" try to buy him his ships.

[admin]

No assault flag? Can you explain this? I dont fully undertstand cause this system is difffent to the one we currently have.

 

 

Alliances give access to naval bases of allies. 1 hr assault flag becomes redundant. Eliminating assault flag also stops flag abuse and other things. 

Timers will be shorter and will be on longer cool downs 

You also won't be able to reset them. 

This will come in a separate post

[SeamanStaines]

Unfortunately I think this will lead to the biggest nations led by the most aggressive people of those nations forming alliances to seal club the smaller nations.

[Guest]

Just as a question of intent - is the voting/land ownership system intended to reflect end-of-18th century political systems?

 

Could get better feedback if people know whether to opt for historical feel (and flaws), or whether it's only about finding the most appealing game mechanics that people are happiest with (probably more democratic).

[Bart Smith]

 Proposals sounds not bad and we have to test it for tweaks later.

[Castello Haufniensis]

 

 

Who can vote:

• Voting system is based on the simplest and oldest mechanic of all. Owning land.
• If you own land you can vote – you are the landlord – or simply lord
• If you don’t own land you can exhibit heroic feats – then you can become a lord and get land by lets say winning a lot in PVP
• If you don’t have heroic feats you can marry into the Lordship by buying a special item
• To get land you have to capture a port. Thats why all ports start neutral (except for capitals)
• Every port grants from 25 to X estates depending on port size
• After you won the port battle you are allocated estates based on your rank
• If there are less winners than 25 lord protector gets the difference
• Lord protector is a person who earned most victory points in the port battle (port assault flag will be abandoned)

Number of estates owned determines your court rank. Your court rank might give you additional points.

• Person with most estates will become a ruler
• Top 50 (or maybe more) estate owners become parliament
• They get a separate parliament chat for private political discussions

Ports are controlled by lords. Lord protector can determine entry rights

 

National decisions are enforced by design.

If captains don't like national policies - capture more ports and change the decision. Maybe a large guild in opposition to a government should get an option to become a rebel, starting a civil war allowing them to capture ports from existing owners getting votes to change national decision deposing a current ruler. Foreign nations can incite civil wars and pay rebels to weaken enemy nations

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

I think you need more contingency in the "who can vote" arena.

Reason: The ports closes to the capital will be taken first. The participants in the conquests near the capital has more "secure" holdings than the subsequent and thus have "safer" votes. At the same time the turnover of "old" players should be grater than the turnover of new players provided the game is able to fix the interest of players for a period of time (: players who have "been there-done that" are more prone to stop than new players who find everything new and exciting. Another effect of the conquest close to the capital providing safer votes will be that a number of individuals will have more power just because they were there from the start....while this is inevitable as a result of experience, new players will have a hard time getting influence and their influence will be more contingent than that of the "old" lords (i.e. the "parliament"). Another effect of this system would be that there are two conflicting hierarchies of power: The one of the clan and the one of the national parliament. An individual player could have a lot to say in the parliament while the people doing a lot of organisational work (the leader and officers of the clan) can only appeal to his good sense (the ones with the "responsibility" for the well being of the clans are not necessarily the ones who have a say in national matters).

Suggestion/solutions: A more contingent system based on "recent" events (or perhaps votes should be redistributed when lords have been inactive for some time). Or: A national voting system based on "clan strength" defined by the #ofplayers/*ranks/*ports conquered by a clan. The "diplomat" could be a post that wield the power of the clan in the parliament (and how the diplomat is chosen would be up to the individual clan).

I know you are using "realism" as a argument for implementing mechanics. But this is a game. "realism" is not a sufficient ground and a good argument for implementing anything. After 3 real weeks of sailing without seeing a sail or a coastline most of your game "testers/paying costumers" would have had just enough realism to quit the game. The job is sort the good/exiting realism from the boring and bad. Perhaps Lord Nelson was a lord by conquest but a lot of influence is inherited. You seem to argue for a specific mechanic because of the Nelson case (or at least you seem to do that) but it is not realism saying that the power to decide on national policies was given to the heroic lords. The power to declare war or make peace were in most cases the kings (with variations). Instead of accentuating one case as the basis of a system and dismissing the suggestions of your paying testers by pointing to a mistaken "realism", I think you should acknowledge that people who give you feedback here are using their time improve the game instead of talking down to them. So NO the heoric lords of the era was not given power over forgin policy. So it is unrealistic...but perhaps it can be used as the basis for a system of political influence in a game (with some tweaks and stuff).

Edited April 26, 2016 by Castello Haufniensis

[Carljcharles]

Really like the sound of all this.

The only thing I would question is that the 'Land Ownership' mechanic and so voting and parliament membership (Basically Influence Level) should need some level of maintenance.

 

The reason for this is that a player on the day of game release and who has played during EA will be involved in the most rewarding 'land taking' tasks and are putting the hours in. Fine. After a few weeks they play much less and perhaps just a few hours at the weekend. But the are part of the Parliament and a large land owner after early port battle captures.

A new player starts some time after launch and is putting in the hours but now may not be able to utilise the best 'land capture' options. His 'influence'/Land Ownership will be rising, but the Other player who may now be playing very little should have his influence/land ownership rating dropping.

 

This will prevent older 'inactive' or 'rarely-active' players from making decisions that the active players have to follow through on.

[Taranis]

I like the proposal - but it sounds very complicated to develop and seems dependent on other multiple new dynamics (land, actions, etc...).  To some extent, it also feels as though we are going towards developing a captain's career/profile.

 

I would have favored combining player clans into politics: the leader of a clan could set their own political stance with nations or nation's clans. 

 

I do like the idea of allowing access to allied ports however - which my proposal would not solve for.

[Yar987]

I like it, it's a great start.

 

Choosing how policy gets decided and voted on is easily one of the tougher questions to answer. The only way to find out how it works is to try

 

I think not being forced to do what your nation is doing is pretty important, and provides some relief from the voting system. That's the only area I think is going to need a bit more immediate fleshing out.

 

Suggest that people play with their nation, but don't force it. It's already started there a bit with war rewards, and I think piracy and privateering are very key to making the system fun (later discussion though). Defying your nation could have penalties too, depending on the severity and type of defiance. Attacking a neutral/at peace nation for example could make you attack-able to your own nation, for instance.

 

Nothing would be worse than being stuck on a nation that never does what you want. It's touched a bit on that by saying a large clan might be able to rebel, but what about smaller/single groups of people? Rerolling and starting again should not be the option.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Yar987

[Nelson Hornblower]

As someone who enjoys playing the game, but can only get on a few hours a week due to family commitments and mainly plays PvE in the PvP server, how does this help the more casual player? 

 

Is this mechanic "If you don’t have heroic feats you can marry into the Lordship by buying a special item" meant for the more casual player? I hope so, I'd like to take part, but when I play, I have to make the most of my time (be it economy, missions or picking off NPCs). I enjoy the PvE aspect in the PvP world, because that fear of going up against someone is always there. 

[Vernon Merrill]

The opposite of that is that Lord Protectors will be able to lock "rebel" clans out of faction ports...  Fine if you dont want to go along with the Parliament vote, but dont expect to be able to get into your own factions ports...  great way to mitigate and force the hand of "rebels".