Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Oberon74 said:

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.

You will never get all players to agree to anything!!!! If the developers said they wanted to buy every player a beer we just all had to agree on one beer, we would never get the beer.  If your clan rotates their Representatives then all will have a chance to be involved. When it comes time to vote on Diplomatic stance I would hope that you would have already been talking to your clan mates. If you are a solo player I don’t know what to tell you except your ship probably looks real good flying the Jolly Roger.

   This is what the Pirate “Nation” should be anyway. A bunch of people who don’t want to be told what to do. For the rest of the players I want to let you in on a historical fact. The Military of a nation did what it was told to do by its Government. I know!!! That is just mind blowing to learn but it really did happen. 

   If we had real Diplomatic stances that did not allow a player to PvP against players from one country then people would sail to another country that they can fight with. Amizing, I know, but people will actually go and fight against people that are not from an allied nation.

   Then what would we have? A fairly realistic world in which we wage war. There will still be plenty of war. If you actually read my previous suggestions on Diplomatic stances you will see that there is plenty of room for PvP,  and every other aspect of the game that people can enjoy. This game from a historical view point is the best MMO that I have seen. It puts you right back in history and allows you relive it. Of course it is not perfectly Historical but I can see that having more Nations can allow the game to sell better in more countries.

   If all you guys that constantly cry PvP!!!!! Would just slow down and look at the big picture maybe you can see the light. 

Edited by Old Crusty
  • 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

13 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

Who is talking about individual players? I am talking about misbehaving clans altogether and the need to discipline them by the nation they serve. It is not the other way around, "nation serving clan". Some seem to forget the big picture. And those who want to act absolutely untamed are free to join Pirates and do as they please.

I wouldn't want to see a whole nation turn on one clan, but would be nice if we had some way to do a Clan VS Clan war.  Make it costly to activate and only for a set time that two clans can fight it out. Maybe over control of a port only and so be it.  This will give us way to switch ports between clans in a Nation too.  It can be a friendly act of switching the port from one clan to another or a hostile trade take over by another clan.

Maybe bring back the concept of the War Companies that devs brought up at one time?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion may be more fruitful after the economy gets reworked. Basically, if the economy doesn't get fixed, this game is not going to ever experience significant population growth again.

That being said, I played back when we had player voted alliances. At least on the global server, peace broke out and we sailed around just looking at each other because the biggest nations all ended up allied. It was boring.

I know it's not historical, but clan based is the way to improve game play and provides the freedom and flexibility to move forward. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah if nation to nation alliance comes back it needs to only be on the clan level only or you have the east vs west problem EU had or the Every one vs the Pirates/Dans that couldn’t even form an alliance and no one else fighting.  If us pirates had rolled say Spain or French back than and allied with the Dans we would of destoryed that sever any way having both time zones locked down with the two strongets pvp/RvR clans in one alliances.  That why we always told US/GB it wouldn’t matter if we rolled anouther nation it would actually been worse on that server if we had and could form an alliance with two other nations. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sir Texas Sir

That’s why I think it (the nation) needs to be NPC led otherwise back to [PvP Global]. But @Cetric de Cornusiac makes a really good point, the Nations need to be more dynamic. I believe I’ve an idea but needs to be simple...

Btw when’s @admin going to to do your update? Seems like ages....

 

Norfolk nChance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:

@Sir Texas Sir

That’s why I think it (the nation) needs to be NPC led otherwise back to [PvP Global]. But @Cetric de Cornusiac makes a really good point, the Nations need to be more dynamic. I believe I’ve an idea but needs to be simple...

Btw when’s @admin going to to do your update? Seems like ages....

 

Norfolk nChance.

 

#SOON on that update lol

if Alliance system was brought back it needs restrictions like the top 5 nations on leader board can’t be in an alliance with each other.  If you become the top 5 you alliance is broken.  Top five must be at war with anouther top 5 to make an alliance with any nation not in the top five type thing.  Go off port count more than nation size so the car bears can’t care it up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

#SOON on that update lol

if Alliance system was brought back it needs restrictions like the top 5 nations on leader board can’t be in an alliance with each other.  If you become the top 5 you alliance is broken.  Top five must be at war with anouther top 5 to make an alliance with any nation not in the top five type thing.  Go off port count more than nation size so the car bears can’t care it up.

Exactly, it can’t be left to players otherwise they’ll migrate down the easiest path. Any Alliance will struggle and already lairing multiple mechanics to make it fit isn’t good...

#Growingabeardhere

NnC    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem there are two major ideologies regarding RVR and diplomacy clashing on a single point of contention. That point being:
"Why should players who do not consent to diplomacy be forced to abide by it."

To this end, I would like to propose a compromise. Purely hypothetical, and I will not pretend to have thought it out fully as it is only a framework.
 

Quote

National diplomacy should be an opt-in system.
This system would have it so players who wish to participate in diplomacy are beholden to the diplomacy of the nation, whatever the diplomatic decision making system may be, etc.

If two players from differing nations have both opted-in to the diplomacy system, and those nations be allied, they cannot attack each other. However, should they encounter players who are not opted-in to the diplomacy, they may engage them freely, regardless of diplomatic status. So too would players who are not opted-in be able to attack those who are.

As for a balancing factor to prevent people from simply dropping in and out at will, I propose a cooldown timer be implemented to that end. It would take 1 day to opt-in, and 1 day to opt-out again. Let the timers be set to 24 hours and not maintenance. Let there be a 3 day period after opting-out, during which one cannot rejoin the diplomacy system.

Simply put: Let those who wish to partake in diplomacy do so, without forcing those who are against diplomacy to follow its rules.

I am completely against any diplomatic system in which various people decide the state of the nation without the consent of the players it would affect.

Edited by Ove Gjedde
Addendum: Perhaps the opt-in/opt-out should be done on the clan level, rather than individual player.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

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.

I'm just comparing your suggestion to the removed diplomatic feature. If you where not playing back then you might not be aware how it worked.
When two nations formed an alliance (based on player votes from both nations) these two nations could no longer attack each other ports or even each others players in OW. I don't think it was possible to join OW battle against each other in OW and you could not attack each others AI fleets. The allied nations could join on the same side in port battles also, so for the duration of the alliance pact (7 or 14 days) the two nations where basically in the same nation. Just using different flags.. 

The "rouge" players/clans cried their eyes out because they could not sabotage the alliances, forced on them by the majority opinion/voting! Result was that the rouge guys had to adapt, switch nation or quit the game.. In the end these massive alliances (I think the limit was 3 or 4 nations per alliance and we where less nations back then) ended up limiting who we could attack so much it got very boring for everyone.

I think this feature could be brought back if it was limited a bit more. So a nation can only have 1 ally, no more! And then some logic to limit the 2 largest nations on the server to form one massive zerg alliance (because this will happen if it is possible!). 

Here I'm disagreeing with you: A in game feature that allows players to sentence/punish other players can and will be exploited. So I advice you to drop that part of the idea because I think it's a deal breaker for most who read it.

Edited by Tiedemann
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, qw569 said:

The nation is obsolete term. I do not understand why you are still using it.

Clan or group of clans can set diplomatic relation. For this they have national/global chats.

This is totally true and far better clan to clan. Nation diplomacy run by PCs can drag the game down like we had with [PvP Global].

Removing the Nation Overlay I cannot ever see happening either. They the Nations need to serve some form of purpose...

NnC

  • Like 1
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...