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

[Vernon Merrill]

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. 

 

This is going to come off as more harsh than I want it to, so I'm going to apologize in advance...  But if you only have a small amount of time to devote to the game per week, why do you think you should have a large say in what the War/Peace decisions are?   If you are in a cln, I'm sure you chat with any Parliament reps they may have and let them know how you feel they should vote...  Is that sufficient?

[pietjenoob]

You mention a Trade war what do you mean with that??

 

you can only attack traders or traders and trade capitals??

[Fuhajins of Autumn]

I am really pleased to read the Admin original post. Can't wait to see how this will come along !

I am happy to see that "no-port battle" great pvpers will be able to get in the system.

 

 

This is going to come off as more harsh than I want it to, so I'm going to apologize in advance...  But if you only have a small amount of time to devote to the game per week, why do you think you should have a large say in what the War/Peace decisions are?   If you are in a cln, I'm sure you chat with any Parliament reps they may have and let them know how you feel they should vote...  Is that sufficient?

 

This is not harsh, just common sense.

[Lytse Pier]

 

• 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

 

Making ports valuable.

Owning ports = owning land

If you own land you have more people

 

More people means 2 things:

• Increase labor hours generation for estate owner which could spill to the nation as well
• Increase crew regeneration – because crew has to be hired and fed and rehired in case of full loss of the ship

 

 

Goodafternoon admin,

 

Influencing National Decisions require land/estates to become a Lord. You can get land/estates and become a Lord through becoming a Lord Portector of a port and through means of PvP.

When you get an estate through port conquering you get benefits, obviously because you have influence in that port in the Caribbean.

 

However, when you get land/estate through means of PvP will it give also those benefits of increased crew and labour hours generation? The land/estate is not related to a port or capture in the Caribbean, but might be an European Estate? Is there a difference or is a land/estate a mere number for mechanics sake and not an actual geographic location on the map?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Lytse Pier

[Nelson Hornblower]

This is going to come off as more harsh than I want it to, so I'm going to apologize in advance...  But if you only have a small amount of time to devote to the game per week, why do you think you should have a large say in what the War/Peace decisions are?   If you are in a cln, I'm sure you chat with any Parliament reps they may have and let them know how you feel they should vote...  Is that sufficient?

No apologizes necessary. But we both paid for the game, because I don't have the same amount of free time as others, the game is then at disadvantage to me? 

 

The game world is too big for this game to be focused squarely on the hardcore gamers. The game needs to allow the casual gamer to have some influence and by speaking to a rep isn't it. They will quickly dismiss you for their own clan goals. 

 

I'm currently playing in a region of the map that I rarely see any players, so if those ports are captured by some hardcore gamer, but he is NEVER back to that area, should he still represent that region? Where as I get my couple hours in and play in that area and should be able to get land, especially if players aren't active. 

 

The map is too large, there is enough ports for many of us, if the owner of the port can't produce, buy, sell, they should forfeit the right and someone more active should get it. 

[Vernon Merrill]

No apologizes necessary. But we both paid for the game, because I don't have the same amount of free time as others, the game is then at disadvantage to me? 

 

The game world is too big for this game to be focused squarely on the hardcore gamers. The game needs to allow the casual gamer to have some influence and by speaking to a rep isn't it. They will quickly dismiss you for their own clan goals. 

 

I'm currently playing in a region of the map that I rarely see any players, so if those ports are captured by some hardcore gamer, but he is NEVER back to that area, should he still represent that region? Where as I get my couple hours in and play in that area and should be able to get land, especially if players aren't active. 

 

The map is too large, there is enough ports for many of us, if the owner of the port can't produce, buy, sell, they should forfeit the right and someone more active should get it. 

 

 

Well I agree with most of this...  and I appreciate your not being offended!  To give my take on your point, I would imagine that since having "land" now will be very valuable, EVERY port will actively defended and used.  I guess my idea is that we should test it and find out...  and if things need tweaking, worry about it then...  

[Lytse Pier]

 

Any nation can have 2 alliances (maybe three) to eventually force all nations into 3 blocks.

 

 

Alliances cannot not be broken was stated. How will the crossing of alliances be arranged if only blocks can be formed?

 

example: Can the Vereenigde Provinciën who is allied to Danmark-Norway become allied to Britain when the British are currently in a neutral stance or perhaps a tradewar with the Danish?

[vazco]

In general I like the direction of changes and your goals. It’s great you want to improve politics. I have a few remarks though.

 

My thoughts:

• it’s good to leave system as flexible as possible, allowing community to define their actions and internal rules. You can’t model everything well enough with hard rules, as balancing this out takes years. Players themselves can fill in this gap. Clans already partly model this. Maybe giving them better tools would make game more interesting, in the same time leaving flexibility and giving the same incentives to players.
  
• it’s good to create a system as simple as possible, which allows for complex interactions. Eg. chess is one of the most popular games since it’s so simple, yet so powerful
  

 

 

 

Suggestions:

 

Voting for parliament members:

• large PvP and PB are solely  a domain of clans. Because of this I think voting power should be mainly controlled by clans. Since clans are an already organised communities, they can decide themselves who is the most influential. This allows for more freedom and more advanced social rules that players can define themselves inside their groups. A one example of how this could work:
  
  • each clan gains X amount of political power based on number of factors. Eg:
    
    • number of active players
      
    • vote of most influential clans, done by other clans in the nation (again, human factor)
      
    • number of ports captured by players
      
    • number of ports defended by players
      
    • number of enemy ships sank by players
      
    • number of gold contributed to nation by players
      
    
    
  • each clan gets Y amount of parliament seats, based on their political power
    
  • each clan gets eg. 5 roles at start, with an already preset influence level. Example:
    
    • 50% - leader (clan creator)
      
    • 20% - admiral
      
    • 10% chief economist
      
    • 2x 10% rear-admiral
      
    
    
  • each clan member with a role defines X people to parliament. Eg if you’re a leader with 50% influence and your clan has 10 seats, you nominate 5 people
    
  • each clan leader can add new titular roles and define their percentage of influence, however with a limit that at least 5 roles have to have influence (to limit power grab of a single person destroying the clan)
    
  • each clan leader can assign roles freely
    
  • clan leader can be voted down from his office by players who won most influence for the clan (requires a separate impeachment system, best if it requires a lot of effort to use and requires to propose another candidate)
    
  
  

 

Parliament:

• parliament can vote for a nation leader for X days
  
• leader can lead for eg. 2 times in a row. After that he has to make a break for one term (to avoid giving too much power to a single clan)
  
• some actions can be taken by a nation leader (eg. trade war), some only by a parliament (eg. war, or taxing)
  

 

Advantages over proposed model:

• it meets the same goals. Players will still focus on getting ports, participating in wars etc.
  
• it’s easy to balance in the future, as you can tweak it easily by adding new actions that influence political power of clans, or changing political power for existing actions
  
• it eliminates some imbalance right away by removing fixed rules and introducing more human factor
  
• it’s partly based on an already existing model that players create themselves within clans (at least in Dutch nation)
  
• if new players are doing well in clan, they can advance their political power. They just have to convince their clan members they’re worth it. This makes game more open to new people and don’t lock them out of political system
  
• if someone is a good frigate captain, or the only crafter in a clan with huge influence but no PvP experience, this system will also adapt to make him influential. He will just force his clan mates to give him better role
  
• it gives more options within clans, improving gameplay
  

 

 

There’s one more problem with proposed system I think:

• capturing ports increases labour, yet labour is mostly used by those who don’t capture ports
  

 

I don’t have a good suggestion here, only a mediocre one:

 

To make it increase labour for a while for a nation capturing it, lower it a bit for a nation losing it, and in the same time increase it a lot for a nation capturing it, and lower it some less for a clan loosing it.

[Hugoka]

I would like to see how this plays out, I think that most of whats been proposed will add a lot of spice to the game,,  I do however think that it would be sensible to require landholder to visit their land at regular intervals to maintain their holdings, an if they become inactive a system where that land is redistributed to those landowners in that port who do maintain their holdings, or in some way to players that have earned some credit in the vicinity of the port,,

[AtomicTiger]

Alliances

All nations are at war with each other/ Unless you have signed an alliance

Any nation can have 2 alliances (maybe three) to eventually force all nations into 3 blocks.

-How much Nations can ONE Nation declare war on? Suddenly Swedes decide to go Beastmode, and they wanna Capture the map, can they Declare War to every Nation on server or will there be a capacity? (like u can declare war only up to 2 Nations or 1 Alliance at one time)

 

-How much Nations can Declare war to ONE Nation? Like every Alliance and Nation decides to Punish one Nation, is this possible?

if there will be a capacity so only 1 Alliance or up to 2-3 Nations can Declare war against one Nation will this capacity grow if you are in an Alliance (you=any Nation)

• If you don’t have heroic feats you can marry into the Lordship by buying a special item

-getting Lordship by marriage, do i also get Land / estate? and is this only avaiable if there are not enough Lords?

LOVE that part, i remind when i asked an admin ingame if they will go for such a thing!

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

-As Lord protector, so i can block any Player of my Nation or Alliance from entering the Port?

 

More people means 2 things:

• Increase labor hours generation for estate owner which could spill to the nation as well

-can this Labour Hours be traded / transfered to any Player, so i can give them to a Crafter and he will be able to Craft more ships per day?

and if so, will this trade / transfer will be permanent until you refuse that?

 

-Will there be an extra Chat window for Alliances?

 

Bonus question, if rebel will come:

-Rebel thing: If i dont want to be allied with Spain, but my Nation votes for it and will propably win the vote, but my part of the Nation wants to be allied with USA which is hostile to spain (so we wont get an alliance of all 3) can i go now at civil war to get more votes so i can abdone Spain and ellect USA, also if i declare civil war, is the Nation in my Favour able to help me in that war? so there will be 2 Partys: my Nation 1 +Spain  against  Civil War Nation1 +USA ?

 

 

Looking forward for this to get ingame, hopefully it will make Diplomacy way easier

[Almirante Jimi]

A wipe of ports means a wipe of players? (Ships/Money) Could we save them in 'la habana'?

 

To make it clear.

 

Thanks.

[James Roberts]

Definitely moving in the right direction, but I think this smacks a bit too medieval and too heedless quick in nature.  "You are a lord today, tomorrow you are not, Sunday you are a lord again"

 

Yes there were lords and estates and rulers in the early 1800's, but perhaps more contemporary and Caribbean terms could be used?  Our "rulers" are all in Europe.  For instance, the British the leader was known as the Commander-in-chief, Jamaica station, etc.

[Blackjack McGee]

I like the concept however I am concerned that this proposal will deny the vast majority of the players a vote in national politics.  The game is quickly evolving to the point where port battles are becoming the playground of 25 1st rates vs 25 1st rates.  I realize there are shallow water ports but many nations are not geographically located near these ports.  Port Battles and PvP are two critical components of the game, but Player ranking, Production buildings, Shipyards, Crafting levels are also important components.

 

Therefore I propose a plan that rewards people for their involvement regardless of what aspect they play.  I call it the  10 vote plan.

 

1. One vote for everyone regardless

2. .1 vote for each level of Ship Captain ranking (up to 1 point)

3. .02 votes for each Crafting level (up to 1 point)

4. .15 votes for each production building  plus .25 vote for level 3 Shipyard (up to 1 point)

5. 1 vote for max crafting

6. 1 vote for max Captain level (up to 1 point)

6. 2 votes for the Port battle land system as suggested

7. 2 votes for the PvP system as suggested

 

Implementing a solution like this allows all play styles to be represented within the national diplomatic policy.  Using the mechanic, a proposal is made and everyone in the nation votes.  Majority rules or some other fair way of evaluating the votes determines whether or not the proposal is passed.

 

A second change that I am suggesting along with the above system is something that will expand the Port Battle participation beyond where we are heading with the current system.  If we do not change this than again only those Captains in 1st rates would be eligible for the port battle points above.

 

Therefore, I propose we utilize the current Ship Rating and put a cap on the Ship rating available for a Port Battle.  For example,

 

Under current rules the maximum ship rating for a port battle would be 22,500 (25 1st rates at 900 points each).

 

In the future, lower the level to something less, let's say for argument sake 18,000 but leave the total number of ships at 25.  This means the opposing teams have to make a decision.  Do I take 20 1st rates into the fight or do I take a few lesser level ships and bring 25 total into the fight.  In reality there were very few, if any, fights of 25 1st rates vs 25 1st rates without lesser ships.  By promoting the variety of ship types you 1) incorporate new strategies into the fight, but almost more importantly, 2) open the fight for lesser ranked players.

 

Implementing this system with the 10 vote system above allows the greatest flexibility for all players of various levels to be involved in National politics.  Putting the national politics in the hands of a few people will drive players away from the game so fast it would make your head spin (even faster than an NPC trader in a fight).  For the future of the game, please tread carefully and do not alienate the vast majority of the players for the vocal few on the forums.

[cainn]

 

In general I like the direction of changes and your goals. It’s great you want to improve politics. I have a few remarks though.

 

My thoughts:

• it’s good to leave system as flexible as possible, allowing community to define their actions and internal rules. You can’t model everything well enough with hard rules, as balancing this out takes years. Players themselves can fill in this gap. Clans already partly model this. Maybe giving them better tools would make game more interesting, in the same time leaving flexibility and giving the same incentives to players.
• it’s good to create a system as simple as possible, which allows for complex interactions. Eg. chess is one of the most popular games since it’s so simple, yet so powerful

 

 

 

Suggestions:

 

Voting for parliament members:

• large PvP and PB are solely  a domain of clans. Because of this I think voting power should be mainly controlled by clans. Since clans are an already organised communities, they can decide themselves who is the most influential. This allows for more freedom and more advanced social rules that players can define themselves inside their groups. A one example of how this could work:
  • each clan gains X amount of political power based on number of factors. Eg:
    • number of active players
    • vote of most influential clans, done by other clans in the nation (again, human factor)
    • number of ports captured by players
    • number of ports defended by players
    • number of enemy ships sank by players
    • number of gold contributed to nation by players
  • each clan gets Y amount of parliament seats, based on their political power
  • each clan gets eg. 5 roles at start, with an already preset influence level. Example:
    • 50% - leader (clan creator)
    • 20% - admiral
    • 10% chief economist
    • 2x 10% rear-admiral
  • each clan member with a role defines X people to parliament. Eg if you’re a leader with 50% influence and your clan has 10 seats, you nominate 5 people
  • each clan leader can add new titular roles and define their percentage of influence, however with a limit that at least 5 roles have to have influence (to limit power grab of a single person destroying the clan)
  • each clan leader can assign roles freely
  • clan leader can be voted down from his office by players who won most influence for the clan (requires a separate impeachment system, best if it requires a lot of effort to use and requires to propose another candidate)

 

Parliament:

• parliament can vote for a nation leader for X days
• leader can lead for eg. 2 times in a row. After that he has to make a break for one term (to avoid giving too much power to a single clan)
• some actions can be taken by a nation leader (eg. trade war), some only by a parliament (eg. war, or taxing)

 

Advantages over proposed model:

• it meets the same goals. Players will still focus on getting ports, participating in wars etc.
• it’s easy to balance in the future, as you can tweak it easily by adding new actions that influence political power of clans, or changing political power for existing actions
• it eliminates some imbalance right away by removing fixed rules and introducing more human factor
• it’s partly based on an already existing model that players create themselves within clans (at least in Dutch nation)
• if new players are doing well in clan, they can advance their political power. They just have to convince their clan members they’re worth it. This makes game more open to new people and don’t lock them out of political system
• if someone is a good frigate captain, or the only crafter in a clan with huge influence but no PvP experience, this system will also adapt to make him influential. He will just force his clan mates to give him better role
• it gives more options within clans, improving gameplay

 

 

There’s one more problem with proposed system I think:

• capturing ports increases labour, yet labour is mostly used by those who don’t capture ports

 

I don’t have a good suggestion here, only a mediocre one:

 

To make it increase labour for a while for a nation capturing it, lower it a bit for a nation losing it, and in the same time increase it a lot for a nation capturing it, and lower it some less for a clan loosing it.

 

 

 

With a little more fleshing out I think this, would be the way to go. The power of politics and land ownership should be put in the hands of clans and not individual players. This encourages like minded people with the same goals to consolidate and organize. Would give the opportunity to add a lot more into clan mechanics as well, which seems to be sorely lacking at present. Overall any political system is better than no political system and I look forward to testing whatever system may come. 

[Conde]

I'm starting to like the concept of players gaining political power by doing certain activities and reaching certain rank/crafting level.

One could use political power (PP) to gain access to the parliament (Being in the top number of 100 players by PP maybe?) Then every time you vote or propose something in the parliament you'd use your political power. Higher ranked players and crafters regenerate PP based on rank. You'd also regenerate PP by being lord protector and having buildings.

Participating in PVP actions would also reward PP (Including PBs)

There should be a cap in the ammount of PP that one can keep in reserve by certain activities (So people don't just sit back waiting for their PP to regenerate) I.E lord protector can save up 5x as much PP than someone who just has some production buildings. There would be no limit to how much PP a player can earn by doing PVP however.

Crafters/traders would also gain PP by trading with other players from their own nation or allies. Maybe selling a SoL nets you some PP or buying/selling resources by contract.

Here's an example for the whole concept.

A player is rear admiral.

He regenerates up to 100 PP by rank.

On top of that he's crafting lvl 35 so he gets up to 70 PP for it.

He has all production buildings and a shipyard maxed so he gets 20 PP at most.

He's lord protector of one port and he gains up to 250 PP.

So this player would have a PP pool of 440 PP max that would regenerate (Rate of regeneration would be balanced for each activity) Let's say each week.

This player also did some PVP and earned 10 PP plus another 10 for selling various ships and resources. Having 460 PP available to vote in the parliament.

I'm not gonna propose a way to balance this because I'd have to develop the idea further. I think it's a great way to keep things in motion politically for the nations.

That'd be all.

Edit: Maybe transferring PP between players could be possible.

*Este post no ha sido financiado con dinero negro*

Edited April 27, 2016 by Conde

[Eishen]

....

However, when you get land/estate through means of PvP will it give also those benefits of increased crew and labour hours generation? The land/estate is not related to a port or capture in the Caribbean, but might be an European Estate? Is there a difference or is a land/estate a mere number for mechanics sake and not an actual geographic location on the map?

 

An interesting difference ...You can not loose lands in the continent to enemy conquest , so having only land in the caribbean giving bonuses seems sounder.

[Musuko42]

Maybe the process of becoming a lord can be simplified? Add another XP-type meter for each player. Call it "favour". It measures how pleased the home nation is with you. Once you reach a certain threshhold, you can be granted a lordship. And if it dips below that threshhold, it can be taken away from you.

 

Participate in a successful port capture or defence, gain favour.

Capture enemy ships and deliver them to the admiralty, gain favour.

Craft ships for your nation, gain favour.

Sell supplies and/or ships to other players in your nation, gain favour.

Sink or capture enemy players, gain favour.

 

Lose your ship to enemy action, lose favour (this might also help disincentivise the use of kamakaze attacks with throw-away ships).

Sell supplies and/or ships to enemy players (via free ports), lose favour.

Over time, your favour will slowly deplete, so inactive players will gradually lose favour and drop from the list of lords.

 

The idea here is that (nearly) all gameplay will be rewarded, or punished, in this system, instead of just particular actions. And it's (hopefully) simple to understand and keep track of; you'd know exactly how close you are to becoming a lord, and you'll have lots of ways to work your way up to it.

 

I'd love to hear what others captains think of this idea.

[Hugo van Grojt]

I like the concept however I am concerned that this proposal will deny the vast majority of the players a vote in national politics.  The game is quickly evolving to the point where port battles are becoming the playground of 25 1st rates vs 25 1st rates.  I realize there are shallow water ports but many nations are not geographically located near these ports.  Port Battles and PvP are two critical components of the game, but Player ranking, Production buildings, Shipyards, Crafting levels are also important components.

 

Therefore I propose a plan that rewards people for their involvement regardless of what aspect they play.  I call it the  10 vote plan.

 

1. One vote for everyone regardless

2. .1 vote for each level of Ship Captain ranking (up to 1 point)

3. .02 votes for each Crafting level (up to 1 point)

4. .15 votes for each production building  plus .25 vote for level 3 Shipyard (up to 1 point)

5. 1 vote for max crafting

6. 1 vote for max Captain level (up to 1 point)

6. 2 votes for the Port battle land system as suggested

7. 2 votes for the PvP system as suggested

 

I like this idea very much - your vote being a combination of several factors that make an able captain in the Caribbean. However, many of the "achievements" you have listed are static requirements that will be reached by the majority of players:

1. Captain Rank - as XP is static and does not deteriorate, everybody (except alt accounts of people) wll reach Rear Admiral Rank eventually.

2. Crafting rank - same as captain rank

3. Number of buildings - static as well

 

So, eventually, these votes will level out in the player base. But I like your approach to have certain ranks as "entry level conditions" and then have active playstyle (RvR and PvP activity) as the more decisive influencing factor. Maybe. there can be another "PvP rank" for players that measures their activity and achievement over the last month dynamically (resulting from the "heroic PvP feats that admin mentioned)? This would be better because absent captains (veterans) that participated in the initial "land grabbing" will not have their political power by right anymore while more active players have a better chance to rise up in the ranks. I am strongly in favour of measuring dynamic player activity over static player privilege when it comes to the relevance of your vote.

 

You should probably also include a factored vote based on clan membership and relative size of the clan in comparison to the nation size. It may not be a significant factor, but should be included anyway - just because the larger clans tend to be involved in RvR and nation management more than smaller ones with their own agenda. This should not force players to join the larger clans, but it should encourage those that are really into the national RvR gam to do so.

 

Anyway, I like this approach much more than only relying on "grindable achievements" such as x damage done (damage farming for politics), x amount of money spent (monopolies for political influence) - we need a more dynamic approach to your vote.

 

Cheers,

 

Hugo

 

P.S. - Yes to BR limits for Port Battles. But, this may prevent players from joining a more ragtag and unorganised assault fleet/defense fleet - Imagine you show up for a hastily organised port battle fleet in a larger ship only to find out that you cannot enter the fight because the BR is already reached? That would be not fun for the player, so the system would need a little more work such as "battle commander" deciding in advance what ship classes are needed?

[Eishen]

Maybe the process of becoming a lord can be simplified? Add another XP-type meter for each player. Call it "favour". It measures how pleased the home nation is with you. Once you reach a certain threshhold, you can be granted a lordship. And if it dips below that threshhold, it can be taken away from you.

 

....

 

The idea here is that (nearly) all gameplay will be rewarded, or punished, in this system, instead of just particular actions. And it's (hopefully) simple to understand and keep track of; you'd know exactly how close you are to becoming a lord, and you'll have lots of ways to work your way up to it.

 

I'd love to hear what others captains think of this idea.

 

To maintain it simple and in line with admin proposal that "favour" could be traslated into "land" that alloows that player political weight.

 

As a side note , IMO participate is the thing that must be rewarded, sucess being a plus id good  , but not main here.

 

( I.e.Participate in a port capture or defence,   gain  X   favour. , successfull 2 X )

   

Losing favor only to dishonorable, or plainly unwise actions. Not lose your ship, but perhaps surrender or wasting it  (no survival?) withouth a serious fight.

[victor]

I read the OP and the comments, but still i seem to miss clarificaton on three important things, so I ask to the devs:

 

1) with the new system will I still be able put a crafting facility in one port conquered by my faction just opening a warehouse there (and paying for opening it a sum to the IA) or should I have:

i) my own piece of land and/or

ii) some kind of consent/permission of the lord protector/owner of the land in that port?

 

2) is the total number of crafting facilities slots available in a given port infinite (like now) or will such number have a cap (in the sense that, let's say in Mariel, there are 1000 total slots for facilities and - once they are "taken" by players - no one can establish a n. 1001 facility there)?

 

3) Peace/neutrality implies also that I will become pirate if I attack a player or a IA bot of an allied/neutral nation?

Edited April 27, 2016 by victor

[Lytse Pier]

This system will put power to steer the nation into the hands of individual players regardless of the clans, hence creating a political spectrum with probably less focus and more unrest due to having to create cohesion amongst individuals without the ability to convince other players of their course of actions taken and voted for.

 

If 50 Dutch Monkeys are the best to grind in PvP we better start having faith in eating bananas in the Republic.

 

It would perhaps work if you not only create a House of Lords, but put "the rest of the captains¨ into a House of Commons for making the laws and just have the House of Lords voting on those proposals. Then we all will participate in our Nations politics.

 

In the end politics is all about a balance of power, nothing else.

[victor]

 

In the end politics is all about a balance of power, nothing else.

 

 

Sorry for the OT, but I edited just for sake of percision

Edited April 27, 2016 by victor

[Lytse Pier]

Sorry for the OT, but I edited just for sake of percision

 

You are probably right Victor. Politics is mostly about nothing. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Lytse Pier

[Niagara]

 

This system will put power to steer the nation into the hands of individual players regardless of the clans, hence creating a political spectrum with probably less focus and more unrest due to having to create cohesion amongst individuals without the ability to convince other players of their course of actions taken and voted for.

 

 

This is something that needs to be considered as clans will lose some of there role here but it means we can gain/make political clans/movements/blocks instead, in which you can join/work within to try to get your opinion heard and perhaps address issues that are important to you.

 

I have been fortunate to have been elected to a Magistrate position in a MUD (Discworld)with a mix of PVP and PVE and its going to be hard to get everyone to pull in the same direction as different play styles offers and demands various things.

 

However this experience has shown me that it can be done but it will require some work and a semi active admin that defines the scopes of what the players can and cannot do within the system of laws/politics etc. I for one is keen to see where this leads and I am hoping I can help to make this system as good as we can make it.

 

With regards

Edited April 27, 2016 by Niagara

[Lytse Pier]

This is something that needs to be considered as clans will lose some of there role here but it means we can gain/make political clans/movements/blocks instead, in which you can join/work within to try to get your opinion heard and perhaps address issues that are important to you.

 

I have been fortunate to have been elected to a Magistrate position in a MUD (Discworld)with a mix of PVP and PVE and its going to be hard to get everyone to pull in the same direction as different play styles offers and demands various things.

 

However this experience has shown me that it can be done but it will require some work and a semi active admin that defines the scopes of what the players can and cannot do within the system of laws/politics etc. I for one is keen to see where this leads and I am hoping I can help to make this system as good as we can make it.

 

With regards

 

I had a similar experience. It is better to have the Commons propose the laws themselves and the Lords voting yes or no to it in the end and implement a mechanism of Rebellion to balance things out, like mentioned underneath.

 

 

It would perhaps work if you not only create a House of Lords, but put "the rest of the captains¨ into a House of Commons for making the laws and just have the House of Lords voting on those proposals. Then we all will participate in our Nations politics.

 

In the end politics is all about a balance of power, nothing else.

 

 

Admin mentioned something about having the Commons deliver their proposals with bending their knee three times and the Lords handing theirs through a servant in this thread, but I find nothing of that in the actual proposal. Would be great if they can get it in though.