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

[Blackjack McGee]

Remember that clans are an essential part of the game, large clans can be both beneficial and detrimental to the game. Every gamer has played in a clan that was larger but dominated by an elite few who cared little for others just their own desires. The diplomacy aspect, with titles, can feed this behavior leading to an undesirable outcome. You need go no further than looking at the clan dynamics already in play without these proposed changes. Clans are great but also lead to frustration if not ably managed.

[Anymn]

I'm not liking the lord system actually. I would propose that voting does depends solely on your activity in the last 30 days in PVP.

Every won port battle gives players 10 points, every won PVP battle 1. (example)

A ranking will be made based on the number of points.

 

The top 25-50 players on this ranking will be able to vote (5 power) and can join the politics chat room. 

The next 100-150 players on the ranking can vote too (1 power).

 

Benefits:

• The voting power is directly where it belongs: at the players who play regularly and do PVP. 
• Players can directly influence whether he/she can vote. All clans or players who claim that they deserve political rights, can prove this by being active. Not being active = no voting rights.
• It also eliminates the problem of inactivity. When Lords get bored and are not online, how can you make decisions?
• There are no unfair safe ports for the early players. (ports near capital are usually safer, so they can't be taken over).
• Players have to play a lot of PVP for a whole month. This gives them time to acquire knowledge about politics.

Probably you might want the same kind of system for crafters, like:

• Craft 1st rate ship: 10 points;
• Craft 2nd rate: 5 points;
• Craft 3rd rate: 3 points.

[cmdrbobcito]

Might a nations relationship with other nations also be reflected in availability to "nation" chat or join Guilds/Clans?

[Thurston Beers]

 

 

 

Who can vote:

• 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

 

I do not like the idea of "most victory points" for the lord protector. The lord protector should be something that can be controlled and decided upon by a clan or a nation.

 

What I propose: Allow those who attended the port battle or those who own land in the port the right vote for the lord protector (bidding on land after a port conquest should be allowed. Land should be a finite resource. There is only so much land to go around). The lord protector MUST own land in that port. If another clan doesn't like the rules/polices of the lord protector but owns no land within the port, allow them to attack port and steal the land from the clan that owns the port (civil war).

 

I do not like the idea if a single ruler. 

 

What I propose: Allow the top 50 (or more) to rule without the "leader." Action is taken based on a majority rule. Actions cannot be put up for a second vote for x days. Example: If Britain put up a vote for France to be allied and it failed, it could not be put back on the floor for another X days. 

 

I like the idea of owning land even if it does not play a role in RvR or diplomacy. 

[B4N4N4J0E]

 

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).

 

 

How about the clan with most points can vote for the Lord Protector out of their ranks.

For the council he can assign one council member out of his clan and two others (how may have to have a certain amount of individual or clan points?

 

Edit:

P.S.: Generally I love the devs approach (on all three new topics). It is ambitious and will be quite a way to go. I am looking forward to the discussions and ideas that will come up.

In my opinion the devs are on the best way to provide one of the most awesome games ever!

 

Go Devs Go! :-) 

Edited April 29, 2016 by B4N4N4J0E

[Hugo van Grojt]

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.

 

Exactly! Merits should not be handed out statically, they should be dynamic. Political power of any given player should deteriotate slightly (negative interest) over time if he/she is not active for a while. The proposed system by admin has no solution to the dilemma of veteran players becoming inactive while still holding power.

 

Additionally, the chance to "buy power with money" will only work, if the ingame economy is well balanced. In its current state, I would fiercy reject any option to buy power with gold simply because this would automatically give too much influence to some industrialists/monopolists who are not necessarily the most liked people in their nation.

 

The political system needs a way for players to elect/confirm the actual leaders and respected individuals in their nation and community!

[Hethwill]

Exactly! Merits should not be handed out statically, they should be dynamic. Political power of any given player should deteriotate slightly (negative interest) over time if he/she is not active for a while. The proposed system by admin has no solution to the dilemma of veteran players becoming inactive while still holding power.

 

Additionally, the chance to "buy power with money" will only work, if the ingame economy is well balanced. In its current state, I would fiercy reject any option to buy power with gold simply because this would automatically give too much influence to some industrialists/monopolists who are not necessarily the most liked people in their nation.

 

The political system needs a way for players to elect/confirm the actual leaders and respected individuals in their nation and community!

 

 

 

 

A Lord must keep a bare minimum of pvp feats, pb results, etc to maintain his station.

 

As well as we have Lordships presented in History as a basis we also have plenty of captains and admirals fallen into disgrace and stripped of rank and title.

[Eishen]

 

Additionally, the chance to "buy power with money" will only work, if the ingame economy is well balanced. In its current state, I would fiercy reject any option to buy power with gold simply because this would automatically give too much influence to some industrialists/monopolists who are not necessarily the most liked people in their nation. 

 

Correct, "lands"  should be a "only  players"  commoditie ...,  never be to be buyed from  IA.  Another reason for "industrialists/monopolists" and "rude fighters" ("Financial" vs "Military" Nobilit") to reach agreements.

[victor]

Exactly! Merits should not be handed out statically, they should be dynamic. Political power of any given player should deteriotate slightly (negative interest) over time if he/she is not active for a while. The proposed system by admin has no solution to the dilemma of veteran players becoming inactive while still holding power.

 

Additionally, the chance to "buy power with money" will only work, if the ingame economy is well balanced. In its current state, I would fiercy reject any option to buy power with gold simply because this would automatically give too much influence to some industrialists/monopolists who are not necessarily the most liked people in their nation.

 

The political system needs a way for players to elect/confirm the actual leaders and respected individuals in their nation and community!

 

In the age of sails nobles and kings did not ask neither respect nor consent, just based their power to rule on land and wealth. And any kind of "democracy" in game will just create "real" politicians also in the game (which is the worst scenario imaginable)

Edited April 29, 2016 by victor

[Hugo van Grojt]

In the age of sails nobles and kings did not ask neither respect nor consent, just based their power to rule on land and wealth. And any kind of "democracy" in game will just create "real" politicians also in the game (which is the worst scenario imaginable)

 

Well, it comes down to whether you want to have a gaming community or represent real life in the 18th century in Naval Action. Don't forget that this is a game first and foremost, not "Absolutism simulator 1806".

Edited April 29, 2016 by Hugo van Grojt

[victor]

Well, it comes down to whether you want to have a gaming community or represent real life in the 18th century in Naval Action. Don't forget that this is a game first and foremost, not "Absolutism simulator 1806".

 

To be honest, I prefer the first option as far as i think it fits much better with the general mood of the game (age of sails caribbean simulator). As far as the second argument you bring, well ... let'sput it this way: "don't forget that this is a game first and foremost, not 'democracy MMORPG experimental simulator 2016'".

Edited April 29, 2016 by victor

[Skippy]

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.

 

I like your proposal and I totally agree with you. I would prefer a system similar to the one you propose. It would be more fair, allowing everyone to participate and be represented in the national diplomatie.

I dont like the idea of lands and landlords at all.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Skippy

[Lytse Pier]

I would ditch this entire political voting idea. We don't need it to have wars and treaties in this game. You will break clan cohesion.

 

Use port loyalty as described here and let the map play out by itself. The less activity by players, the more the map will move back to its original state. Let us work to keep the map into the state we want to see, preventing the influence of other nations or working with others to prevent one of them getting too big.

 

Give players political power through achievements in game like you described and spend that political power to convince ports to change its stance towards your nation, get benefits from Europe (like perhaps a 1st rate ship), get married into society to get access to some awesome trade deals, donate it to a wardeclaration or truce someone in the nation proposed, etc, etc.

 

In essence, don't make it too complicated, let the game have us work to maintain our achievements, keep the thought it is a sandbox and try not to have a playerbase pushed into a war/treaty/playstyle they do not want.

[Slamz]

Overall I think I like it. I also agree that there is no real need to bring clans into it, specifically -- imagine 5 ports taken by random players vs 5 ports taken by a particular clan. In the end, the random players have scattered votes and it probably wasn't the same random people taking each port. The clan, however, probably had the same people each time and they probably discuss on their forums how to vote and all vote the same way. Thus clans will get a powerful voice (if they are a real clan and act together on things).

 

My one quibble:

 

If both nations have proposed and voted the peaceful change in the national relationship it is formally signed for 30 days (or longer?) and must be mutual

 

I would suggest making votes permanent until voted out.

 

Maybe even make them binding for 1 week -- during this 1 week, you CANNOT change the relationship. After that it may be subject to vote. But it never simply expires by itself. All changes happen by vote.

 

A failed vote is treated the same as a binding opposite vote, meaning:

 

We are at war with France. I start a vote for peace. The vote fails. We are bound into war for 7 more days. The matter cannot be voted on again until then.

We are at peace with Sweden. I start a vote for war. The vote fails. We are bound into peace for 7 more days. The matter cannot be voted on again until then.

 

I wouldn't bind votes for too long. 30 days is a long time for political situations to change and I think we need to balance the need to be flexible with the desire to avoid overly rapid changes or "vote spam". So that's why I think 7 days binding with no automatic expiration may work best.

[Skippy]

I would ditch this entire political voting idea. We don't need it to have wars and treaties in this game. You will break clan cohesion.

 

Use port loyalty as described here and let the map play out by itself. The less activity by players, the more the map will move back to its original state. Let us work to keep the map into the state we want to see, preventing the influence of other nations or working with others to prevent one of them getting too big.

 

Give players political power through achievements in game like you described and spend that political power to convince ports to change its stance towards your nation, get benefits from Europe (like perhaps a 1st rate ship), get married into society to get access to some awesome trade deals, donate it to a wardeclaration or truce someone in the nation proposed, etc, etc.

 

In essence, don't make it too complicated, let the game have us work to maintain our achievements, keep the thought it is a sandbox and try not to have a playerbase pushed into a war/treaty/playstyle they do not want.

And I agree with you even more.  Your idea is, in my opinion, the best.  It would create a link between pve, pvp etc. Also it would force the players to work to maintain what they got, so its very interesting, even pve people have they things in there. Mission become important, not only used to grind, so you see yourself make a difference in the national war by influencing the moral of some towns, this is really good.  A target a nation would want would need several players from that nation to operated around that town, that would be great   I would really prefer the game use a system like you described in your topic linked.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Skippy

[VonVolks]

I am fairly against too much "in game votes" business. Its too elitist, too complicated and not very reflective of the society at the time.

 

I have a whole thread about exactly this OW diplomacy here:http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13016-national-diplomacy-why-should-players-control-it/

 

But basically I say in game leadership and voting should be reserved for "democratic nations" like the US and Holland. Pirates are just an anarchy and should basically always be at war, and just cobble together what they can agreement wise between themselves. Royalist nations should just get on with it, with overriding "guidance" being issued from above from the thrones back home....

[Crayon]

Simple rules.

• Ask a question if you need a clarification – if you have questions in your post – just leave questions and post comments in other post. Dont mix questions with comments
• If you don’t like something – propose alternative explaining how yours will work better
• If you don’t like something but have nothing to say – stay silent.
• Always quote the point you are referring to
• Off topic/Ranting = friendly silence will be applied for a week.

T

The rulers/parliament initiate the proposal.

The proposal is voted by lords.

If both nations have proposed and voted the peaceful change in the national relationship it is formally signed for 30 days (or longer?) and must be mutual

War can be shorter (until war points level reached declaring a winner) and does not have to be mutual

 

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

 

 

I don't like how governments will be similar to other governments. Britain, Spain, France, etc. should have a king (or queen) who makes most of the decisions unilaterally Lord Protectors would claim land in the name of their ruler... anyone who claims land for someone else leaves the port open to attack internally. United States should have a democratic system of sorts based on individual land holders. As for the others, I dont know! Just something different would be nice!

[Skippy]

I believe that a game mecanic controlled diplomacy should be better.  It would make things fair and equal for all players and prevent abuse of an elitist system.  That could be great to have the manned by the game itself... having wars and peace coming from time to time etc.  The clans are not nation and we are only captn of ships in the carrabean.... the nations in Europe where taking the decision, from kings, gouvernment, etc.. not us. I think that would be better that way.

 

If you really want to go with a vote system, someone in another topic brought that idea, could be worth trying it. But my preference go for a diplomatie controled by the game.
 

Pirates; everyone gets a vote

 USA; clan leaders vote

 Monarchies; Devs control. Research inbreeding.

 France; player with highest xp is dictator. Historically accurate tendency to ally with USA. Only clan leaders will respect this basement dweller.

[Juan Alfonso]

I believe that a game mecanic controlled diplomacy should be better.  It would make things fair and equal for all players and prevent abuse of an elitist system.  That could be great to have the manned by the game itself... having wars and peace coming from time to time etc.  The clans are not nation and we are only captn of ships in the carrabean.... the nations in Europe where taking the decision, from kings, gouvernment, etc.. not us. I think that would be better that way.

 

If you really want to go with a vote system, someone in another topic brought that idea, could be worth trying it. But my preference go for a diplomatie controled by the game.

 

Pirates; everyone gets a vote

 USA; clan leaders vote

 Monarchies; Devs control. Research inbreeding.

 France; player with highest xp is dictator. Historically accurate tendency to ally with USA. Only clan leaders will respect this basement dweller.

 

I get where this is coming from, but no one wants to have their gameplay controlled. For example If I were spain, and were forced to move to Columbia for pvp because the game decided I am to attack the french empire, I personally would get very frustrated by this.

 

Remember, whilst monarchies were rules by an individual, most of them (excluding france) had to answer to a parliament. Thus a House or Lords structure the devs have presented.

[Johny Reb]

Alliances

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

Alliance gives the following options

• You can support each other in port battles
• You can enter each other battles
• You can enter each other ports
• You can build in each other ports

The above is perfect

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

 

The rulers/parliament initiate the proposal.

The proposal is voted by lords.

If both nations have proposed and voted the peaceful change in the national relationship it is formally signed for 30 days (or longer?) and must be mutual

War can be shorter (until war points level reached declaring a winner) and does not have to be mutual-30 days is enough for alliances. Games move quickly.

 

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- so then basically everyone can vote. If this is implemented it should be EXTREMELY! expensive.
• 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)-Potential imbalance if there is a "skirm group" or some mortar brigs. How will they ever earn the most victory points?

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- Does this mean no more free towns? Free towns are determined by the LP? I would like this very much.

 

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-A big NO on civil wars. Game breaking in my opinion. The mechanics should not encourage fights within a nation. It should promote unity.

 

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

I'm having a hard time visualizing how this would work. The Lord Protector title comes through a "random" process during a PB based on who did the most damage. I would suggest that Lord Protectors can give their title and land to another so that we don't have an imbalance of port ownership.

Short inspirational guide on the differences between lords

The baron wears a cap with 6 pearls. The Viscount wears a coronet of which the pearls are without number. The Earl the coronet with the pears upon points mingled with strawberry leaves. The Marquis one with pearls and leaves. The Duke, one with strawberry leaves – no pearls. The Royal Duke, a circlet of crosses and fleurs de lys. The Prince, crown like that of the King but unclosed.

 

The Duke is his Grace; the other Peers their Lordshps. Most honorable is higher than right honorable. Lords who are peers are lords in their own right. Lords who are not peers are lords by courtesy. There are no real lords excepting such as are peers.

Huh? The US needs something entirely different for obvious reasons.

 

[Bjerg Bjergsson]

Since it seems to be a sticking point I would think to accommodate the US, simply change Lords to Senators(since the majority of Senators were wealthy landowners by practice or inheritance anyways the difference is primarily titular and not mechanical). 

 

Likewise the rest of the nations can also be suited for their flavour by changing Lords to Dons for Spain, Sweden can be Counts etc. Doubtless there will be some overlap. 

 

Regardless, I like the concept of the mechanics and it doesn't strike me as too difficult to comprehend. That being said, perhaps some sort of graphical version may make it easier for some. 

 

---

 

I do agree with some concerns regarding the Lord Protector. Perhaps instead of pure victory points/xp as a determiner, the LP can be the one who's group does the most damage (thus encouraging group play)? This will give the group leader the opportunity to actually lead and not be throwing themselves into the battle pell mell. If there are a number of groups, perhaps each player in the battle can then vote for a particular group leader to be LP before, during and after the battle (must be done before leaving the post-battle screen). 

Consider it a "mention in dispatches" from each Captain rather that a "vote" per se. 

[EricKilla]

I'm going to weigh in my two cents here:

 

I'm fine with a voting system based on land ownership. I'm curious as to if it would be possible to buy land as time goes on, as would a wealthy businessman. For the United States, I would very much rather be a cutthroat industrialist over an inheriting noble. Being able to purchase and industrialize land would be a very interesting and fun mechanic, in my opinion, and would allow for both PVP and econ folks to have voting power. Also, I feel that we need to find a way to compensate those who may be screening a port battle to prevent folks from entering the battle; these players can, themselves, be more vital to the port battle than the players in the battle themselves. 

 

I think that one should be able to buy, sell, and trade land with other members of the server.

 

I do not like the idea that a lord protector can potentially limit people from their nation from entering their ports. This would lead to a very disjointed national scene, which would be very counterproductive to the ultimate goal. Not only that, but this really counters the point made above: "Allies can enter other allies ports." Well what if I'm an American, and I'm a lord protector of a remote outpost that is strategically important to the Brits for usage, and as such I lock them out. What's the point of the alliance then? In locking the Brits out, I would greatly hamper their ability to fight in that sector, and, being that alliances are permanent, there would be no way for them to retaliate.

 

I also feel that the rebel system and civil war system is counterproductive to national unity, which would be bad. Instead, there should be a way for a "rebel faction" to acquire an adversaries land and usurp their position in Congress.

 

Also, I vehemently disagree with the idea that alliances should be permanent. This would seriously stagnate the political scene. One of the things I love about the player dictated political scene that currently exists in the game is the fact that it is always in a state of flux; you are never sure exactly who is friend or foe. This leads to a fun scene of intrigue. Locking alliances would eliminate this, preventing fluidity in politics and ultimately stagnating the political scene into a status quo. This status quo will eventually stagnate conquests, defeating the whole purpose. If you have three equally powerful alliance blocks, you will have a bloody, nautical version of World War I.

 

I suggest that, after a period of time (maybe an ingame month or so), an alliance could be broken. outposts would be treated just like they are in a recently captured port; the players would have a day or so to get out their stuff, and then it's unavailable.

 

I think we need a thread to see how all the new features will interact with the game as a whole, so we can identify potential areas where there may be issues where these different features interact.

[Vernon Merrill]

I'm anxiously awaiting "Such is a Lord-Part 2".. since the OP was clearly labeled part 1

[Carljcharles]

I am very pleased to see the diplomacy mechanic now being considered. However, I don't see from the Admin original post in this thread how this process is sustainable. A small number of early game adopters from release (probably clan related) will significantly capitalise on the ports being natural and easy to take. They will accumulate land quickly. Furthermore Clans will become significantly more powerful and lock out players from this diplomatic mechanic because they could secure parliament and potentially a 'ruler' again as described in the OP.

 

There must be a counter mechanic that allows new player in time to take a more involved diplomatic position, not just lock in a major clan because they managed to amass Land early on.

 

I would therefore propose the accumulation of 'influence' through the similar way as was described for land. Crafting Exceptional Ships could also count towards influence. The key difference is influence

    - diminishes naturally over time.

    - Can be spent to buy a seat in parliament (for a set term!)

    - Seats in parliament could be perhaps bid for using influence

    - Money can buy influence

    - Players who quit the game for extended periods loose influence

    - Influence could be used to buy port governships.

    - Influence 'could' be spent to buy / switch nationality.

 

A clan could then for perhaps one term' take over a parliament by out spending influence in one huge hit - but they are likely not able to do so continually.

 

This approach seems to be a much more re-playable overall diplomatic mechanic then the locked in accumulation of land that never gets depleted. It also prevents continuous domination of ports by individuals. 

[Qwolf]

My major concern is this:  Leaders need a way to incentivize players to follow their orders or accomplish national goals.  As it is now, it is far more profitable (if less fun) to do your own thing.  Grind fleets.  Run profitable trade routes. 

 

Port battles and PVP encounters, on the other hand, require hours of coordination, risking your ship, and often result in relatively low XP and gold rewards. 

 

Thankfully, plenty of players are willing to take up the national cause and fight with their clans.  But why is a clan going to listen to the proposed national command?  Why is the guy that just wants to make gold and XP going to spend his time and risk his ships for the national cause?  It's analogous to the the tragedy of the commons.  Players acting rationally, independently, and in their own interest (by grinding, trading, and avoiding the risk of PVP combat) behave contrary to the common good (defending and taking ports, risking ships for the national cause).  That is why this game MUST find a way to make acting in the national interests MORE rewarding than captains acting independently and in their own interests. This problem is not fixed by simply raising the rewards for PVP.  While this would make sense given the risks involved, it would do nothing to encourage players to follow their leaders.  In the real world, captains of fighting ships that ignored orders and national objectives would be Court Martialed.  This is a game.  So maybe a carrot is a better way to accomplish the same goal:  adherence to a national policy set by elected leaders.

 

• Does the nation need to take a particular port?  Allow elected leaders to set a gold/xp reward for taking that port.  If its more profitable to risk your ship in service of your nation than to grind AI fleets, players WILL jump all over this.
• Does the nation need to attack enemy shipping?  Allow leaders to set bounties on enemy player ships. 
• Does the nation need to build more ships?  Allow leaders to reward crafters for selling ships on the market.
• Does the nation need to defend a port?  Allow leaders to set a reward for defending the port. 

If you give the leaders control of the tax revenue, there should be plenty of money for this.  XP available for rewards could be on a per nation or per port controlled basis.  A game where players choose their leaders, set national policy, and then can actually get the server to follow national policy through incentives would be incredible.  It would also more closely mimic historic war efforts lead by national leaders and admirals following those elected leader's orders.  Of course players would still be free to do their own thing.  But the real money and XP would be in service of your nation.  Doesn't that make more sense?