Allow downvoting for allies, allow upvoting for nations at war with, check wars and alliances each voting round instead

[TrackTerror]

The current mechanics funnels voters to vote in specific way based on previous and allies votes, the risk here is that the current blocks will never change. As of today for example, as a member of the Swedish nation there are no possible votes at all, literally.

This looks broken to me.

 

Firstly, stop restricing how one can vote. It is inherrently undemocratic to only allow certain voting options.

 

For these blocks to be more dynamic and balanced my humble suggestion are that either to keep an ally the opinion needs to be retained in each subequent vote, same for wars. To keep a bigger alliance such as the SPA-FRA-DK-SWE they will not only vote trough an ally in a round but also need keep them in positive each subsequent round for the alliance with each parter to be maintained, at any point at votecheck if an ally has a negative opinion from either side the alliance will be broken.

This will make bigger blocks harder to manageand game will be more balanced with less meta.

 

Right now it works like this: The more allies the less voting options, so right now a bigger alliance is easier to maintain then a small.

This cannot be right.

Edited October 26, 2016 by TrackTerror

[Fenris]

The current mechanics funnels voters to vote in specific way based on previous and allies votes, the risk here is that the current blocks will never change. As of today for example, as a member of the Swedish nation there are no possible votes at all, literally.

This looks broken to me.

 

Firstly, stop restricing how one can vote. It is inherrently undemocratic to only allow certain voting options.

 

For these blocks to be more dynamic and balanced my humble suggestion are that either to keep an ally the opinion needs to be retained in each subequent vote, same for wars. To keep a bigger alliance such as the SPA-FRA-DK-SWE they will not only vote trough an ally in a round but also need keep them in positive each subsequent round for the alliance with each parter to be maintained, at any point at votecheck if an ally has a negative opinion from either side the alliance will be broken.

This will make bigger blocks harder to manageand game will be more balanced with less meta.

 

Right now it works like this: The more allies the less voting options, so right now a bigger alliance is easier to maintain then a small.

This cannot be right.

Democracy is a dictatorship of majority.Even if you are able to vote it wont change a thing.Unless you "run" the nation,or you are in the "inner circle" of "deciders".

[TrackTerror]

Democracy is a dictatorship of majority.Even if you are able to vote it wont change a thing.Unless you "run" the nation,or you are in the "inner circle" of "deciders".

Sage but unhelpfull, this summarises democracy pretty well; but

I am not able to vote at all, and bigger coalitions should be more difficult to maintain not easier.

Edited October 26, 2016 by TrackTerror

[Jim]

I cannot disagree more the current system works fine and I'm strongly supporting it.

 

When I read your post the quota from Winston came trough my mind.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

 

 

I'm happy that you are unable to shape nation policy in any way, at this moment.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Jim

[TrackTerror]

I cannot disagree more the current system works fine and I'm strongly supporting it.

 

When I read your post the quota from Winston came trough my mind.

 

I'm happy that you are unable to shape nation policy in any way, at this moment.

 

So you disagree with the ability to vote?

[Wesreidau]

I wish I lived in a timocracy myself. But it would appear the current national alliances are determined by cabals of the powerful. Since power in Naval Action directly flows from your participation in the big clans, and the big clans are the principal actors in port battles, I see no reason to dispute the leadership of a cabal of admirals in smokey back rooms, so long as they risk their necks in battle.

 

With all that said, why not allow voting to break an alliance? From the sound of it, its quite hard to slip the knife in.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Wesreidau

[Jim]

So you disagree with the ability to vote?

Only for you and only for now.

This is preventing people than cannot make decision from making them.

In democracy you have for instance age census or other censuses.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Jim

[TrackTerror]

Only for you and only for now.

Constructive, may I ask why?

[Tretton]

I agree to the fact that we have an OBVIOUS problem in the that we have two big alliance blocks that will probably never change with current politics mechanics.
How to go about solving that problem - I dont know whats best but something clearly needs to change. Opening up the possibilities in voting, making it less restricted by the current state of war and alliances or restrict the number of allies a nation can have to only one. The last one would make for a VERY interesting game i think.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tretton

[Guest]

I've also asked myself several times whether/how/when the current alliances ever change. 

Especially this morning there was only 1 voting option, which starts with a negative vote on an ally who just became allied the same day. Only when you do this vote you could do further votings? 

Maybe its better to have only max. 2 Allies instead of 3 as it is now. And as maybe already a hundred times said in this forums I also favor the idea of having neutral status between nations. 

Nonetheless I agree with TrackTerror that the voting needs to be more flexible and needs to work in both directions. 

[Rikard Frederiksen]

I agree to the fact that we have an OBVIOUS problem in the that we have two big alliance blocks that will probably never change with current politics mechanics.

How to go about solving that problem - I dont know whats best but something clearly needs to change.

Simplest thing I can think of is dropping the number of alliances down to 1. Allowing three alliances per nation was just begging for two super-blocks, a foolish move in my opinion that should never have been tested. Otherwise we might as well have had just Britain vs. France in the game, and leave it at that.

 

By having a single coded alliance per nation you allow players to expand upon the system. How so? Diplomats. We've already seen it happen, and seen it work. In this sort of game there will always be those willing to go to the table with representatives of other factions/nations to create treaties/pacts/alliances that benefit their own nation. These treaties give players flexibility - they can agree to follow them, or they can carry on doing their own thing.  One advantage of these treaties that appeals to me is that they can unravel and fall apart rapidly. This makes the political scene one that can be volatile and can change quickly, and you don't have to wait for some coded timer to finish before your nation can stab another nation in the back or vice-versa.

In short it would allow those who'd be diplomats to engage in an additional dimension of the game, it would make the politics more flexible and at the same time more volatile, and not restrict players too heavily in who they can attack and where.

 

The political system is in its infancy though, it was added only a few months ago, so it will of course need work done upon it, to be tweaked and adjusted, but the best fix for the moment is to reset it, drop alliances down to one-per-nation and let us have at each other.

As an after thought, one of the biggest downsides to these super-block things that I hate is that I feel safe. Utterly safe. Doesn't matter where I wish to sail to, I'm barely concerned about being troubled on the seas, because our enemies are concentrated far away, so I can sail with impunity.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Rikard Frederiksen

[Hagen v Martius]

It's just ridiculous that on PvP1 at the moment Denmark and France (and AFAIK Sweden as well) can only vote for War with the US but not vote for anything else. We can't vote for anything or against anything else.

At the same time the alliance with for example Spain will run out in five days, the voting circle runs for six though.

 

So yeah. It's a bit bonkers and useless right now.

 

 

As for what dear Rikard Frederiksen said above my post here, I mostly agree. But personally I think two Alliances per nations would be more reasonable than three or one. It would still allow a larger access of the map to allied nations and the formation of larger blocks to fight each other.

But unlike the current system it does not basically end up enforcing two large blocks for eternity. If that was the goal of the whole thing, why have the diplomacy in the first place? 

[Fenris]

Stated this few times before,i have no idea if anyone is interested in this idea,especially the Developers

I still think we need a possibility to vote for PEACE and/or NEUTRALITY towards one/more nations.Being automatically set on "ENEMY" to all nations,makes no sense.A peace has to be made if most players of the nation decide so,or are willing to do so.

Not few self announced ingame "diplomats" and "leaders".

Edited October 27, 2016 by Fenris

[Riparian]

Currently we (@pvp1) have two allied blocks fighting each other.

 

Personally I would prefer more multipolar gaming world.

Best way to get this would be to limit each nation to just one ally.

 

In addition there should be Neutral status.

Nation that you can trade with, but not fully co-operate or build bases in their territory.

[Fenris]

Currently we (@pvp1) have two allied blocks fighting each other.

 

Personally I would prefer more multipolar gaming world.

Best way to get this would be to limit each nation to just one ally.

 

In addition there should be Neutral status.

Nation that you can trade with, but not fully co-operate or build bases in their territory.

If you prefer "multipolar" alliances,limiting each nation to 1 ally,you will end in chaos.Nothing prevents your coalition again being attacked by another 2+2.

[TrackTerror]

If you prefer "multipolar" alliances,limiting each nation to 1 ally,you will end in chaos.Nothing prevents your coalition again being attacked by another 2+2.

This is true, but we also know from experience that alliances are fromed regardless by gamermechanics which would still be achievable without limiting pvp for those who disagree.

 

And tbh atm it is pretty much 4 v 2 now. So we already have this scenario.

 

Perhaps it would be better just to have 2 fixed factions and pirates as wildcard. Get rid of this voting since the blocks will not change anyway looking at how it works right now. and the devs can focus on other stuff. OR indroduce privateering across nations for those who disagree with the fixed blocks.

[Hagen v Martius]

Diplomacy needs the reset we were promised. Needs it desperately.

 

Voting is completely screwed for Denmark on PvP1 as of today:

We have two options to downvote, Spain and the US.

Voting for either gives the error message that you can't vote for the last ally/war choice. 

[Rikard Frederiksen]

Perhaps it would be better just to have 2 fixed factions and pirates as wildcard. Get rid of this voting since the blocks will not change anyway looking at how it works right now. and the devs can focus on other stuff. OR indroduce privateering across nations for those who disagree with the fixed blocks.

Goodness, no. They just need to lower the number of alliances. Having two fixed factions would be horrifically dull (as bad it is at the moment!). There'd be no point in having individual nations, might as well just have England vs. France. Politics can work, but the developers need to step away from overdoing it on the 'everyone is friends' 3-alliance rubbish. This situation was visible a mile off, and is only exacerbated by having different vote results for different alliances at different times - people just vote for whatever they're mechanically allowed to vote on, hence why DN now has another 21 day alliance with Spain.

 

Reset alliances, drop it down to two (I'd prefer one), and allow us to actually fight each other.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Rikard Frederiksen

[Guest]

Goodness, no. They just need to lower the number of alliances. Having two fixed factions would be horrifically dull (as bad it is at the moment!). There'd be no point in having individual nations, might as well just have England vs. France. Politics can work, but the developers need to step away from overdoing it on the 'everyone is friends' 3-alliance rubbish. This situation was visible a mile off, and is only exacerbated by having different vote results for different alliances at different times - people just vote for whatever they're mechanically allowed to vote on, hence why DN now has another 21 day alliance with Spain.

 

Reset alliances, drop it down to two (I'd prefer one), and allow us to actually fight each other.

 

The problem is that these caps take zero account of nation population sizes. Apart from pirates, who cannot forge alliances, the Brits and the Dutch currently hold the largest population (with the French following closely after the Dutch), and no other alliance combination would even come close to matching them. How is that any different from facing the large steamrolling coalitions that the alliance cap is intended to prevent? And while we used to be able to provide some assistance before the alliance patch, the new changes make non-allied support virtually useless - can't join for PBs, can't provide BR, can't reinforce OW battles, can't generate hostility. Last thing this game needs is yet another perk for large nations.

[Chijohnaok]

I like the current political scheme for the most part.

 

One minor irritant (which may or may not have been fixed in the latest patch, I am not sure) is the cool down period.

 

On PvP 1 EU, the United States nation is allied with the British and the Dutch.  There have been times (pre-patch) where the remaining days with the British were 3 days, and 6 days for the Dutch, yet during that voting round the US was unable to vote to renew the alliance with the British, with the result that the US-British alliance expired, and we then had to wait one election cycle before we could vote to renew the alliance with GB.  This lapse in alliance would make things particularly inconvenient if you had production buildings and/or warships in a British port.

 

If this can (or already) be addressed I think it would be a good improvement. 

 

 

[Hagen v Martius]

I like the current political scheme for the most part.

 

One minor irritant (which may or may not have been fixed in the latest patch, I am not sure) is the cool down period.

 

On PvP 1 EU, the United States nation is allied with the British and the Dutch.  There have been times (pre-patch) where the remaining days with the British were 3 days, and 6 days for the Dutch, yet during that voting round the US was unable to vote to renew the alliance with the British, with the result that the US-British alliance expired, and we then had to wait one election cycle before we could vote to renew the alliance with GB.  This lapse in alliance would make things particularly inconvenient if you had production buildings and/or warships in a British port.

 

If this can (or already) be addressed I think it would be a good improvement. 

Here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/17228-alliances-and-politics-freeze-potential-alliances-reset-warning/?p=331262

 

[Rikard Frederiksen]

The problem is that these caps take zero account of nation population sizes. Apart from pirates, who cannot forge alliances, the Brits and the Dutch currently hold the largest population (with the French following closely after the Dutch), and no other alliance combination would even come close to matching them. How is that any different from facing the large steamrolling coalitions that the alliance cap is intended to prevent? And while we used to be able to provide some assistance before the alliance patch, the new changes make non-allied support virtually useless - can't join for PBs, can't provide BR, can't reinforce OW battles, can't generate hostility. Last thing this game needs is yet another perk for large nations.

Warfare isn't fair though. If two nations with a larger player-base work together to increase their territory at the expense of another coalition, then they'll start to overstretch themselves, leaving them open to attacks in their expanded territory from the other nations. As I personally see it, and at the risk of creating a false dichotomy, what I see here are two options:

• Two blocks of alliances that won't change, that will leave the political situation stagnant, dull and boring as nothing will change. It might feel fairer, but it utterly defeats any point of having a political system in the first place, indeed of having anything other than two nations - might have a different flag to your allies, and your own nation chat, but that is it.
• Or smaller alliance blocks of two nations, leaving a more fluid, dynamic system, with greater likelihood of change, with player-made traties and pacts layered on top of the mechanics, leading to a more exciting, more interesting level of politics, that in addition creates an extra dimension of gameplay for those would-be diplomats and politicians within the game's world.

Mechanics can be changed to compensate (access to PBs etc), but ultimately I would rather have a dangerous world where politics is fluid compared to what we have now. At least borders will shift more with smaller alliance blocks, so it feels like something is actually happening, it will invoke a feeling of danger when in the open world because you have more nations to be wary of - currently I can sail where I like and feel absolutely safe. I go afk more now in the OW than I did 6 months ago because there is practically no threat, even when I trot around in an LGV laden with stuff I feel absolutely safe.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Rikard Frederiksen