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

[Nordtman]

Can not condemn anything that has not been tried. This seem to be as good system as anything.

(Lets get on with it!! After we can complain and devs adjust)

 

One question and then a sugestion

(sorry for not put quote)

 

question:

I assume implating this to the game would mean a total wipe of map, xp, gold and Craft lvls?

 

 

Sugestion:

Implantation of ransome for captured players.

The higher rank and position in enemy nation, the more gold/Resources to be paid.

Set by % of what he owns. land and ships owned being calculated to gold

If he does not have gold to pay the caping player instantly, part of his land will be sold back to the Crown.

This done automaticly. Also a % of his Resources, mats etc should be instantly deliver to the capping player.

Now he is released and can sail home with his ship. Maybe a Little less powerful........

 

A Lord or even Ruler, must also afford to keep an Escort, right?

Also preventing people from not being able to take the heat to be in to high possitions

[Eishen]

Lot of power at the hands of a very few individuals. Some people can be very good at PVP but not in diplomacy affairs and leadership.

More people involved or a democratic system should be implemented as a alternative.

 

About internal rebellions, I think one of the things that most of us really wanted about the diplomacy system is to bring order inside the own nation. I wish to have a system where it clearly shows who are my enemies and who are my friends, a system working for all my compatriots. 

 

Not to speak about the pros of democracy but....

 

To me this system seems leaving decisions on RvR in the hands of those who really care about RvR.   Players who only likes privateering/trading etc... should not care if the political scenary is dictated by Devs or by other players..as long as game mechanics let them play as they want..     

 

 

" I wish to have a system where it clearly shows who are my enemies and who are my friends"  that certainty and politics simply doesn´t  match  ... I agree with you in that many players need  only this certainty.. . other players will love the backstabbing leading to this....it is all about making both compatible. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Eishen

[Lytse Pier]

About internal rebellions, I think one of the things that most of us really wanted about the diplomacy system is to bring order inside the own nation. I wish to have a system where it clearly shows who are my enemies and who are my friends, a system working for all my compatriots. 

 

Much agreed.

 

House of Lords: crème de la crème of our landgiven captains, that vote yes or no on proposals.

House of Commons: The rest of the captains that make the proposals for the Lords to vote on.

Rebels: Those that do not recognize the rule of the current Lords and are after their land and titles and proclaimed themselves (trough a game mechanic) enemies of the current ruling Lords. Can be shot on sight by the Lords and their proponents.

 

I'm sure that the Lords (as top of the line PvP-ers) and their proponents can hold off a few rebels trying to take over the Nation Capital in a portbatlle over it.

[victor]

Not to speak about the pros of democracy but....

 

To me this system seems leaving decisions on RvR in the hands of those who really care about RvR.   Players who only likes privateering/trading etc... should not care if the political scenary is dictated by Devs or by other players..as long as game mechanics let them play as thay want.

 

And here we go again, showing the importance of the question I asked to the devs (with no answer, at least for the moment): how the presence of a lord and/or of owned land will affect the possibility and the cost of establishing crafting facilities in a port?

Edited April 27, 2016 by victor

[Jorge]

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*

I like this.

*Este post SI se ha financiado con dinero negro*

[surfimp]

 

To me this system seems leaving decisions on RvR in the hands of those who really care about RvR.   Players who only likes privateering/trading etc... should not care if the political scenary is dictated by Devs or by other players..as long as game mechanics let them play as they want..     

 

Agree with this (I am myself a player who mostly cares about privateering).

 

However, the one thing I'm concerned about, and for which I haven't seen an answer from admin:

 

Can the Lord Protector's control of port entry be enforced at the individual player level?

 

If so, what is to stop Lord Protectors from demanding that I play the way they want me to play, or risk not being able to play at all (due to no access to ports / resources / etc)?

 

Would appreciate a response from Admin / the Devs on the subject.

Edited April 27, 2016 by surfimp

[NavalActionPlayer]

Well, I don't know about everyone else but this all seems way too complicated.

 

Remember the acronym "KISS" Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

Each eligible player has one vote, simple majority wins. To be eligible the player character needs to have existed, say, at least 1 week (to avoid players 'flooding' another nation with voters)

[Bjerg Bjergsson]

Well, I don't know about everyone else but this all seems way too complicated.

 

Remember the acronym "KISS" Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

Each eligible player has one vote, simple majority wins. To be eligible the player character needs to have existed, say, at least 1 week (to avoid players 'flooding' another nation with voters)

I take it you don't participate in your political system in real life? 

 

 

This isn't complicated, it's based on the real world. Seems very straightforward to me. I'm a fan of the system and I think it's got a good amount of merit to it. 

 

That being said, something that could maybe use some clarification is 

• 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

From this I take it to mean that Lords and the Lord Protector are different things (maybe change Lord Protector to Governor or something else to avoid confusion) and that a Lord is one who owns estates. 

 

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

 

So you don't have to be the Lord Protector to sit in Parliament you merely have to take part in victorious Port Battles and do well (or become a Lord through the other means outlined in the OP). Obviously Lord Protectors will be more likely to have a seat and maybe even be ruler due to the breakdown of estates. 

 

[BoomBox]

erm dont get me wrong.  i am willing to try it , if that counts  but it really seems complicated to me . i am for a simple system. you've put alot of thought into , i am greatful for that.

Edited April 27, 2016 by BoomBox

[Destraex]

I don't mind this. At least it would give some direction to non clanners as they can check to see who a nation is are at war with or have the game give them a warning when they attack an alliance nation or perhaps not even let them attack an allied nation. 

[Volcanus]

Well, I don't know about everyone else but this all seems way too complicated.

 

Remember the acronym "KISS" Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

Each eligible player has one vote, simple majority wins. To be eligible the player character needs to have existed, say, at least 1 week (to avoid players 'flooding' another nation with voters)

A one vote system is silly when there are more players who sit back and PvE on PvP servers then there are PvP players. I don't want PvE players affecting my PvP play to carebear it up and vote for the wrong things. 

Like take this for instance. We are at war, full scale war, with America ATM on my server. If the carebear players got their way they would have us allied with America so we can use all their ports. This would mean majority players (75% of player base) will be allied with each other in just one vote. That is a stupid idea and destroys PvP. 

 

I take it you don't participate in your political system in real life? 

 

 

This isn't complicated, it's based on the real world. Seems very straightforward to me. I'm a fan of the system and I think it's got a good amount of merit to it. 

 

That being said, something that could maybe use some clarification is 

• 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

From this I take it to mean that Lords and the Lord Protector are different things (maybe change Lord Protector to Governor or something else to avoid confusion) and that a Lord is one who owns estates. 

 

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

 

So you don't have to be the Lord Protector to sit in Parliament you merely have to take part in victorious Port Battles and do well (or become a Lord through the other means outlined in the OP). Obviously Lord Protectors will be more likely to have a seat and maybe even be ruler due to the breakdown of estates. 

It isn't very simple though. I mean when you read it once they drop the math it will be easy to understand but right now it isn't so much like our political system like you say. 

Right now we have one vote each as a person in real life voting. Where in this system, depending on your status and how much land you own depends on how heavy your vote will be. Which is nothing like any vote system that has been around in the past 100 years so unless you are like me and love and understand history, you would never understand this form of voting and even then with my knowledge of history i don't think i have ever seen this system. Land based power i have seen but based on vote power due to land mass i have never seen. 

So you can't really blame the guy for not knowing about it or thinking it is not simple enough. Once it is fully fleshed out with the numbers it will become more simple for him and others like him.

[Neith]

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

 

Please think about it again. In my opinion if you do something like this, in port battle will be a lot of random players which don't play with team, don't follow orders or stop being part of line. People start focus on doing dmg in battle because everyone wanna become a Lord Protector.

 

Probably it kills a team play, and team strategy. Probably it will be the moment when i stop play this game.

 

In my opinion when the battle will be over, should be a possibility (only for the players which participate in this battle) to put vote on one of them. Person who gather most points is chosen to become a Lord Protector. After this Lord Protector should have permission to assignation council of this city  (3 members).

Edited April 28, 2016 by Neith

[ShaWa]

This is great idea, but there is too many questions you are avoiding by saying "with the others stuff we are going to implement".

 

I am very confused, because it is already hard enough to imagine what will be the new PB//War system you proposed.

A step at a time, please.

You should implement new PB/War system first and re-open this discussion when we would have been the chance to test new PB/War system

 

You ask player to debate about something that might happens after a new update they have not tested yet. In this condition, it is pretty hard to have a good idea of what politics will give, and to give a good feedback on this idea.

[ShaWa]

Who can vote:

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

 

So, the fleet admiral, who leads 25 ships over a terrible fight to finally have the win will, most of time, not be lord protector... because he spent the whole battle thinking about strategy over getting victory points for himself.

Therefor, the fleet admiral will have to think about how to win and how to put his friend or himself in the best position to get the most of victory points?

 

And some players are not attract by politics or having to much responsibility, they just want to have fun fighting. What if those are lord protector? they are "forced" to be it... It should be another way to be lord protector.

 

I think it should be this way:

1. After battle, the victorious team (composed of lords of the port so) votes for the lord protector.

2. The lords have the possibility to start a vote at anytime to replace the lord protector (like a political campaign). This vote should last several days.

3. the lord protector is able to pass his title to another lord of the same port. A lord is able to pass his title to any player.

 

And I can't stop myself to think that there should be a way to avoid inactive player (30 days without any activity) to be lord, like a vote or to let the lord protector decide.

Edited April 28, 2016 by ShaWa

[Eishen]

 

Please think about it again. In my opinion if you do something like this, in port battle will be a lot of random players which don't play with team, don't follow orders or stop being part of line. People start focus on doing dmg in battle because everyone wanna become a Lord Protector.

 

Probably it kills a team play, and team strategy. Probably it will be the moment when i stop play this game.

 

In my opinion when the battle will be over, should be a possibility (only for the players which participate in this battle) to put vote on one of them. Person who gather most points is chosen to become a Lord Protector. After this Lord Protector should have permission to assignation council of this city  (3 members).

 

 

Horrible idea .   No "power to the guilds" please.  Proposed system gives equal chances to everyone, good guilds and good players should obtain power by good play , this voting system allows winng by  zerging a battle with numbers and vote his  pre-chosen candidate.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Eishen

[Sven Silberbart]

Horrible idea .   No "power to the guilds" please.  Proposed system gives equal chances to everyone, good guilds and good players should obtain power by good play , this voting system allows winng by  zerging a battle with numbers and vote his  pre-chosen candidate.

 

When i see players fighting for their nation against the enemies i often see the same names every evening. Those players, mostly organized in PvP Guilds wich are connected with other pvp guilds, are the soldiers of their nation. This guys should get the control over the nations lead so i think the voting after a Port Battle is a very good idea to protect the interest of the majority of the players and eleminate the problem of the players just jumping into PBs to get those points and blocking slots for much better ships or real teamplayers.

[Eishen]

When i see players fighting for their nation against the enemies i often see the same names every evening. Those players, mostly organized in PvP Guilds wich are connected with other pvp guilds, are the soldiers of their nation. This guys should get the control over the nations lead so i think the voting after a Port Battle is a very good idea to protect the interest of the majority of the players and eleminate the problem of the players just jumping into PBs to get those points and blocking slots for much better ships or real teamplayers.

 

 

 Have no problem with core RvR players deciding  RvR ,     the proposed system giving most "votes" in PB will lead to it .  but the affirmation

"PvP Guilds wich are connected with other pvp guild"   fis most complete if you add   ".. and have petty internal wars with other pvp guilds..."

 

The system should focus in players, guild give us obvious advantage, we do not need a voting system rewarding only numbers.

 

" eleminate the problem of the players just jumping into PBs to get those points and blocking slots for much better ships or real teamplayers."

  

             if some1 enters with a bad ships he is not to get most points in the PB so I do not see the need for a votting  "real teamplayer"?? that  traslates to "of my own guild" most times. 

 

 

BTW

   "Those players, ...are the soldiers of their nation.....This guys should get the control over the nations lead"      

               ...very starships trooper-ish .. to say the least

Edited April 28, 2016 by Eishen

[Michiel QPO]

This system has a lot of potential and is a solid bases for much the needed diplomatic mechanics in the game. I personally find it a refreshing and original concept to start testing.

 

As I read:

 

• 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

 

I feel that a lot of power will be put to those who participate in PvP. While I would never oppose the most logical way to go is to have the pvp community decide who they want to go to town on, I do feel that perhaps many of the crafters, traders, and trader hunters will be left with secondary or tertiary priority whilst they spend most of their time providing the much needed resources and ships for the nations pvp ship demands.

 

 

• If you don’t have heroic feats you can marry into the Lordship by buying a special item - What special item and can multiple be bought in order to increase land? Also is the intend to make this balanced compared to the other 2 options or is it going to be a steep price?

Edited April 28, 2016 by Michiel QPO

[CptEdwardKenway]

General I like but what about letting all start neutral? Cause at the very beginning everyone can attack each other. But it's the most important phase while you have to cap neutral ports so if a few nations decide to attack one nation it means this nation can't grow so they would have a big disadvantage.

I would like to have all nations beeing neutral.

[shaeberle84]

I would suggest also the option to have other possibilities to become lord. For example you could be able to buy land, say for 1 million gold. Or as a reward from a port, where you did missions or supplied ressources needed.

 

Also, I would suggest the possiblity to trade land.

[Eishen]

Also, I would suggest the possiblity to trade land.

 

+1      , this by itself solves some side questions

 

  - Opens  "lordship" to non-PB participants    (builders-mainly as RvR's will badly need ships- , traders, corsairs...)   reach power ... (non-military nobility)

  - Guilds can arrange power balance between his members as they seem fit....and even with others guilds

 

And it is quite accurate in respect history

[Taranis]

If a select few are the ones setting national policy - let's please also make sure that there is a means of tracking their continued involvement with the game.   Otherwise, we can envision the top players making a decision and then dropping the game because they maxed out on the grinding treadmill (becoming bored with the game) - leaving the game and not allowing active players to change policy moving forward.

[Qwolf]

Who can vote:

 

I respectfully suggest a voting system based on the captain's rank, with more votes per rank, would fairly allow those most heavily invested in the game have the most influence.  They would also have the most experience with the game.  It would accurately assign voting power to those that have acquired the most experience by fighting ports, players, or PVE.  But I am also open to special voting status (or lordships) being given certain players for historic feats.  I also imagine this system would be easier to implement than the plantation system.  I also respectfully suggest the following structure as a possible alternative:

 

Supreme Council (name not important).  Three players that must vote on important national issues.  Ex: War, Peace, Alliances, national tax rate, prisoner exchanges, player medals/awards(knighthood, etc.)  I also think the council should be able to set national objectives, such ports to capture, or a port to defend, or sinking or capturing enemy PVP ships.  They could encourage their objectives to be followed by offering XP and/or gold rewards (paid for out of the national tax collection) for accomplishing the national objectives.  Example, the council votes to target a specific port.  If it is captured (or raided) successfully, the council could set an XP/gold reward on top of the regular reward to encourage players to follow the national objective.   Another example, the council wants to raid a specific enemies shipping.  By setting a reward for kill/captures, paid out of the national tax revenue, they can encourage captains to risk their ships and crew by sailing enemy waters seeking a prize.

 

The council serves for a month, with a week long voting window at the end of the month for a new council.  There could even be term limits, of say, two months, to allow more players to serve as the highest ranked leaders in the game.  Players interested in running could pay an entry fee to run for election, of say, a million gold, and write a brief summary of their qualifications and platform.

 

National Admirals:  appointed by the Supreme Council to lead national war efforts, coordinate fleet pvp battles, and have the power to reward those under their command in battles with XP/gold based on their performance during those battles (and following orders).

 

Regional Governors:  For each regional capital controlled by a nation, a regional governor (or council) could run for local elections at the time of a national election, again by paying gold to enter, and briefly stating a platform.  They would set a local tax rate, and could set regional objectives such as ports to capture, defend, or even for building ships in the regional capital (would create regional hubs of commerce away from the national capital). There could be a requirement that the regional governor and voters in regional elections have an outpost in the regional capital. Most importantly, they can set regional specific objectives, important to the players that operate out of that region, and provide organization of captain efforts based on geography.

 

Regional, lesser, admirals:  Appointed by the regional governor (or possible the national admirals), the admiral would have similar powers to the national admiral in that they could distribute XP and gold for performance during battles.

 

 

The crux of this structure is that it gives the national and regional level decision makers not only the power to negotiate war and peace, but also to incentivize captains to carry out national objectives and regional objectives.  Currently, port battles and PVP are lots of fun, but not very rewarding versus solo trade and PVE.  Imagine the national leaders want to dent enemy shipping, they could set prizes for captures and sinking of enemy player ships.  Or regional leaders need a port defended at all costs.  They could set a reward for defending that port, incentivizing nearby captains to rally (on their own, or under a regional admiral), to race to the defense of the port.  Thanks for your time and consideration of my thoughts!

[CptEdwardKenway]

If a select few are the ones setting national policy - let's please also make sure that there is a means of tracking their continued involvement with the game.   Otherwise, we can envision the top players making a decision and then dropping the game because they maxed out on the grinding treadmill (becoming bored with the game) - leaving the game and not allowing active players to change policy moving forward.

Good point. That would be gamebreaking. Maybe landlords are just there for limited time. They have to renew it or the landlord for a port becomes vacant and players have the chance to get voted as new landlord for a port.

[Niagara]

A one vote system is silly when there are more players who sit back and PvE on PvP servers then there are PvP players. I don't want PvE players affecting my PvP play to carebear it up and vote for the wrong things.

 

Well, the same can PVE players say about PVP players deciding stuff that will affect them.  Lets understand that there is no us or them, its just different playstyles.

 

This Mindset that PVP players should have a bigger say in how things/pvp are run has been said over and over in many PVP/PVE games and it often leads to heated discussions with no clear winner.

 

Just because Player 1 is not as involved in PVP as Player 2 does not mean that he or she should have less input in how things are run, I have always valued PVP players input on PVP issues higher as they are more involved in PVP but that does not mean that PVE players input should be neglected either.

 

We need to make sure that those not so lucky or fortunate enough to be able to participate in PB are able to feel involved in the daily running of the nation and that they feel they are getting rewarded for there action to the benefit of the nation.