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

[Skippy]

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.

but this can also be controlled by the mecanic.. the dev are not stupid.. they would make the game create scenario where some nation fight more teach other than others.  Or the system could be controlled by the Dev too.  And with the PB that not gonna have flag and have forts for defense, a distant war could be great too to try, just not as often than proximité ones.

[Skippy]

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. 

Oh I really like this one.  This is great and very clever.  I like that.

 

And yes I agree, this would prevent continuous domination and exploits if well integrated.  I like the fact that you need to keep activity to not loose your influence points. And I also like that you need spending your influence points to get something, making the advantages temporary.

 

+10

[Tazilon]

Pirates should not have the ability to enter or create alliances.  

 

However, such a system of diplomacy does open the door to create letters of marque for privateering on behalf of the real nations.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Tazilon

[Protyp]

After reading most of the post here I've felt the need of asking something reffering to this:

 

 

 

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

 

This document does not discuss piracy vs privateering: this will be discussed in a separate topic. Do not bring pirate discussions into this!

 

 

Imagine this situatuion: (You are a guild)

1. The actual ruler/politics/decisions doesn't satisfies your desires.

2. You hate the group in the power.

3. You start a rebellion.

 

First ask: Will you able to refill you crew in not rebel ports? (I know this feel stupid, but I mean, should you be able to recruit crew by forcicng him or something like that?

Second ask: Will It be possible to have more than one rebellion at the same time? (more than one group wants the power)

Third ask: How an alliance can help rebels or mother country in the civil war?

Fourth ask: (this is a bit off topic I think) Can the rebels hire pirates to supports their attacks? (And the same for the mother nation)

 

Last ask: Spain is famous in this game for being discordinated and having problems of unity. It's probable to us to be in civil war more than once every month.

Are there any think of how to control how to start a civil war or how to finish it without a winner?

[Eishen]

After reading most of the post here I've felt the need of asking something reffering to this:

 

 

 

Imagine this situatuion: (You are a guild)

1. The actual ruler/politics/decisions doesn't satisfies your desires.

2. You hate the group in the power.

3. You start a rebellion.

 

First ask: Will you able to refill you crew in not rebel ports? (I know this feel stupid, but I mean, should you be able to recruit crew by forcicng him or something like that?

Second ask: Will It be possible to have more than one rebellion at the same time? (more than one group wants the power)

Third ask: How an alliance can help rebels or mother country in the civil war?

Fourth ask: (this is a bit off topic I think) Can the rebels hire pirates to supports their attacks? (And the same for the mother nation)

 

Last ask: Spain is famous in this game for being discordinated and having problems of unity. It's probable to us to be in civil war more than once every month.

Are there any think of how to control how to start a civil war or how to finish it without a winner?

 

 

 As Protyp (Long life to the king!   ) points rebellions are a most interesting part of the new proposal and I will really love see them implemented ... but I add to the questions

 

how will a rebellion end? 

what will be thwe consecuence for the rebels/loyalist when  if an agreement is not reached?

   change faction/turn to pirate?

   lose lands?

 

 

  The "slightly of-topic"  spanish situation ... is not so off-topic Imho.... I foresee (even eagerly await)  more than one not so friendly affaires when this rule is implemented.

[Johny Reb]

No Civil Wars. That removes all the complications of your questions. The civil war is done through politics. When one faction of a nation wants power then they need to do those things that give them land and more voting influence.

 

Right now we have 7 nations and many think that is already to many. Creating civil wars will lead us to twice that many nations and there will be more fighting within a nation then without. I don't see this as a fun game. I don't want to play a game that I have to constantly look over my back at players that are supposed to be on my side.

[Hethwill]

I see Civil War not as a extra faction but as a struggle for power between Lords ( intrigue !!! ) which couldn't be solved peacefully. The faction is the same.

 

They still work under the same House of Lords, the same votation system, the same colours. They simply replace words with guns.

[Magnum]

I signed up to play Naval Action - not Political Action - if I want soap opera I simply need to turn on CBS in the afternoon.

[Black Knight the first]

I signed up to play Naval Action - not Political Action - if I want soap opera I simply need to turn on CBS in the afternoon.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Clausewitz has a fair point. Politics drive the conflicts and the conflicts are what make a PVP MMO fun. This proposed update doesn't force you to partake in the political climate- it does however formalize a state of affairs that already exists in game and gives it purpose and direction. That, I think, is a step in the right direction.

[Neptune]

Civil Wars would be awesome. It would add another element to the game to make it more interesting & create more PvP.

[Sven Silberbart]

Cival Wars are a huge risk. Lets say there ist a small nation, which really needs alls its players and allies to survive. Just some players who are not willing to accept a nations decision can always start a civil war. This nation will never be able to to stand on its own feed. Player will leave the nation. Lets say this rebel players are send from another nation to infiltrate the nation and start civil wars. A nation needs goals and all players should follow it, pushed by the game system.

 

If a civil war will be implemented, please make sure, starting such a civil war needs a really big and high ranked player base and is a high risk for the rebels if they fail! Maybe they should give all their money and goods to the nation or something. I dont want to see that civil wars are the most seen thing in the game, this should really be a rare event in the game. The nation vs nation wars are main dispute in game.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Sven Silberbart

[Hugo van Grojt]

I can only repeat myself: giving political power to players based on their in game battle performance or economic prowess while ignoring any community opinions (clans, charismatic leaders that people actually LIKE) is bad game design and will most likely not create loyalty towards the "parliament"

This is not meant as one of the typical whining posts. Just honest feedback.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Hugo van Grojt

[LeBoiteux]

I can only repeat myself: giving political power to players based on their in game battle performance or economic prowess while ignoring any community opinions (clans, charismatic leaders that people actually LIKE) is bad game design (...)

 Isn't what you oppose meritocracy vs. little deals among friends ?  

[Lytse Pier]

"Out of experience you should, my gentlemen, know that trading can only be done under the protection of your own weapons and the weapons need to be paid from the profits we have to make with the trading. Trade is not possible without war, nor is war without trade sustainable and cannot continue".

--- Jan Pieterszoon Coen, Merchant-king, Governor-general of the Dutch East Indies, Founder of the city Batavia, Accountant-General of all VOC offices, head of VOC chamber Hoorn.

 

 

This is what needs to be implemented in the game and should be a focus. The "why" we wage wars. We are already discussing the "how" in declaring it and the "when" it will be effective whilst the reasons to wage them are non-existent yet. Lords and governments were mostly "fumbled" into war by sly merchants creating conflicts and animosities to further their goals of more profit. Those merchants would donate ships, men and money towards "the noble national cause".

 

I for one have no reason whatsoever to donate to any war at the moment other than having the joy to sink other ships and see a dot change color on the map (which is enough for me in this state of the game's development).

 

This is also what Hugo in an above post elegantly states; One that holds the power to declare war needs a dependency on others to provide the means; otherwise a Lord will work to further his/her goals <despite> his people instead of <because> his people and a cooperative gameplay on which an MMO thrives will be hard to come by.

[Lytse Pier]

Hence it would be a good idea to have *any* Lord be able to declare wars, however, if he isn't backed up by the capital and weapons of the nations merchants he will just be a Lord that needs to find his marbles.

 

Give every player political power through achievements and have them supporting proposals from the individual Lords with that power, money and other assets and resources.

[Hethwill]

I do not believe any true character interested primarily in the action part of things likes to have its way dictated by a covenant of schemers.

 

Leaders must lead from the front and survive the PB pvp ordeal.

Leaders will have to fight in equal or less than ideal conditions and triumph in OW pvp.

 

Schemers will surely buy their way into some Lord bed.

 

I also agree that Traders and Crafters Guilds should be instated at a later date with a council of their own which resolves their vote towards nation proposals.

 

Each Lord being able to declare wars on their own is not possible for technical reasons I am sure.

 

Also it would be a return to the dark ages.

 

And who really cares about your crafting anyway when we can enter and deal with allied nations !? I could simply forget your crafting guild exists and buy everything from allies.

[Lytse Pier]

I do not believe any true character interested primarily in the action part of things likes to have its way dictated by a covenant of schemers.

 

 

So why give power to a Lord then? If the game developers choose to give power into the hands of the few, the many ought to have a way to influence them, otherwise you can end up with powerful people without following?

 

I agree with you many times Hethwill, but we shall not be in line on this one.   

[Magnum]

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Clausewitz has a fair point. Politics drive the conflicts and the conflicts are what make a PVP MMO fun. This proposed update doesn't force you to partake in the political climate- it does however formalize a state of affairs that already exists in game and gives it purpose and direction. That, I think, is a step in the right direction.

 

Clausewitz's opinion has war coming AFTER politics hence the use of the word "continuation".

 

Since in Naval Action we already have war - it would seem getting involved heavily into politics would be a step backwards....at least as far as "action" is concerned.

[Hethwill]

So why give power to a Lord then? If the game developers choose to give power into the hands of the few, the many ought to have a way to influence them, otherwise you can end up with powerful people without following?

 

I agree with you many times Hethwill, but we shall not be in line on this one.   

 

You misread me.

 

This meritocracy, if it is not exploited, is refreshing for a long time player and a newcomer alike. I dislike stagnation therefore I really hope a bit of entropia to follow suit with the power seats being awarded to many players you never heard of simply because they might be out there doing their own thing with their group.

 

It will happen and it will change the direct opportunities in game. Allies are truly allies in the sense you cannot simply go bonkers and attack them. Same way enemies are open to attack.

 

If you disagree, crack some skulls in a rebellion.

 

At least a part of the meta gaming is done with. A new comer will be able to see enemies and allies with no mistake.

[Black Knight the first]

Clausewitz's opinion has war coming AFTER politics hence the use of the word "continuation".

 

Since in Naval Action we already have war - it would seem getting involved heavily into politics would be a step backwards....at least as far as "action" is concerned.

Right, you have "war", now. It has no focus or purpose past killing dudes. If that's your want, it can be far more easily achieved utilizing the provided duels, small battles, and large battle lobbies. Politics relating to the OW situation already exist and already drive the warfare there. Creating a formalized system for it is not only reasonable but also beneficial to the health of the game. Giving folks who are inclined to be a part of the process an outlet is a useful thing, especially as this actually allows for the spread of power and mechanics to allow informal policy of affiliated clans and players to have formalized meaning.

 

 

*Edits for spelling and punctuation.  Replying on mobile is a pain in the ass, sometimes.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Blackknight64

[Volcanus]

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.

Even if they don't do it this way you will have the clans and guilds having the power still. 

Some clans have up to 60+ active players on most PvP servers and that is just on PvP2 which i am on. Sure that is more for the bigger factions but still that is a hefty number of players votes compared to YOUR one vote. So either way the guilds and clans will always get their way no matter how much YOU whine and complain about it. Want to change things? Make your own big clan which you can change and alter the path the nation takes.

[Lytse Pier]

Aaah, Thats how you meant it Heth! You Machiavellian! ;-)

[Zapranoth]

 

Who can vote:

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

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

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

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

 

This has merit, however, I would prefer that port captures were identified by clan rather than the individual. As such, then the votes would be in the hands of clan leaders rather than individuals. The reason I think the clans should be the voting entity is that the leaders of each already know what their agenda is, and who should be rewarded within their organizations rather than individuals potentially working at odds with their own clan leaders. 

 

We already have two tiers in this game, adding another tier may simply cause unwanted havoc. I do like the interesting layer of nationality playing a part in how clans interact within that nation... declaring wars, brokering alliances and peace... so adding another aspect of voting by individuals who happen to capture a port may run counter to a clarity you wish to achieve with this process.

 

Zap

[Z-fuzi]

 

• If you own land you can vote – you are the landlord – or simply lord

 

 

 

 

 

You need to put in place the possibility to give this power to a member of your clan. I will join PB for sure, trying my best in it to win, but i dont want to be the guy with the responsabilities (and the time needed for it) by "bad luck" beeing the best

 

nb : sry if this topic was discussed earlier, read most of the message but did not see any question / answer.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Z-fuzi

[Bjerg Bjergsson]

Civil wars are a neat idea but I don't know about a practical one in the case of this game. Historically civil wars have been less about direct policy and more about systems of governance. A nation wasn't torn apart by war due to a disliked economic policy (though riots and pamphlets were abundant) it was typically a result of an abusive or unrepresentative system. Also it was a little easier on the victors as typically at the conclusion of a civil war one side tended to lose its head so they weren't liable to come back at you next week to do it all again. 

 

Now, as an alternate proposal in the carrot/stick vein:

 

Political Strife

If a nation is in political deadlock for a period of time (i.e. votes are consistently lacking in a definite majority for a period of X sessions of parliament) then the nation moves into a "Political Strife" state. This status is reflective of the disruptive nature of the political situation on the economy/diplomacy of the nation. As a result of Political Strife the following may be true:

1. Reduced production events due to protests/riots
2. Port damage due to protests/riots
3. Lowering of available crew pool
4. Loss of land ownership (ownership reverts to port) and thus vote

The effect of this is to encourage diplomacy among the Peers as a period of Political Strife may in fact harm the defenses of a Nation and thus make it more susceptible to attack by foes. Also it will hurt their own power base (land/ownership) which motivates them to do their job as voters. Ideally we want to motivate and inspire nationalism in the game and not encourage reduction to factionalism (which will naturally occur within the House of Lords without encouragement of game mechanics). 

 

This also leaves the path open for other "National States" beyond Political Strife which may give their own bonuses/penalties e.g. National Unity for consistent successful votes or Empire In Decline for X period of time without a war