Rebellions

[Bach]

Reading the recent USA problems thread in global gave me this idea. We need Rebellions and revolutions.  The USA had them, the French had them, the British had them. Pretty much every nation has troublesom or often progressive evolutionary rebellions.

In NA we have teams that represent clan factions of Nations.  These clans don't always get along.  It actually hurts game play that they can't just fight it out and resolve their differences.  There are entire threads about it going on and on.  But if clan factions could actually rebel or otherwise fight for control of their nations things would not only work smoother but could get a lot more interesting and multi dimensional.

I propose adding Rebellions to the game.  A clan wishing to rebel purchases a grievance writ from the admiralty. On use the writ places a "Rebel" tag on all that clans players in game for 1 week.  It also allows green on green contests where that clan can attack nation mates and be attacked by other nation mates. At the end of the week a new grievance writ must be purchased or the rebellion ends.

This can allow nations to work out control issues and internal political strife on their own. Rebellion writs should be very expensive.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Bach

[Arthur Peckington]

24 minutes ago, Bach said:

Reading the recent USA problems thread in global gave me this idea. We need Rebellions and revolutions.  The USA had them, the French had them, the British had them. Pretty much every nation has troublesom or often progressive evolutionary rebellions.

In NA we have teams that represent clan factions of Nations.  These clans don't always get along.  It actually hurts game play that they can't just fight it out and resolve their differences.  There are entire threads about it going on and on.  But if clan factions could actually rebel or otherwise fight for control of their nations things would not only work smoother but could get a lot more interesting and multi dimensional.

I propose adding Rebellions to the game.  A clan wishing to rebel purchases a grievance writ from the admiralty. On use the writ places a "Rebel" tag on all that clans players in game for 1 week.  It also allows green on green contests where that clan can attack nation mates and be attacked by other nation mates. At the end of the week a new grievance writ must be purchased or the rebellion ends.

This can allow nations to work out control issues and internal political strife on their own. Rebellion writs should be very expensive.

This is a very interesting idea. It could also let other nations support one faction or the other, like the American Revolution for example. Britain fighting the US, who had French and Spanish support.

 

Would they fight to control territory or just destroy each other's things? Would there be a cool down from one revolution to the next?

[Bach]

It would add player controlled sand box content. At the same time I think it would also help to clean up a lot of the chat toxicity. People tend to act a lot nicer to each other when the guy across the table is actually allowed to punch you in the nose when you get insulting.  As wild as it may sound, letting them actually have the threat of a rebellion over their assets may help nations work together better.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Bach

[Arthur Peckington]

10 minutes ago, Bach said:

It would add player controlled sand box content. At the same time I think it would also help to clean up a lot of the chat toxicity. People tend to act a lot nicer to each other when the guy across the table is actually allowed to punch you in the nose when you get insulting.  As wild as it may sound, letting them actually have the threat of a rebellion over their assets may help nations work together better.

You and I are of the same way of thinking entirely. I hope this gets seen and considered. I think there are some people who need the chance to "put op or shut up" inside each country.

[Malachy]

I'm all for this. There are a few people who need a lesson or ten that I'd love to thrash.

[AlteSocken]

I dont like this idea. What would the ow look like if any clan or group makes it's own faction? Would result in kind of death-match game then.

Maybe it's a better idea to ease up nation-switches instead.

[Guest]

Wouldn't mind it.

Alliances killed dissent. After the alliances were removed, the conquest mark system killed dissent.

[EdWatchmaker]

I am 100% for this idea. Have thought about this, and things like it, for a long time. A nation without clear leadership, focus and purpose is just a mob and doomed to fail. The people whose fun has been ruined, if they don't switch nations, will quit because it isn't fun anymore. Like it or not clans are like the government and military of a nation. They need to act accordingly. When they don't and the nation falls into chaos it is only right that that leadership be replaced. If the leadership won't step down of their own accord sometimes divorce is the only answer. Sometimes the only way is civil war and we need a proper way to do that. Part of the proper way is to be able to take port by port and hold it for a specified amount of time. This whole idea could settle a lot of salt and create a whole bunch of great PvP. I learned on another thread that the game engine can only support a certain number of nations so I really like having to get a grievance writ.

Devs, please consider this. More good player generated content.     

[Skully]

The "Town Council" has been put back into play. (Although it should include any building owners for voting purposes.)

The old Alliance patch went awry to some extend. If we really want to be able to do this kind of stuff, we need edicts on National, Clan and Town level. It did however show that a voting system can work. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16218-voting-power-politics/

That in itself is a big thing. Not easy to implement and thus a high risk investment for the dev team.

Ultimately I think it needs to turn to Clan vs Clan anyway as you can't force players to work together. This however does not eliminate a Nation vs Nation overlay.
Just let a Nation have enough perks as an incentive for players to work together (and then see a Nation fall into chaos by their own design ).

[Skully]

2 hours ago, AlteSocken said:

I dont like this idea. What would the ow look like if any clan or group makes it's own faction? Would result in kind of death-match game then.

Maybe it's a better idea to ease up nation-switches instead.

It does take getting used the fact that any ship coming over the horizon might be an enemy of friend.

It also promotes organization as you need to discuss quickly with fellow captains to make a threat assessment.

If you sailed Pirates you know the drill and you also know that it's actually not that bad having a bit of excitement during your sailing.

[Bach]

Anything that allows players to control and resolve their own in game issues is a much better thing than hard coded exploitable stuff that forces players to do certain things.

[Vllad]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:01 PM, Rickard said:

agreed, but there also has to be something to gain from rebellions otherwise it's just attacking fellow countrymen for mostly no valid reasons.

What is gained is generally a less toxic nation.

1. Large clans will be more inclined to work with smaller ones

2. Clans who are full of alts just messing with a nation (we all know who you are) can now be squashed and it can help deal with the ALT issue

3. Smaller clans will be more inclined to stick together

4. It removes the bully's and in general promotes better behaivor

 

While yes this has potential to create a clan of arses who just do it to mess with everyone but then again everyone can now mess back. Creates more OW PVP which is good for everyone.

[Bach]

5 minutes ago, Rickard said:

I still think this mechanic would be way to easy to tricker, also I am not going to just attack a fellow captain because he is not that nice to me I want to gain something with it.

Peoples of nations don't go into or risk rebellions for personal gains. If you are willing to rebel it's because you want a better Nation and nothing more.

[Vllad]

5 minutes ago, Rickard said:

I still think this mechanic would be way to easy to tricker, also I am not going to just attack a fellow captain because he is not that nice to me I want to gain something with it.

 

You can't allow exp, cash or marks as it would then be abused. Your restraint is valid however. If you don't feel other captains in your nation needs killing then their is no reason to initiate a rebellion.

[Skully]

3 minutes ago, Vllad said:

 

You can't allow exp, cash or marks as it would then be abused. Your restraint is valid however. If you don't feel other captains in your nation needs killing then their is no reason to initiate a rebellion.

Naivety to how things can be (and are) farmed. Alts make everything farm-able.

I care little which folks spent 90 minutes shooting and sinking one-another. If something sinks, why not extend the proper rewards.
And if they want to be petty and just do damage farming to gain XP, just let them. Either they will never turn up to a real fight or lose badly if they do.

[Teutonic]

What if the mechanics was the following:

1. "Rebellion/Revolt" - the price is x amount of gold (a very high amount).

2. Once a rebellion starts, there is a 24-48 hour period where the clan who created the rebellion states a target clan. All other clans choose which side to join. The clan who creates the rebellion are the "revolters" and the target clan are the "loyalists."

3. Once rebellion starts, it is 1 week long, you fight the opposing side (so if you chose loyalists, you can actively fight revolutionaries).

4. Determining who wins is determined by which side sunk or captured the most "BR." The side that wins gets some type of bonus for 1 week (after the rebellion week finishes). The loser does not get any bonuses.

5. A rebellion cannot be made again for 2 weeks once it is done. So you have a cycle of 1-2 days of "start up," 1 week rebel, 1 week bonus, 1 week free of internal conflict. If a new rebellion starts, the cycle starts again.

I'm not sure on the bonus but it could be 10-20% increase on gold gained from sunk ships. It could be a 10-20% labor hour generation and max labor hour hold. It could be a 10% reduction in all labor hour costs on all buildings, ships, materials.

What do you folks think? What should change?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Teutonic

[Bach]

5 minutes ago, rediii said:

Even with current mechanics people don't do that.

I think it would be only worse with attacking each other. What does it actually solve?

What it solves is the endless arguments, toxic chats and reduces the need for nation hopping.  Internet MMOs are just semi-controlled chaos without boundaries.  As a professor once to,d me regarding the Internet "Annonymity without responsibility often results in people becoming disrespectful idiots to each other".  Unless the Devs are willing to hire an army of moderators to police every aspect of the game we need another solution.  Hard coded rules forcing players into alliances they don't want wasn't the answer. It just polarized the game into two factions.  What we need is an equally chaotic solution that puts responsibility to players actions and toxicity that is controlled by other players.  In short, it's easy to be toxic when the other guy can't do anything about it. It's easy to be unreasonable or ignore your nation when your nation mates can't do anything about it.  But when they can rebel suddenly there is now consequences to players actions. Consequences bring responsibility for those actions. Rebellions make players answerable to their piers in the nation.  Players become more cooperative and nicer to each other.

[Bach]

14 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

What if the mechanics was the following:

1. "Rebellion/Revolt" - the price is x amount of gold (a very high amount).

2. Once a rebellion starts, there is a 24-48 hour period where the clan who created the rebellion states a target clan. All other clans choose which side to join. The clan who creates the rebellion are the "revolters" and the target clan are the "loyalists."

3. Once rebellion starts, it is 1 week long, you fight the opposing side (so if you chose loyalists, you can actively fight revolutionaries).

4. Determining who wins is determined by which side sunk or captured the most "BR." The side that wins gets some type of bonus for 1 week (after the rebellion week finishes). The loser does not get any bonuses.

5. A rebellion cannot be made again for 2 weeks once it is done. So you have a cycle of 1-2 days of "start up," 1 week rebel, 1 week bonus, 1 week free of internal conflict. If a new rebellion starts, the cycle starts again.

I'm not sure on the bonus but it could be 10-20% increase on gold gained from sunk ships. It could be a 10-20% labor hour generation and max labor hour hold. It could be a 10% reduction in all labor hour costs on all buildings, ships, materials.

What do you folks think? What should change?

A bit complicated and too rigid.  A clan willing to rebel needs to accept the judgement of nation mates. That judgement may change on the fly subject to their actual actions in conducting the rebellion.  In other words, what if the nation discovers they are just ass holes rebelling for reasons other than they initial gave. You method has them once again hard coded and locked into one rigid course.  I do like the 24-48 hour notice to it though. That is good. Players need a warning that a rebellion is brewing.  

Perhaps they buy the grievance writ and upon use it sends out email to the nation a rebellion is pending in 24 hours. Then during the week it last there is a little notification on the game screen. Otherwise, I wouldn't put any restrictions on a rebellion at all.  It should be purely players creating in game sand box effects to other players actions/words.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Bach

[Sir Texas Sir]

On 7/4/2017 at 2:20 AM, Aegir said:

Wouldn't mind it.

Alliances killed dissent. After the alliances were removed, the conquest mark system killed dissent.

Allainces hurt a lot of little clans that wanted to fight, but the big PvE guys that wanted to be carebears would all ways out vote them so nothing got resolved.  People forget you don't have to follow the normal with every one else.  We seen this all ready on PvP Global with the French clans are a bit split and it's kinda been a civil war that they are torn in several directions on there nation actions.   In US this could still be done, Clans not loyal to the British can still show up to fight.  They could of screen the British that came to screen the pirates.   Though that would of been useless cause the US that did make it into the PB didn't even try to fight us.   They made a deal with another nation they are at war with and are loosing regions like hot cakes to that nation.  Pirates took one for a reason to teach them something and will more than likely give it back at some day.   So who was the true evil in all this?   That is why they are loosing so many players this week to other nations cause the small guys are so sick of the same big clans doing the same crap over and over.  I would love to have seen many of these US players stayed and had a means to boot the big idiot clan out of power, but the game really doesn't give them that mechanics to do so and well if players aren't willing to unit for a common cause than you will never see a change any way.

13 hours ago, Bach said:

Anything that allows players to control and resolve their own in game issues is a much better thing than hard coded exploitable stuff that forces players to do certain things.

It's one of the lovely things about the new Pirate vs Pirates fights.  We had a rebellion in Nation just as US was attacking us and they where siding with US.  All the clans and clanless united to push out the US supporters out of pirates (they are now Brits as they followed there US buddies and we are pretty sure the one pirate still left who he's alt of).   Other nations don't have this option and it's been nice to use it to police our own.

[Vllad]

 

It isn't an accident that some of the best game environments I have played in also had friendly fire. Just saying.  

[AlteSocken]

To me nitty-gritty of this idea sounds like outlaw-battles for everyone or allow green-on-green in general.

Or is it about to have clans only instead of nations? Would make solo-players neutral and give them a hard time. Not a very welcoming environment for beginners.

[Bach]

1 hour ago, AlteSocken said:

To me nitty-gritty of this idea sounds like outlaw-battles for everyone or allow green-on-green in general.

Or is it about to have clans only instead of nations? Would make solo-players neutral and give them a hard time. Not a very welcoming environment for beginners.

Solo players are not Nuetral. No one is Nuetral to the rebellion.  The rebels can attack the solo player. The solo player can attack the rebels.  He can even become a one man rebellion if he buys a clan and then buys a grievance writ for his clan.  It becomes so any player can rebel. It is just easier for populated clans to rebel. 

You don't honestly consider the environment in USA Global welcoming to beginners as it is now do you?  This is about cleaning up the toxicity of the game. In the long run this will create a better environment for new players.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Bach

[Hodo]

I am against rebellions in a game like this.  Why?  Because they didnt happen the way you all are suggestion.   

That and they dont work well in games like this where everyone thinks they are a hero or some kind of leader.   When in fact 90% of the player base is sheep.  

I have played games that had this "feature" and all it took was one player to destroy an entire faction. 

This game needs a High Command system like WWII online.  A system where players could volunteer to be in the high command.  Once approved by Moderator team, they are put up for a vote by that nation.  If the player has majority vote they will become a member of the High Command (Admiralty).  

The responsibility of the High Command will be as follows.

Place objectives for the nation, these will be target regions that the nation is focusing on capturing and defending.

Handle any internal national disputes.  By way of an national tribunal.

Be able to punish and or excommunicate those who have been found guilty of crimes against the nation.

 

[Bach]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

I am against rebellions in a game like this.  Why?  Because they didnt happen the way you all are suggestion.   

That and they dont work well in games like this where everyone thinks they are a hero or some kind of leader.   When in fact 90% of the player base is sheep.  

I have played games that had this "feature" and all it took was one player to destroy an entire faction. 

This game needs a High Command system like WWII online.  A system where players could volunteer to be in the high command.  Once approved by Moderator team, they are put up for a vote by that nation.  If the player has majority vote they will become a member of the High Command (Admiralty).  

The responsibility of the High Command will be as follows.

Place objectives for the nation, these will be target regions that the nation is focusing on capturing and defending.

Handle any internal national disputes.  By way of an national tribunal.

Be able to punish and or excommunicate those who have been found guilty of crimes against the nation.

 

You can certainly call it something other than a rebellion if you want. What it is is a player to player resolution of issues, toxicity and in many cases pecking order.

The method you propose is rigid. Not that it is all bad. I don't see how it would solve toxicity or disagreements. It does set the pecking order but I'm not sure it provides a method to change it.  If a mass of a nations players did not like the goals and directives how would they change them or are they still stuck into joining another nation?   I see multiples more potential for player created sand box content through rebellions than through game master chosen player approved leadership and policing.

The issue with toxicity and cooperation is largely a lack of mutual respect. Adding in game cops isn't going to force anyone to respect each other.  Letting them fight it out will probably have better odds of gaining mutual respect. Respect has to be earned and the game needs a way for players to earn it with each other.  It would take a huge amount of 24/7 Dev sanctioned moderators to accomplish what one week long civil war would do on its own.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Bach

[Hodo]

18 minutes ago, Bach said:

You can certainly call it something other than a rebellion if you want. What it is is a player to player resolution of issues, toxicity and in many cases pecking order.

The method you propose is rigid. Not that it is all bad. I don't see how it would solve toxicity or disagreements. It does set the pecking order but I'm not sure it provides a method to change it.  If a mass of a nations players did not like the goals and directives how would they change them or are they still stuck into joining another nation?   I see multiples more potential for player created sand box content through rebellions than through game master chosen player approved leadership and policing.

The issue with toxicity and cooperation is largely a lack of mutual respect. Adding in game cops isn't going to force anyone to respect each other.  Letting them fight it out will probably have better odds of gaining mutual respect. Respect has to be earned and the game needs a way for players to earn it with each other.  It would take a huge amount of 24/7 Dev sanctioned moderators to accomplish what one week long civil war would do on its own.

Letting them fight it out isnt going to do anything but create more salt.  Nothing good comes from fighting "blue on blue" in a game.

Gamers DONT let go of grudges.  

And all it would lead to is a promotion of the zerg guild/clan and the big snuffing out the small.