Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

The points you make in 1. and 2., make the 3. point unnecessary. I also think you made the deciding/voting/democratic element way to complicated. Just give all nation players with a certain rank limit a vote, would be a lot easier. If you want to limit it more, then only let the lord protectors of the nation vote! Both of those options would make the 4. point unnecessary.

I like the suggestion, but as someone should have pointed out already we had an in game diplomacy feature in the past. But there was not enough limitations on the alliances so the entire server got locked in 2 large blob alliances, team red and team blue. It was difficult to get out of those alliances and in the end the feature was just removed because it limited PvP way to much. This old feature could be reused with some tweaking. If it only allows nations to have vote for 1 allied nation, and denies the 2 largest nations to ally, then we can avoid the blob alliances that limited PvP and we can avoid a Zerg alliance.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's exactly the attitude that stops anything being done in Britain, there's always someone or clan that says "You can't tell me what to do"

Diplomacy is great in a game like this. But it is easily spoiled by brutes who have no idea what interesting game content that could be, or don't care, or like to blow up relations. A good working dip

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Oberon74 said:

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.

Then I ask again, why have Nations at all? If that is what you want then all ports should be neutral and players and clans can set up anywhere they want and fight anyone they want. As soon as this is implemented you will lose the vast majority of the players. If there are Nations then there must be tools for Diplomacy and National direction.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Make NA clan based as it should be and turn nations into nothing more than a backdrop.  Those who want to PVE and play a Brit/French captain can and stick with their respective nations.  Those seeking RVR and conquest get a letter of marque and go out and take or lose ports. Clan X fights clan Y. Very simple.  No bullshit internal politics.  No being upset when one clan doesn’t fall in line.  Your allies are your friendly clans.

The nation method of trying to fit everyone into the same box is doing this game a disservice.  We already have clan owned ports, clan paid for ports and smaller BR battles.  Time to go fully into the clan based system.  

#clanbased

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience these "councils" are often full of people that talk a lot of talk and don't have the power to do anything about it. In nations the size of the clan is no indicator to how much they contribute to a nation and many times its the smaller very organized clans that carry the nation. I don't think preventing a group of players from doing what they want to do is a good thing because a unrelated group/groups in their nation don't want to.

So I say no, now if this had to be added then a way for a clan to leave their nation and become pirate so we have clan diplomacy (what I would rather see anyway) then maybe it could work. Although if we went that route I have a funny feeling many of these "great" nations wouldn't exist at all.

Edited by Aster
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

like WW2Online High Command ? ...

Good. I vote on MYSELF only.

 

4 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

you mean a player can never be puissant enough 😮 ... ?

 

4 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

My character is immortal unless I decide to delete it. I nominate any new character I create once i delete this one, my heir. Praise the Emperor and pass the ammunition.

I am joking, sorry Cetric. What I am trying to say is that the notion of Nation has moved, by popular demand, to a clan based system.

We are private ventures hired by euro powers. All we have to do is pay tax and keep the NPC God Emperor happy.

I'm just guessing your not a fan of the OP suggestion. And I know moderators are allowed to have personal opinions, even though for me it's a bit confusing when you have the staff label over your nick.. But I still think just maybe (I'm not looking to get a warning here form Powdercake or you) that those posts are borderline what you moderators normally have to hide/delete when threads are cleaned up after being derailed with off topic and troll post.. :)  

So should you guys not strive to lead by example, or is that just not how we do things around here..?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cetric de Cornusiac

Originally, I’d like the idea wanting the lite sandbox to open up more. Any type of complicated system isn’t going to work at the moment with the Dev’s. The diplomacy in your case would be simply a nightmare to code, even with the reputation system.

Not including the smaller clans or individual players they get sidelined? My [EDARK] GB clan 1 member has 90% of its PCs in other Nations. You mention rogue clans and expelling them or inflicting disciplinary measures. Sorry this is a NO, having players with such power over others will seriously NEVER happen.

Its feels like you’ve had issues with a problem same nation clan and possible ALT usage against your clan? I maybe totally wrong in this.

 

Controlled Civil-War is a must...

Via a Purchased Note from the Admiralty. When triggered will offer a limited time window to engage in a civil war against a same Nation Clan. On the time expiry, there will be double the time cool down before you may trigger another Civil War against the same clan. No same Nation clans can get involved.

The Pirate Clans unique feature allow them to be hired by either side for defense or attack. This automatically would put two hired Pirate clans at war with each other for the duration.

 

How Nation Guidance should work...

More like the PvE/Co-Op with PvP NPC campaign Storyline arcs work in EvE Online [EvE].

http://lorebook.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:cosmos-epicarc-guides&catid=1:cosmos-epicarc-guides&Itemid=2

NPC offer Campaign storyline arcs at different times. An example might be GB and US combined group attacks on French will give bonus rewards. A ten-part story with different scenarios against other PvP nations. Using Alliances and other aspects to drive RvR.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Campaigns

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Scenarios

 

The NPC Nation Overlay becomes dynamic...

These campaigns build into backstory also becomes a mechanic balancer against too dominant a nation/clan or whatever reason. Players may suggest Campaigns in the Admiralty channels but no control.

 

Just my thoughts

Norfolk

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I would only agree with this suggestion if you remove safe zone for pirates and bring back outlaw battles. "Rogue" players need a free nation to play. 

What if a player is from the UK and wants to sail under the White Ensign?  Why should he be limited by any other player in that nation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Le Raf Boom said:

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.

I don’t know where to start with this. This game is so much more than just shoot em up and do it again. If that is what you want there are dozens of games out there just for that.

   If all there is to this game is PvP then why is there an economy and trade? Why are there Nations at all? My intent is not to insult you but you are being very shortsighted here. If PvP is all there is then why have this huge map? We would just need a couple of ports to sail out of to find a fight. Why have ports at all? We could make this World of Tanks with sailing ships.

   This might really surprise some people but there are people that actually want meaning in a game. This game has great potential for content. It is a hell of a lot more than PvP

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tiedemann I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.

I am a fan of anything that promotes social interaction and player made canon and lore.

OP suggestion enforces another player "diplomatic rulebook" into my gameplay.

As I said, I rather have a NPC generated diplomacy from a deck of cards. It would feel more fair.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post something similar. Just an idea:

 

Chapter 1: Politics

 

When i first started already in the first days i found me in annoying situation. It seems that i wasn’t allowed to sink traders from faction X and Y because there was a peace treaty between these 3 nations. My reply was that i didn’t signed no treaty and there is no peace treaty between nations, that is a big lie , the only thing that exists is an agreement between clans and continue to attack them. However it wasn’t enough i already made confusion with the leaders in the big clans in my nation i also had to explain to my victims why they were being attacked.

 

My idea tries to solve all this problems.

 

Now will be the lords or leader to choose the fate of the nation.

 

I suggest two types of governemnt. Democracy or monarchy.

 

Some factions use the democracy. Example: England

Some factions use the monarchy. Example: Spain

 

Note:

-There is also the pirates that don’t have any governemnt, but i will talk more about them in the next chapter.

 

Both system use a lords council , but in a different way. Lords council will be the 5 top clans leaders of that nation ( in a monarchy) or the 5 player who gets elected by the players each month ( democracy ). The measure will be how many ports a clan have. If two clans have the same number of ports, the measure will also include the number of players in both clans. ( only for the monarchy factions )

 

How it works.

 

Lets say a nation wishes to start a war with another faction to attack his ports.

 

-In a democracy. One of the lords suggest to declare war at faction X. The lords will have a maximum 5 days to vote. If proposal wins a state of war is declare by the 2 nations and clans can start to increase hostility againsr the enemy ports.

 

-In a  monarchy. The leader chooses when to start and against who.

 

Note:

 

-In a monarchy the leader of the nation is elected by the others lords ( he also must be one of the lords ) . However at anytime a lord can propose a new election to elect a new leader.

 

-A lord or leader can always relegate his functions to other member of his clan.

 

 

How to declare peace?

 

- In a democracy . One of the lords at anytime can make the proposal to the enemy faction. The 5 lords of that faction will vote. If wins a state of peace will immediately take place and other further actions against enemy port will not take place. In the monarchy is the leader who needs to propose the peace treaty to the other nations.

 

 

Trade agreement.

 

Each nation can have one trade agreement with other faction. Only one!

 

With the trade agreement accepted a trader can’t be attacked by players of the other nation that signed the agreement.

 

The way the treaty is proposed is:

In democracy: One lord propose the treaty. The lords vote. If wins the treaty goes to the other faction.

In monarchy: The leader proposes the treaty to the other faction.

 

a)The lords of the other nation votes. If wins it is accepted. ( democracy )

b) The leader accepts or rejects. ( absolute monarchy)

 

Trade agreement can be cancelled by

a) a state of war is declared by the two nations.

b) a lord proposes to cancel the treaty. The lords will vote. ( democracy )

c) the leader cancel the treaty (  monarchy )

 

 

Important note:

- PvP is always on. A trade agreement will only protect the traders against players from the other faction that signed the treaty!

- If a player in a trader join a battle against players of the other nation that signed the treaty he can be attacked.

 

Edited by no one
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

...keep the NPC God Emperor happy

As the Obvious Secret Almighty (please dont leave that out next time) NPC God Emperor... Id just like to say I am presently happy. Well done. Keep up the good work.

 

 

(lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

There's only one way to do things proper.

Absolute power invested in me. No need for a council with daggers as smiles.

Everything else will fail, can tell you that right now.

If you're taking everything over a la Liberian General Election 1927; I demand you recognize my bank as being an independent nation. Think Sealand but wealthier.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Crusty said:

I don’t know where to start with this. This game is so much more than just shoot em up and do it again. If that is what you want there are dozens of games out there just for that.

   If all there is to this game is PvP then why is there an economy and trade? Why are there Nations at all? My intent is not to insult you but you are being very shortsighted here. If PvP is all there is then why have this huge map? We would just need a couple of ports to sail out of to find a fight. Why have ports at all? We could make this World of Tanks with sailing ships.

   This might really surprise some people but there are people that actually want meaning in a game. This game has great potential for content. It is a hell of a lot more than PvP

That is absolutely right. This game waste its potential. Sadly it (and this forum) is ruled by pewpew-only-players...

I would like to see a deep economy system. pewpew-player: "i dont want to waste time for building new ships"

I would like to have an diplomacy system. pewpew-player: "nooo, then i cant attack who i want to attack"

I would like to see a national hierachy system. pewpew-player: "i want freeeeedom! no rules for me"

I would like to see a 1st rate as queen of the waters. pewpew-player: "I wanna sail the big ships they must be cheap to replace"

..nearly all is killed by the "wanna have easy access to everything" mentality.

BTW: "world of tanks with sailing line ships" exists in NA: It is called "Naval Action Legends" pure pewpew, but seems like the players don't want that.

Edited by Sven Silberbart
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sveno said:

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.

Aren't they driven away from NA now? So let's do something against it. Reliable diplomatic relations is such thing.

Those wanting to kill anybody for killing's sake can join the Pirates and, as someone mentioned a pretty new idea, could even fight each other. More bloodshed you cannot ask for. If you need it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be fair; almost every nation has already had a "council" where all the clan leaders and their 2nd in command or someone else would meet up and discuss several topics. It did not only not work because not all clans use the national TS it also angered a lot of players because they were excluded and not allowed to sometimes attend or participate in port battles and the likes.

I do however, think a diplomacy system where EVERYONE ABOVE OR AT A CERTAIN RANK CAN VOTE ONCE could be beneficial to some nations and has the possibility to work.

Edited by Abraham van Riebeeck
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

The points you make in 1. and 2., make the 3. point unnecessary. I also think you made the deciding/voting/democratic element way to complicated. Just give all nation players with a certain rank limit a vote, would be a lot easier. If you want to limit it more, then only let the lord protectors of the nation vote! Both of those options would make the 4. point unnecessary.

I like the suggestion, but as someone should have pointed out already we had an in game diplomacy feature in the past. But there was not enough limitations on the alliances so the entire server got locked in 2 large blob alliances, team red and team blue. It was difficult to get out of those alliances and in the end the feature was just removed because it limited PvP way to much. This old feature could be reused with some tweaking. If it only allows nations to have vote for 1 allied nation, and denies the 2 largest nations to ally, then we can avoid the blob alliances that limited PvP and we can avoid a Zerg alliance.

 

 

Yeah, why not. But you did not pay attention to one of my most important aspects within my suggestion, and that is, how to deal with clans *within* the nation who act against the given policy or strategy of the nation. They can be plain stupid, simply egoistic, or even sent by another nation to destroy an existing alliance (by starting to attack the ally once they are in). A solution for this abuse is needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Christendom said:

Time to go fully into the clan based system.  

I give you the prophecy most players of a heavily historically inspired game like Naval Action don't give a damn about your clans. If nations are completely out of the picture and you fly fancy fantasy flags on your mast, for whatever the clan stands, the many history-interested people will lose interest in this here. Congratulate yourself on another shrink in game community then.

The truth is, the inclination towards history and thus towards nations battling for ruling the Caribbean needs to be buffed and not nerfed for sake of fantasy content such as 'clans'. People don't immerse into a clan world and feel no loyalty to some artificial group called 'clan'. It feels wrong in time and territory. It's okay for organizing people, but that is about all. The big picture, the common struggle for a group of clans (which happens to be 'british' or 'french' or 'dutch' ) is something to strive for. Petty clan interests, one versus another, is pointless conflict Why should someone from outside get engaged in this? Clan policies don't attract new players. History reenactment does.

Those of you who just want to have tools for fighting and executing supremacy over others still can do that. Just not against everybody. Or else consequences. Don't mind consequences? Alright, join Pirates. Kill and loot as you please. The End.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sven Silberbart said:

That is absolutely right. This game waste its potential. Sadly it (and this forum) is ruled by pewpew-only-players...

I would like to see a deep economy system. pewpew-player: "i dont want to waste time for building new ships"

I would like to have an diplomacy system. pewpew-player: "nooo, then i cant attack who i want to attack"

I would like to see a national hierachy system. pewpew-player: "i want freeeeedom! no rules for me"

I would like to see a 1st rate as queen of the waters. pewpew-player: "I wanna sail the big ships they must be cheap to replace"

..nearly all is killed by the "wanna have easy access to everything" mentality.

BTW: "world of tanks with sailing line ships" exists in NA: It is called "Naval Action Legends" pure pewpew, but seems like the players don't want that.

Well said. And even from a Swede. :)

Naval Action is different from 'pewpew' games galore out there. Let's make it as unique and special as possible. People will honor that by staying with the game.

'Pewpew players' move over to new attractions with even greater 'pewpew' being offered... Let's forget them.

Edited by Cetric de Cornusiac
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

 

Naval Action Legends was a hot topic but the implementation and testing was terrible. Not our fault the way it was done and many of us would be happy to see it done properly.

I imagine that a lot of the players that would have been interested in the arena format Legends during the early Sea Trials period probably left the game after it became the time-intensive Open World.  There just wasn't much momentum for a second unrelated Naval Action among people already invested in the Open World game.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cetric de Cornusiac

 

Nation interests need to be brought back into the game dynamically. The Clan groups are vital to the core gameplay. From PORT Ownership to fleet construction and so on. The name is incorrect I totally agree. With a more acceptable name like a division which is a subdivision of a squadron or flotilla or even a sub-division of a Fleet, but sub groupings are not a fantasy really. Calling them Clans is...

 

NPC Nation Overlays...

To go totally clan based I believe would destroy the game. This would work for a NA-Legends scenario though. The Nations need to remain but actually serve some form of purpose. They like I said earlier should be used to generate Out of Game content to drive the in-game world. This via NPC specific nation campaign roll outs with story arc’s.

 

Clan conflicts did occur...

Sub-division leaders were often in conflict with their peers and Senior Ranking officers within the same Navy during the same theater points. Nelson’s account of Cape St Vincent was challenged by a jealous Rear Admiral Parker. At Copenhagen our beloved Nelson completely disobeyed a direct order from his Commanding Officer in front of his own flag Captain.

 

Campaign Incentives...

The story arcs and heavy rewards will bring the “Clans” or “Divisions” closer together to achieve a single goal. Build this out over several missions and it will keep player retention and Nation group interests.

 

If time take a look at the idea I posted earlier.

 

Norfolk.

 

Edited by Norfolk nChance
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It all boils down to one thing for this thread.  If one player (or one group) is given dominance over another, you have trouble.  I've probably been characterized as one of the so called "pew-pew" players but in reality, I would love to see a deeper economy and more interesting missions.  You just simply CAN NOT have any player run councils or governments that have any authority over other players unless it is agreed upon by all players in the game, and that will never happen.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...