Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

 

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

 

I am not comfortable with the way rulers will (might) be chosen, someone with no interests except his own (or a troll, or an alt from an opponent nation) could (I said could, it'd require luck or an incredible amount of skills to achieve, I'll admit) become the most influential land owner of a nation and therefore ruining the whole diplomatics relations of said country for his interests/his main nation's interests (there were traitors, even in governments, in real life, but it wouldn't fit well in a game).

 

My proposal is as follows : CLANS are elected as rulers of ports, not individuals, and representants of said clans (either their diplomats or their officers) would earn ruler/parliament seats. amount of seats earned by each clans would be determined by the amount of ports they own (50 seats, clan X controls 20% of all nation's ports, they get 10 seats (20% of total) and have an option to elect a fiendly clan's representative if they only wish to have 7 representants in the parliament) It would of course still give advantages to bigger/more powerfull clans of the nation, but it would already eliminate the risk of a troll/alt having too much power in a nation. The way the ruling clans of a conquered port would be chosen is still at work in my head though, but ti shouldn't be solely on a value that is determined by a number factor (I.E. :if a clan has 20 members all sailing the most powerfull ships in every PB (as AFAIK, PBs are limited to 25 players), they would own all ports.). I am open for suggestions on how to chose which clans receives the harbor control, maybe the POTBS system would work, at least for a time.

 

 

Also, it'd be really helpfull to have a port ownership transfer option when this goes live.

 

PS : hopefully everything is understandable, I'm never satisfied with my proposals and add stuff while I'm typing, I'll gladly clarify shadowy points if it's needed. Also my English not being perfect, I hope you'll get it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power is by - owned land - not only ports control. You can own land by pvp prowess in the open sea as well. How you going to control that mr. give power to clans only ? Sorry for the sarcasm, actually not at all.

 

Lots of options and not limitative at all. Hell, even millionaire traders can get into bed with a lord and get some power.

 

I fail to see what you perceive as an issue.... So you give power to clans which have individuals players, as clan leaders outside any game mechanics, as main power and decision ruling... well well... how about no ? :)

 

- Give us the halfling !!!

- If you want him, come and claim him.

 

See the analogy ? Get those clanners to claim their power if they want it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what land is there to control except ports ? You saw alot of flags hanging around on deserted islands ?

 

Earn Power by PvP Prowess in the open seas, how is this fair for people actually fighting into the mud of Port Battles if a random dude lurking around in a brig has ganked 150 traders going in and out of ports ?

 

So you're implying that big clans are not inside the game mechanics, how about yes ? The game is made in such way that clans are actually what really matters in a nation : they get the economy going, they can also crash it if they wish. They have ships, sailors, captains, gold, all they need to push the nation forward of put it in a complete stalemate.

 

What you fail to see what I eprceive as an issue is precisely what you're pushing forward in your ideas about how the diplomacy/national council should work. An individual has no reason or wish to have the nation in it's whole go forward as long as his own little personnal interests and desires are filled.

 

Imagine this in this way : once a lord or however you want to call this will own land (ports) and desires to become richer than he is, and set a tax to 85% for you to use anything in his port. that would lock a port out of the nation. what if ALL those individuals, which are not tied by anything to drive the nation forward and do what's best for the whole of it decides to do the same? what will your game experience be like ? Ruined cause 40 guys own every single ports in the game and decides that their interest is more important than the one of the entire nation ?

 

Also, I thought the discussions in this post were supposed to be constructive, I fail to see what means constructive for you, in case of bashing a few points of my whole post, why not give an alternative solution for the possible issues that might arise from this situation, as stated in my first and second posts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

National decisions are enforced by design.

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

 

 

I do like the suggested move into participatory politics for the game, however I am skeptical that the underlined portion would at all practical if not impossible in practice.  With the dynamics it would create alot more port flipping because clans would selectively defend only ports owned by their members so they could later retake the port in a 'closed' battle of only their captains.

 

I would STRONGLY recommend that a 'ticket' voting system be considered where, as stated, something like VP earned in a given time period (Week, Day, Month whatever) directly equals weight of a vote.  i.e. Captain Leach does not participate in much pvp and never in port battles, but thru some involuntary pvp he has earned 100 VP in the time period and his vote has that weight of 100.  Captain Hardcore has taken vacation to binge play NA and scored some meth to maximize play time so he has 20,000 VP in the past 7 days so his vote carries that weight...but after crashing for 3 weeks he logs back in and his vote now has the weight that reflects his activity in the tracked time period.

 

For National leadership positions perhaps it could be some version of activity over time (ie VP/month) to ensure leadership remains fresh and it is not a simple popularity contest (unless you want all the leadership in each faction to belong to a single clan...which WILL happen in a popular vote mechanic)

 

This has some historical context in that national politics has ALWAYS been more about 'what have you done lately' than who simply has the largest plantation.

 

For a current example of how this might work mabe Mechwarrior Online Community Warfare.  Only faction loyalists can vote for who gets attacked when and the voting blocks are every 4 hours.  However they do not weigh votes based on player activity and MWO in general is a pretty sad example of what coulda been. (this suggestion should not be considered an endorsement of MWO as a stable or vibrant gaming community)

Edited by VictusB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the Dev. sett all ports neutral (exept capitals) for me is locic the map reset. the game system so many changed after this big patch . 

but anyway i want to know when planned the wipe or map reset

They said they will announced it at least 30 days before the release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much PvP does the independent non-clan captain have to win to be awarded land??

Will crafters be able to win land by say building ships "for the cause" supporting a declared war??

By "for the cause" I mean building ships to support the navy without profit...

Edited by Diceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

i had this thought before i found this topic and althought your system sounds good as i read it i think it has the possabillity to be very controlled by who is selected for PB's if there is a large population on the server. so i thought i would state my idea incase it is able to inspire another idea.

 

my idea is that  you can only buy a flag to capture a port as long as you are not a lord protector of a port already. this is asuming that the ownership of a port gives diplomatic voting rights and also asuming that the flag purcheser becomes the lord protector (as is the current model).

this would have the benifit of ensuring that even a large clan would not be able to take over all ports (without the use of alts, which i hope could be prevented in this case) it would also alow smaller clans to take and genereate "seats" possable even at a larger clans request and support in the PB, or against the larger clan just to gain some influence in the voting.

 

i'm sure you have probably already had thoughts along these lines but thought i should mention it just incase.

 

i guess my main fear with the upcoming diplo patch is the possable self declaired dictatorships of vocally large but ultimatly small clans takeing control with the abillity to bully other clans with as much influance in the game out of the diplomatic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     What happens if you are the most decorated PvP player in your nation...interdicting enemy ships boarding and capping 4-8 ships a day and causing grief for your nations enemy's traders.    What happens if you are your nations level 50 ship builders, spending hours making ship parts and sailing for materials and pumping out the ships needed for Port Battles.    Why should they vote?  A nation's influencial people are more than just a bunch of people running around doing undefended port battles. They are actually individuals or groups of individuals doing important deeds and tedious tasks rather than a couple of people going to an uncontested port battle.   The fleet leaders gathering up the players and ships to do the battle?  The Fleet leaders making arrangements between fleets to gather and organize port attack forces and screening fleets.  It just comes down to who shows up and damages the most towers?   I disagree.  I think the whole system is going to go very wrong.  I can also see a very large window for exploiting.  Very concerned ..... I must say.   Do I have a better solution no, but I would rather see it stay in the current format than go to this system.

I believe all votes should count. However, in your idea, I do not believe "Business Only" people should vote if they are crafting, building, etc all things and simply selling it to the enemy. Maybe in each Free Port, there should be an option to Sell To Open Market, or Sell to Nation Only. And then any item at all sold the the Open Market would not provide any "Points" for that "Business Only" person to vote. And conversely, he would gain points for selling to Nation Only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm not certain I approve of this feudal system of automatic promotion, as this would incite civil war or at least unrest when multiple people horde-buy flags, preventing other people from conquering other ports. I do suggest that all people have a vote, but that maybe this person owning the most land would possibly have more vote points?

 

I don't want to be consider a spammer by posting my entire idea that would fit into this model quite well, so I will post the link to it. My example applies to the general populace and defines their actions against other nations and shows a sort of consequence for themselves and the nation as a whole for any of the player's actions in OW.

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14337-international-politics-relations-in-game/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what will happen based on recent history. The largest factions or alliances will predominate and persecute smaller factions to extinction. After all its great fun to win but its not much fun to get crushed day after day. I have no confidence in the player-run society to act reasonably. Whatever diplomacy mechanic is put in place there has to be a higher authority that can overturn nations/alliances if they get to a point that smaller nations are being destroyed. I have no confidence at all in the proposed system if there is no oversight.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This simple system that we will have in game will give any player a chance. Any...player. To grab a lordship. It is not perfect but is totally better than the mishmash of National News we have at the moment.

 

Obviously it only takes "any player" to do nothing for those "bad men of clans" to triumph.

 

C'mon, it takes slightly more than clicking "Play" to get something done in the game.

 

And if you do not agree or feel comfortable with a nation path you can always go freedom fighter rebel galore, or better, join the black.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not liking the power you want to give to players alone. People come and go, and the lords will not always stay lords, so somehow there needs to be an option for succession, which still does not guarantee anything. People also want to take a break from the game to revisit it later without having to start from scratch because he gave his title to a friend who gave it to a friend who gave it to a friend and cannot get it back because they do not even know each other.

 

My suggestion is that the whole political system be controlled by the AI which are influenced by certain player events. This way, you can control the global political situation, preventing certain game breaking flaws like the current pirate steamroller sweeping the Caribbean. I like the landed titles allot, it is similar to a reputation system, but rather giving players the power to interact with the global political situation, give certain rewards like modules or even special ships like 1st rates. In my honest opinion, no player should be able to build a 1st rate, it should be a reward from the nation through heroic efforts and promotions.

 

By giving the AI the power, you would also enable smaller nations with less players to have fun without being steamrollered, port battles could be announced by the AI long in advance in order for players to prepare for the upcoming battle. You could even implement a story, or a campaign which could be historical or not.

 

To conclude, I just think by allowing the AI to have the political power over the players you open much more opportunities for later development of the game, whereas giving the players the power, you will limit your opportunities. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several posters have identified a real problem in the game, small nations being destroyed and overrun. In my opinion elections, leaders with actual power to incentivize their decisions (goals/XP for completion) and term limits will actually help solve the small nation being run over by big ones problem.  Here's why:

 

Incentive to join and remain in small population nations

As of right now, there is not an advantage to being in small nation.  But if you are interested in running for office and serving in a political leader, diplomat, or admiral type role you'd could join a large nation and face huge odds against election or selection, or you could join a smaller nation and be one a few vying for the leadership positions. 

 

Provide small nations a chance to organize a defense/offense

A small nation with, say, 20 to 30 active players might actually be divided up into 4,5, or even 6 clans.  Thus while 20 players could easily defend or attack a port, clans with 3-5 active players cannot do anything.  A national political leader, and accompanying admiral, capable of setting and incentivizing national objectives such as defending or retaking a captured port, would provide players the organization needed to bring the tiny clans together for the common good of the small nation.   

 

Provide an centralized diplomatic voice to negotiate with other nations

In my experience, sometimes a clan leader in a nation will negotiate a peace with an opposing nation only to have another clan leader from that same country scream in Global "NEVER!!! FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!!" or words to that effect.  Having a nation with real and centralized diplomacy able not only negotiate war and peace, tribute, alliances, and the like, but also able to set and incentivize national behavior objectives would eliminate this problem.  For example, the British elected leadership believes that peace with the Pirates is good for the nation.  Under a political system, they could negotiate that peace, prohibit British subjects from attacking Pirate Ports, and potentially also prohibit attacking Pirate player ships. Thus both sides can negotiate with the confidence that a deal is real and will apply to all members of that nation.  This will also allow smaller nations to make real and lasting diplomatic arrangements with larger countries, such as alliances, trade agreements, etc, that would encourage larger nations to refrain from simply blasting a smaller nation from the map.  For example, if alliances allowed nations to fight together in battles, port and otherwise, and trade agreements allowed merchants to sail without fear of attack into foreign ports, a larger nation might have good reason to nature and aid a smaller friend, instead of burning it into the ground.

 

Other thoughts on ways to protect small countries, apart from the political system.

-Make at least 3 or 4 ports outside the capital uncapturable, with all the needed mats available to continue a viable ship building effort.  I think one of the main factors that drives a nation's collapse is the massive departure of players (from the nation, the server, and sadly, sometimes the game) who find themselves on the losing side, and who are rightfully afraid they will have nothing left once the much bigger nation is done capturing all the ports of a nation.  Leaving a small nucleus of ports for a nation to use to trade and build ships, and begin to rebuild, makes sense and might stop total permanent nation collapse.

-Come up with a trickle of per player per day logged on incentive for every nation, such as gold and silver.  For a 1000 Americans, a 1000 daily national gold/silver income is 1 gold/silver a day per player.  But for only 20 Sweedes, 1000 national gold a day translates to 50 gold/silver a day per player, and is a significant incentive to stay or join that country.  Perhaps this could be modified by the number of ports a nation controls, and/or dispensed by national elected leadership as part of a tax collection/ incentives for national objectives program. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge Alt account problem which will allow for the unbalancing where necessary by fanatics.

 

Its bad enough having traitors in your clan let alone nation especially in an alpha test

 

(not mentioning any names starting with D and ending in N)

 

Give everyone a say and a share of the spoils :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

while i like the idea of it, being that pvp2 will most likely merged into pvp1, its a shame i wont be able to vote as all the ports with my name (8 i think) wont be coming over as well. and the huge drops in population also become a factor. i dont think it should be mandatory to vote but there is the question of inactives. maybe after say 30 days there is an election of sorts, and the winner is drawn from a small pool of people that have played the most in said 30 day span, and awarded at random after that to that small pool. if "elected" then you cant qualify for 30 more days for another port opening up in this manner.

 

just spit balling here, but it does make sense and keeps the power base out of a select few

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i hope the Clans lose a "bit" of their power here. Under circumstances they do what they want, and if you arent a clan member you play for yourself so to say.Especially in such important matter like war and peace, clans shouldnt be able to declare war as they wish. Such occasion affects ALL members of one Nation, no matter how experienced or wealthy they may be.

At least they should be able to, i don`t know, vote, or participate in such decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. Imagine there is a nation with 100 Players. Lets say 30 Players are active PB and Screening Players. These guys, are fighting for their nation. in my experience, these type of player do that day by day. On the other side: The Rest are players, who mostly do Crafting, PvE or Exploring. Or Players with less time for the game. And now a decision is needed for war/alliances with nationX. Everyone has one vote. The 30 Soldiers of that nation do a vote for an alliance with nationX because they did good teamplay in the past and they have the same goals. They have ideas and plans how to win the next important PB as team. The Rest dont care about diplomacy or dont know about the ralionship between the nations in the past. What should they do? Press that button to start a war, or the button to do an alliance, or a neutral state to the nation X? I FEAR, they will do something like a random click: pressing any button. As result maybe the nation is at war with the nationX. What do the 30 Players. Dont fight nationX and wait for the next vote with more luck?

 

This is, why i think the active players needs more votes. Maybe with that landowner thing or something else. BUT please don't give everyone a vote with the same weight. PLEASE dont give the players who don't care about politics and PBs the might to destroy the nation by random votes.

Edited by Sven Silberbart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. Imagine there is a nation with 100 Players. Lets say 30 Players are active PB and Screening Players. These guys, are fighting for their nation. in my experience, these type of player do that day by day. On the other side: The Rest are players, who mostly do Crafting, PvE or Exploring. Or Players with less time for the game. And now a decision is needed for war/alliances with nationX. Everyone has one vote. The 30 Soldiers of that nation do a vote for an alliance with nationX because they did good teamplay in the past and they have the same goals. They have ideas and plans how to win the next important PB as team. The Rest dont care about diplomacy or dont know about the ralionship between the nations in the past. What should they do? Press that button to start a war, or the button to do an alliance, or a neutral state to the nation X? I FEAR, they will do something like a random click: pressing any button. As result maybe the nation is at war with the nationX. What do the 30 Players. Dont fight nationX and wait for the next vote with more luck?

 

This is, why i think the active players needs more votes. Maybe with that landowner thing or something else. BUT please don't give everyone a vote with the same weight. PLEASE dont give the players who don't care about politics and PBs the might to destroy the nation by random votes.

 

That is called democracy :)

And it opens big oppurnity for politics inside nations.

I`ll gladly welcome system where traders/crafters/owpvprs have opurnity to vote and decide about important stuff. They are part of game and nation. They matters.

It creates amazing room for awesome politics :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...