Create national councils for regulating the 'big picture' of each nation's stance

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Lovec1990 said:

Actually if you fly British flag you are loyal to british if new diplomacy prevents you from attacking alied nation its a good thing

Who makes the decision as to which nations are allied?  Players?  Popular players?  I wont be told what to do by any group of players.  I didn't buy this game to be told by some kid in his mom's basement what I'm allowed to do.

[Lovec1990]

Just now, Oberon74 said:

Who makes the decision as to which nations are allied?  Players?  Popular players?  I wont be told what to do by any group of players.  I didn't buy this game to be told by some kid in his mom's basement what I'm allowed to do.

It could be RNG by game every month so it would be intresting and i agree with you on being dictated by group of elite players

[Hethwill]

There's plenty of captains out there i would follow into battle without a second thought, but not a single one that can tell me what i should or not do.

I would rather put my faith on a virtual "Risk" deck of cards.

Every 14 days 2 cards are drawn automatically for each nation.

1 with a allied nation

1 with a random enemy region to conquer ( all ports in the region )

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

It's the last option and measure. Without it the national council would be toothless and the rogue guys would just laugh into their faces. All kind of power needs enforcement, as the last step.

I didn't read about a National Council in the rulebook.  It doesn't exist, except in the imagination of some players.  Those players agree on a course of action FOR THEMSELVES.  Not for other players who have no interest in their decisions. 

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

I would rather put my faith on a virtual "Risk" deck of cards. There's plenty of captains out there i would follow into battle without a second thought, but not a single one that can tell me what i should or not do.

Every 14 days 2 cards are drawn automatically for each nation.

1 with a allied nation

1 with a random enemy region to conquer ( all ports in the region )

That's not a bad idea and it hits exactly on the point I am trying to make.  If it is something that is mandated by the game itself, then it can work.  You can never be mandated by other players.  To be fair on this subject, I have gone on Nation chat and asked if im making waves by attacking certain nations, but it is up to me if I want to be considerate or go ahead and "throw the grenade".

[JoeFried]

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

1.) Introduce national councils, marine ministries or Admiralties for each nation except Pirates.

No. - I find too complicated. Instead, all players of a nation should decide.

Nein. - Finde ich viel zu kompliziert. Anstelle dessen sollten alle Spieler einer Nation entscheiden.

 

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

2.) National council will determine national policies towards other nations (and it is nations, not clans - clans have to subjugate to national interests)

No. See above. Instead, all players of a nation should decide. Every week a ballot is sent on one day. On this piece of paper each player declares his friendly and hostile nations. At e.g. 70% hostility or kindness, these nations are in war or in the Alliance. All other results are neutral.
If a player attacks an ally, he receives a warning from the game server. With three warnings, he becomes a pirate.
If a player attacks a neutral, he receives a warning. As soon as 9 "One Nation" warnings are obtained, he becomes a pirate.

(You might want to think more about the number.)

In a future vote, targeted conflicts can lead to a war. Here in the forum or in the chats propaganda for a war can be made.

The criminal record is deleted after every new ballot, ie once a week.

 

Nein. Siehe Oben. Anstelle dessen sollten alle Spieler einer Nation entscheiden. Jede Woche wird an einem Tag ein Stimmzettel abgesendet. Auf diesem Zettel legt jeder Spieler seine freundlichen und feindlichen Nationen fest. Bei z.B. 70 % Feindlichkeit oder Freundlichkeit befinden sich diese Nationen im Krieg oder im Bündnis. Alle anderen Ergebnisse sind Neutral.
Greift ein Spieler einen Bündnispartner an, erhält er eine Verwarnung vom Spielserver. Bei drei Verwarnungen wird er Pirat.
Greift ein Spieler einen Neutralen an, erhält er eine Verwarnung. Sobald 9 Verwarnungen bei "einer Nation" erlangt werden, wird er Pirat.

(Über die Anzahl sollte man sich vielleicht noch genauer Gedanken machen.)

 

So können bei einer zukünftigen Abstimmung gezielte Konflikte zu einem Krieg führen. Hier im Forum oder in den Chats kann Propaganda für einen Krieg getätigt werden.

 

Das Strafregister wird nach jedem neuen Stimmzettel, also jede Woche einmal, gelöscht.

 

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

3.) Clans within a nation who spoil national decisions and the relations with other nations based upon these have to be disciplined by the national council if demanded by another member clan

Yes and no. See above, the user himself decides with his actions, when he becomes a pirate. Otherwise, punitive tariffs on individual clans make sense, but should always include your own risk, see -

Ja und Nein. Siehe Oben, der User entscheidet selbst mit seinen Taten, wann er Pirat wird. Ansonsten sind Strafzölle auf einzelne Klans sinnvoll, sollten aber immer ein eigenes Risiko beinhalten, siehe oben ...

 

 

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

4.) Could be connected with a general reassessment of the Pirate community

Yes, I agree.
 

Ja - sehe ich auch so.

 

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

5.) Regulating the admission of a new clan into a nation

No - change from one nation to another always with a cooling time of 1 month. If someone became a pirate, he should not be allowed to return to a proper nation after one month at the earliest. This could also be his previous one again without "application" of any "councils".

Clans are not allowed to change the nation. Clans dissolve when they change nations. It always flies the member out of the nation, which has committed the misdeeds.

---- Cetric de Cornusiac - I love your idea to get more content and order in the game 🙂

 

Nein - Wechsel von einer Nation zur anderen immer mit einer Abkühlzeit von 1 Monat. Wenn jemand Pirat wurde, sollte er frühestens nach einem Monat wieder in einer ordentliche Nation dürfen. Diese könnte auch seine vorherige wieder sein ohne "Aufnahmeantrag" irgendwelcher "Räte".

Klans dürfen die Nation nicht wechseln. Klans lösen sich auf, wenn diese eine Nation wechseln. Es fliegt immer das Mitglied aus der Nation raus, welches auch die Missetaten begangen hat.

 

---- Cetric de Cornusiac - ich finde Deine Idee super, weitere Inhalte und Ordnung in das Spiel zu bekommen 🙂

 

PS: English translation using Google.

[p i t]

[Old Crusty]

7 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

A national council is no democratic system it only reflects the will of some clans. And since all clans are not operating the same way (some have internal councils other let their leader decide) at the end it's only a group deciding for the majority.
Thankfully the voting system we had in place doesn't exist anymore as at the end the alliance system was in a state of sclerosis. Nothing was moving.

I have been playing on the PVP server since it opened officially in January 2016. And I have changed  my opinion about how the game should be played. When I started I thought it was important to have  a national consensus so we could all move along together for a common goal. I realized quickly that it would never happen.

And since now we have moved toward a clan system and no diplomacy tool I think we need to get a full clan system.  Meaning, the clan decide who can help in PB and who can enter the port they take (open port= anybody can come; nation port= only nation players can get in; and finally port with timer= only clan on the friendly list can get in).

If it is only a clan system then why have nations at all? No need for British, French, USA, etc.... 

[sveno]

49 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

That's what we kind of have already, clans have friendly list. Clan collect taxes. Clan attack port. Clan own port.

The issue with clanbased only organisation is that often one clan claims all decision power for itself and even starts to include only their own members into RvR.
This makes access to end-game content difficult for medium and small clans, which i do not think is the aim of the devs.
Worst case scenario is when there is hate between clans within a nation, which is killing fun for a lot ppl - cannot get to a conclusion of that conflict, as clanwars were never included into NA.
This can easily making players leaving NA all togheter if they don't want pay real life money for a game function (in EA!) as changing nation without loosing all.

A good national organisation is boosting the action and fun of most players, if a council and RvR is open for all clans.
The issue is that someone has to organize, get together clans and keep things rolling to have a good national organisation under the current NA system.
I've done that in Sweden for a long time (togheter with others), 6-12 hours "work" each day (wouldn't have done it if i didn't love it), totalling up to 4.6k hours in two years.
Now that i am working full again, i had stop doing what i did for Sweden in that regard. Doing that job proper without burning out as a normal player is close to impossible.

I would like a simple and good national organisation tools in NA; but i do understand that it is impossible to expect prior release or even ever in NA (1) at all.
Pointing out: I am pretty sure a good system would increase the fun for all players, de-salt the inner workings of nations and retain more active ppl in NA.
Maybe we could have paid mods organizing (NOT leading!) national councils?

My humble 2 Öre. o7

Edited August 14, 2018 by sveno
the holy typo inquisition

[Hethwill]

Just now, sveno said:

Maybe we could have paid mods organizing (NOT leading!) national councils?

So something like this but specifically aimed at the wargame ?

 

[sveno]

Just now, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

So something like this but specifically aimed at the wargame ?

Will read that when i am home, missed a lot of info while i was gone for 3-4 months.

[Hethwill]

Truth be told m8, if anyone has the most sober overview of something like that, it is you. And you've seen the worst of it...twice.

[Hethwill]

[p i t]

4 minutes ago, Wraith said:

everything you shoot causes reputation to go up or down with that faction and nation, etc.).

until sinking alts dictates direction

-maybe every port taken/hostility can affect reputation?

[Vernon Merrill]

Confusion to Boney!!  

Keep your filthy democratic ideals among your friends at the Academie, sir!!

*removes leather glove and slaps you right across the cheek*

 

Good day, sir!!!!

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

1 hour ago, Louis Garneray said:

A national council is no democratic system it only reflects the will of some clans.

Wrong.

The will of the majority of clans and thus of the players = that's purely democratic.

[Hethwill]

Just now, Louis Garneray said:

And what to do of the independents? Force them to join a clan?

That's democracy - you better fit in ! 🤣

[Old Crusty]

I think that the OP is on the track.

Except nobody can be disciplined for doing anything that the game allows. The key would then be a Diplomat tool in each Nation that sets what a player is actually able to tag in the OW. 

All Nations should have Representatives in the Nations “Government” according to the size of the Clan. Those Representatives can then vote on a National Leader (King, Queen, President, Prime Minister).   Each individual Clan can set up however the creator of the Clan wants to set it.

   In a Diplomatic window Representatives will be allowed to vote on your Nations status with another Nation. Votes should be open for 24 hours so every Representative has a chance to vote. At the end of the vote the game then sets the status of your nation against another. These votes would take place on the last day of the month and take affect after server reset on the first day of the next month.

players with no clan will automatically be part of the no clan and vote on members to represent them in Nation.

The Pirate Nation would have none of these tools and any member or clan can do anything they want.

This would be the choices.

ALLIED. If two Nations vote to be allied together then players are considered to be in both Nations. They could be in battle groups together. Run Hostility missions together and be in Port Battles together. The game would not give a choice to tag a player from an allied nation. 

FRIENDLY. No PvP or RvR allowed. The game would not give a player a choice to tag another player from a friendly nation.

TRADE AGREEMENT. PvP is allowed with Warships but not Trader ships from that nation. Again, the game will not give you the choice to tag a Trader from that nation.

NEUTRAL. PvP is allowed across the board. RvR is not allowed.

WAR. All PvP and RvR is encouraged.

Each nation of course votes the way they want and when it turns out that two nations vote differently toward each other then the more hostile stance is taken. For example if France votes trade agreement with Spain, and Spain votes neutral with France, then the game status would be neutral.

Having this Diplomacy makes the game even more realistic than it is now. It also would add depth to the game. Clans would never have to be punished for going rouge because they simply can’t.

This can be made much deeper but the biggest point is to realism on status between nations and simply not allowing players to tag another player from a friendly nation. Realistic.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

I dare make the judgement that a game which tries to depict political situation according with the scenario and the tools (naval warfare), that is, using nations and their interactions between them, finds more lovers and players than a Caribbean of a parallel universe with clans only. Really, I hate clans. I try to see them as navy organizations, arsenal corporations, merchant clubs, whatever historical - but no clans as clans. And all said organizations have to observe the national policies set for them. This isn't even that hard. You just have to chose your enemy wisely. I suspect you are doing it already now, if you are interested to live longer and keep your pretty ship.

I don't give a f**** about loyalty to some clan, they are just tools for the faction they belong to, but I care about the fate of my nation.

[Angus MacDuff]

7 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:

I think that the OP is on the track.

Except nobody can be disciplined for doing anything that the game allows. The key would then be a Diplomat tool in each Nation that sets what a player is actually able to tag in the OW. 

All Nations should have Representatives in the Nations “Government” according to the size of the Clan. Those Representatives can then vote on a National Leader (King, Queen, President, Prime Minister).   Each individual Clan can set up however the creator of the Clan wants to set it.

   In a Diplomatic window Representatives will be allowed to vote on your Nations status with another Nation. Votes should be open for 24 hours so every Representative has a chance to vote. At the end of the vote the game then sets the status of your nation against another. These votes would take place on the last day of the month and take affect after server reset on the first day of the next month.

players with no clan will automatically be part of the no clan and vote on members to represent them in Nation.

The Pirate Nation would have none of these tools and any member or clan can do anything they want.

This would be the choices.

ALLIED. If two Nations vote to be allied together then players are considered to be in both Nations. They could be in battle groups together. Run Hostility missions together and be in Port Battles together. The game would not give a choice to tag a player from an allied nation. 

FRIENDLY. No PvP or RvR allowed. The game would not give a player a choice to tag another player from a friendly nation.

TRADE AGREEMENT. PvP is allowed with Warships but not Trader ships from that nation. Again, the game will not give you the choice to tag a Trader from that nation.

NEUTRAL. PvP is allowed across the board. RvR is not allowed.

WAR. All PvP and RvR is encouraged.

Each nation of course votes the way they want and when it turns out that two nations vote differently toward each other then the more hostile stance is taken. For example if France votes trade agreement with Spain, and Spain votes neutral with France, then the game status would be neutral.

Having this Diplomacy makes the game even more realistic than it is now. It also would add depth to the game. Clans would never have to be punished for going rouge because they simply can’t.

This can be made much deeper but the biggest point is to realism on status between nations and simply not allowing players to tag another player from a friendly nation. Realistic.

So a select group of players can tell other players how to play the game that they paid for?

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

10 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

And what to do of the independents? Force them to join a clan?

Just a reminder it's a sandbox game.... not the tyranny of the "majority" game.

That's easy. They just will not have a word in where the policies of their nation are directed to. Anyway, devs have already declared they want to see independents (and I am one of them) move into clans. Here is one reason to do so. You get a say in your clan by voting in the national council.

The others, who stay independent, play their game as before. Now what to do with independents who act against national policies and attack randomly allied ships. Hm, maybe council could fine them by ordering prices in all national ports for that player to rise by a punitive tax until he follows the rules of engagement. But first that would have to be complained about, by diplomats of the allied nation or his colleagues who are concerned he creates trouble between the countries.

The problem is really more to be found in rogue clan behavior than by single persons. Because individuals cannot attack ports all by themselves, clans do that.

[Angus MacDuff]

I honestly don't understand why you think you can tell other players what to do (or not do).  There is no "rogue".  There is no National policy.  There is no government or councils.  There are made up social groups of players who imagine they have some form of government.  You don't.  Its a GAME.  If you choose to follow some rules that you and your friends have developed, that is entirely on you alone.  Don't try to force other players into your self imposed restrictions.

[Raf Van Boom]

14 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

What are those rogue clans you keep talking about?

I think they exist on the PvE server.

And there is one thing you can't through your thick head - this game has only one thing going for it and that's PvP combat, there is nothing else to do in it. You really want a different game than what naval action is and will be.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Le Raf Boom

[sveno]

Any national tool should strictly keep hands of the allowance of targets in OW PvP.
Such a limit would just drive away PvP players from NA.

We had such a thing before - and we did not like it at all.

Edited August 14, 2018 by sveno

[Angus MacDuff]

I had enough of empire building when I was in the navy.  I'm independent now and plan to stay that way...'Give me Liberty...Or give me death!!"  (Mic drop)