Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Diplomacy may not be a good idea


fox2run

Recommended Posts

This kind of game requires a community effort to reach the goals and that can also be made by a proper organization of the comunity. There it comes the clans and those that are willing to play a MMO as a MMO and leave the solo gameplay for other games.

The new diplomacy mechanic will move that "decision" to the whole community, those that cares about the RvR and those that dont care. Then, if you want to influence the outcome you will have to get closer to those that cares about RvR.... and you will also ve able to declare officially "rogue" to a clan that dont want to follow the decision of the majority. The system has been already explained, although it can change, and only those that contribute to the RvR will have vote in those matters.

If you are not capable to follow a clan rules just dont join the clan.

 

To be disappointed about the whole diplomatic set-up is not the same as wanting a entire solo-game. Im just pointing out some very bad flaws that needs to be handled. Its actually a matter in which ways the clans has to be used. I think they can be good for a social-tactical aspect in battles, crafting and stuff like that. But not when it comes to influence in diplomatics as there are a tendency that a few players grasp power in one way or the other. So please make solutions here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of game requires a community effort to reach the goals and that can also be made by a proper organization of the comunity. There it comes the clans and those that are willing to play a MMO as a MMO and leave the solo gameplay for other games.

The new diplomacy mechanic will move that "decision" to the whole community, those that cares about the RvR and those that dont care. Then, if you want to influence the outcome you will have to get closer to those that cares about RvR.... and you will also ve able to declare officially "rogue" to a clan that dont want to follow the decision of the majority. The system has been already explained, although it can change, and only those that contribute to the RvR will have vote in those matters.

If you are not capable to follow a clan rules just dont join the clan.

 

Get it into your head a sandbox game can be and should be played how the person playing it wants to. You don't have to join a clan, or  have to play solo, you don't have to do anything at all is your choice. Its the people that constantly try and make other people play the way they think or want that ruin sand box games. I am not looking forward to the dev made diplomacy at all, I think it is yet another nail in the coffin for player made content. However I will never come here and tell people how to play the game.

There is no correct way to play a sandbox game, its all down to the players individual interpretation and im sick of people suggesting a person should play like this or that

Edited by Fletch67
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant give solutions to something that doesnt need any. If your concern is that your oppinion is not being considered then join a clan and contribute to the RvR

 

Been there, done that. In my clan all members are officers and free and can play as they like. We are not popular among the big, mighty clans, though. Still I think that the roles of clans could and should be restricted somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been there, done that. In my clan all members are officers and free and can play as they like. We are not popular among the big, mighty clans, though. Still I think that the roles of clans could and should be restricted somehow.

 

The access to seats of Lords and Land owners will be tied to performance in battle. It will not be given to any clan or player.

 

Knowing this what are you going to do ? Sit and whine or fight and get your right to vote ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be disappointed about the whole diplomatic set-up is not the same as wanting a entire solo-game. Im just pointing out some very bad flaws that needs to be handled. Its actually a matter in which ways the clans has to be used. I think they can be good for a social-tactical aspect in battles, crafting and stuff like that. But not when it comes to influence in diplomatics as there are a tendency that a few players grasp power in one way or the other. So please make solutions here!

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13596-such-is-a-lord-simple-politics-and-alliances-part-1-heavily-moderated/

Read it. Carefully.

 

Get it into your head a sandbox game can be and should be played how the person playing it wants to. You don't have to join a clan, or  have to play solo, you don't have to do anything at all is your choice. Its the people that constantly try and make other people play the way they think or want that ruin sand box games. I am not looking forward to the dev made diplomacy at all, I think it is yet another nail in the coffin for player made content. However I will never come here and tell people how to play the game.

There is no correct way to play a sandbox game, its all down to the players individual interpretation and im sick of people suggesting a person should play loke this or that

 

And where is landlording not going to suit solo players? Did you actually read what is wrote on first post?

"The rulers/parliament initiate the proposal."

So 50 or something biggest landlords will make propositions. Well thats some kind of limit that can hurt a bit solo players, because i guess playing solo it`ll be hard to be big fish arround organized clans, but tbh thats how it should be! Work harder if you refuse to play with others!

"

  • 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) "

So PB`s will be easiest way of geting land. Yes. Nothing wrong with that. You think its unfair? Get some people around you, create flag, go grab that land and your chance! Nothing is stoping you in doing that!

You dont like it? Do heroic feats! Hunt and sink people! Send ships to admirality! Build the most ships! Who knows what feats they`ll introduce!?

Still dont like it? Ok. Farm some gold and marry in to lordship!

So? Where is the problem? Where are the limits? There is a lot of options to get your voice inside your nation! Clans will outvote you? Well. Ask other people that thinks like you. Create some community and vote how you wish. You know. It`s called politics! Work it out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be disappointed about the whole diplomatic set-up is not the same as wanting a entire solo-game. Im just pointing out some very bad flaws that needs to be handled. Its actually a matter in which ways the clans has to be used. I think they can be good for a social-tactical aspect in battles, crafting and stuff like that. But not when it comes to influence in diplomatics as there are a tendency that a few players grasp power in one way or the other. So please make solutions here!

 

Could you elaborate on how an alternative to clan-based politics could work? Would you like war/peace/alliance to be game parameters that have to be set and changed by something?

If so, the methods I can think of off the top of my head are...

(1) declarations of war/peace by vote of all players of that nation

(2) war/peace deciced by a logical algorithm based on events in game

(3) war/peace decided by some impartial gremium

 

For me personally, all these options would be a change for the worse compared to what we have. As it stands, I am part of a newly hatched clan struggling to make its mark on national policy, and slightly frustrated with the direction politics are (not) taking. But that does not stop me from playing pew-pew, and chatting with the clanmates on how we can impact on clan politics. To me, that is more (perceived) influence than any option I can think of where international relations are determined as absolute.

Ultimately, I seem to have more fun with "The Spain clans generally lean towards war with Britain" than "the game paramter says there is  a war between Spain and Britain".

 

Of course, feel free to bring on other ideas and prove me wrong.  :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a sandbox, this is a MMO

 

Try reading the description of the game on the steam page where it is sold.

 

(Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas)

 

 

You could ask the devs to change it.

Naval action is exciting detailed naval combat game that must be played inline with a certain Spanish dudes views on how such games should be played

I will make a deal with you, if they change it to that I will play the game how you see fit. Otherwise don't expect anyone to play the game any other way than how they wish too as long as its within the rule set.

 

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try reading the description of the game on the steam page where it is sold.

(Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas)

You could ask the devs to change it.

Naval action is exciting detailed naval combat game that must be played inline with a certain Spanish dudes views on how such games should be played

I will make a deal with you, if they change it to that I will play the game how you see fit. Otherwise don't expect anyone to play the game any other way than how they wish too as long as its within the rule set.

.

Lmao. Im not taking sides in this but damn that new description made me laugh !

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try reading the description of the game on the steam page where it is sold.

 

(Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas)

 

 

You could ask the devs to change it.

Naval action is exciting detailed naval combat game that must be played inline with a certain Spanish dudes views on how such games should be played

I will make a deal with you, if they change it to that I will play the game how you see fit. Otherwise don't expect anyone to play the game any other way than how they wish too as long as its within the rule set.

 

.

Nice try dude.

image.jpg

 

 

You, or devs, can say whatever... the genre is not define by them and this is a MMO by definition. Masive Multiplayer Online.

 

BTW, why did you change the description?  

 

If you don't like big groups "control" the outcome of your faction, change your faction or play another game without RvR... it will always be controlled by those big groups, no matter if that group is a "Clan", "Fleet", "friends", X or Y... Your complain has no sense at all, face it. 

Edited by CeltiberoCaesar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try dude.

image.jpg

 

 

You, or devs, can say whatever... the genre is not define by them and this is a MMO by definition. Masive Multiplayer Online.

 

BTW, why did you change the description?  

 

If you don't like big groups "control" the outcome of your faction, change your faction or play another game without RvR... it will always be controlled by those big groups, no matter if that group is a "Clan", "Fleet", "friends", X or Y... Your complain has no sense at all, face it. 

 

I have nothing against groups of players coming together and shaping the world, I am all for that. What I am against is the devs being asked to sort out for us because the players are not willing to put enough effort in themselves or feel that they are loosing and some rule changes might help them out.

I am also dead against people telling anyone how they should play the game in any way shape of form. For me diplomacy is fine as it is, Its completely and utterly player made with no outside intervention. It took time to work up trust and make an alliance, and it was not possible to suddenly be friends over night, you had to work on it.  Now a simple vote and click of a button and everything is sorted out?

Not my cup of tea I am afraid I prefer things done the hard way than spoon fed .If the majority want it though im going to have to lump it obiously

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”

 

Aristotle

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear fox2run,

 

While I unterstand the fact that you are not following your council decisions, entering the french TS and passing yourself for an ally of the french in order to gain insight is clearly an abuse, as such you are not welcomed on our TS and will be kicked out should you enter again.

 

Have a nice day

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear fox2run,

 

While I unterstand the fact that you are not following your council decisions, entering the french TS and passing yourself for an ally of the french in order to gain insight is clearly an abuse, as such you are not welcomed on our TS and will be kicked out should you enter again.

 

Have a nice day

 

interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know also have had dealings with you in game to the point I put a very large bounty on you for a week.

 

Just from the "chats" you and I and for that matter a few of my Nation's players have had I understand why this is happening to you and the blame falls right on you.

 

Maybe step back and adjust your behavior and arrogance and think about what you want your experience to be playing this game and make major adjustments in that regard and others would probably play nicer with you.

 

I think by some of the comments so far you should start to realize the problem is mostly you and up to you to fix it .

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we can do much about it. It's human nature to gang up. Comes with being a social animal.

Consider this:

It's a game. Ideally one in which we want to maximize activities and player potential for PvP contests. To do this as a nation we would want too:

Be at war with as many nations in our high pop time zone as possible to offer as much action to our high pop players as possible.

We would want to ally with nations populated during our low pop time to minimize empty port battles and Zerging against our low pop players.

We want to secure a an area for new players to train up and be useful.

So how do we achieve those? I'm going to use the USA as just an example because I happen to know the lay of the land there. The USA would ideally ally with Spain and war both Pirates and Great Britain. This works out for Spain as well since they also would want to ally USA to avoid off hour port battles and war both euro Brits and pirates.

But what do we see normally happen? Nations just ally with the strongest neighbor they can to try to "secure everything". And in doing so they minimize activities in the game.

Using the same USA example: if USA Allies to a Strong Britain or Pirate the following would most often occur. The USA would be fighting Spain in a ping pong battle of mostly empty battles. Which ever nation high pop time nation the USA didn't ally to will die off as it gets double teamed by the overwhelming force of the USA plus the other high pop nation. So you essentially get more off time PB ping pong, less prime time PvP.

I'm not sure how you would beat this effect but in a system lead by unbounded humans I'm going to bet you end up with them minimizing fun for security 9 choices out of 10.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we can do much about it. It's human nature to gang up. Comes with being a social animal.

Consider this:

It's a game. Ideally one in which we want to maximize activities and player potential for PvP contests. To do this as a nation we would want too:

Be at war with as many nations in our high pop time zone as possible to offer as much action to our high pop players as possible.

We would want to ally with nations populated during our low pop time to minimize empty port battles and Zerging against our low pop players.

We want to secure a an area for new players to train up and be useful.

So how do we achieve those? I'm going to use the USA as just an example because I happen to know the lay of the land there. The USA would ideally ally with Spain and war both Pirates and Great Britain. This works out for Spain as well since they also would want to ally USA to avoid off hour port battles and war both euro Brits and pirates.

But what do we see normally happen? Nations just ally with the strongest neighbor they can to try to "secure everything". And in doing so they minimize activities in the game.

Using the same USA example: if USA Allies to a Strong Britain or Pirate the following would most often occur. The USA would be fighting Spain in a ping pong battle of mostly empty battles. Which ever nation high pop time nation the USA didn't ally to will die off as it gets double teamed by the overwhelming force of the USA plus the other high pop nation. So you essentially get more off time PB ping pong, less prime time PvP.

I'm not sure how you would beat this effect but in a system lead by unbounded humans I'm going to bet you end up with them minimizing fun for security 9 choices out of 10.

 

 

Very good analysis!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we can do much about it. It's human nature to gang up. Comes with being a social animal.

Consider this:

It's a game. Ideally one in which we want to maximize activities and player potential for PvP contests. To do this as a nation we would want too:

Be at war with as many nations in our high pop time zone as possible to offer as much action to our high pop players as possible.

We would want to ally with nations populated during our low pop time to minimize empty port battles and Zerging against our low pop players.

We want to secure a an area for new players to train up and be useful.

So how do we achieve those? I'm going to use the USA as just an example because I happen to know the lay of the land there. The USA would ideally ally with Spain and war both Pirates and Great Britain. This works out for Spain as well since they also would want to ally USA to avoid off hour port battles and war both euro Brits and pirates.

But what do we see normally happen? Nations just ally with the strongest neighbor they can to try to "secure everything". And in doing so they minimize activities in the game.

Using the same USA example: if USA Allies to a Strong Britain or Pirate the following would most often occur. The USA would be fighting Spain in a ping pong battle of mostly empty battles. Which ever nation high pop time nation the USA didn't ally to will die off as it gets double teamed by the overwhelming force of the USA plus the other high pop nation. So you essentially get more off time PB ping pong, less prime time PvP.

I'm not sure how you would beat this effect but in a system lead by unbounded humans I'm going to bet you end up with them minimizing fun for security 9 choices out of 10.

And in the end make the game suffer a slow death, as the game ends up being unplayable for players in other nations, as they face big zerg alliances.

 

The new diplomacy patch comes too late, it will only add a second dimension to the man made alliances outside gamecontrol, already on the table - if the diplomacy patch is used strategically, then it can help strengthen an already too strong nation, as the second strongest now being voted as an allie, and as an allied nation now can enter directly into portbattles, regional contest side by side with the strongest nation. Not much the defender can do, yea, they are maybe allied with another mediocre nation...but two smaller nations against two big nations......hmm.

 

In my opinion big nations should have a disadvantage programmed into the game itself, whereas smaller nations should have some advantages, this as an effort to somehow balance the game and make it fun for everyone. An disadvantage could be a constructed civil war in the biggest nation which the population in the biggest nation now have to use time on to fight down, or suffer losses like loss of ships, inventory etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No preset disadvantages are needed. No fake civil wars just to add difficulties are needed. There is one very easy way to increase difficulties for large factions.

Make players maintain and operate thier ports. This way no one or two clans can take over anything because upkeep will be to expensive and time consuming just like real life.

It would take doze8of clans working together to zerg anything and good luck getting all those egos to get along.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in the end make the game suffer a slow death, as the game ends up being unplayable for players in other nations, as they face big zerg alliances.

 

The new diplomacy patch comes too late, it will only add a second dimension to the man made alliances outside gamecontrol, already on the table - if the diplomacy patch is used strategically, then it can help strengthen an already too strong nation, as the second strongest now being voted as an allie, and as an allied nation now can enter directly into portbattles, regional contest side by side with the strongest nation. Not much the defender can do, yea, they are maybe allied with another mediocre nation...but two smaller nations against two big nations......hmm.

 

In my opinion big nations should have a disadvantage programmed into the game itself, whereas smaller nations should have some advantages, this as an effort to somehow balance the game and make it fun for everyone. An disadvantage could be a constructed civil war in the biggest nation which the population in the biggest nation now have to use time on to fight down, or suffer losses like loss of ships, inventory etc.

 

I agree with Mrdoomed: speaking from my strategy board game experience, what usually happens is that 2nd-biggest-dude and 3rd-biggest-dude gang up on biggest-dude, to prevent biggest-dude from owning the game. Gamer nature, or so it seems.

 

And just because we have a hard-wired voting system does not mean that player diplomacy dies: I would venture that "internal diplomacy", i.e. getting all clans and indies of a nation to subscribe to a common agenda and cast their votes accordingly, will step up and take some limelight from international diplomacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No preset disadvantages are needed. No fake civil wars just to add difficulties are needed. There is one very easy way to increase difficulties for large factions.

Make players maintain and operate thier ports. This way no one or two clans can take over anything because upkeep will be to expensive and time consuming just like real life.

What if Pirate raids turned a town neutral/free?  :ph34r:

It would take doze8of clans working together to zerg anything and good luck getting all those egos to get along.

Exactly. :)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...