A Treatise On Diplomatic Mechanics For The Layman Player

[Charles Edward Stuart]

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.

[Anolytic]

Some would argue that Pirates are the opt-out option. 

However, I'm not certain that we need any diplomacy hard-coded in the game. Except for the ability to add clans from other nations to the friend-list and to battle-groups.

Beyond that, let us who wish for diplomacy do so, and enforce it person-to-person and clan-to-clan. 

Also, maybe implement an option to signal your can-affiliation to specific, selectable other nations/clans, so that it is actually possible to have diplomacy in OW. If selected, the chosen nation/clan will be able to see your clan tag in OW in addition to nationality when clicking on your ship.

[Christendom]

Pirates have no diplomacy.  We just sink shit and then get ganged up on by nats.  It bugs me that the lack of mechanics in this game forces pirates to RVR and have necessary ports.  Good thing there's alts......   

In games like this one locked nations just don't work.  Some of the larger nations like the US and GB constantly have internal strife and clans pitted against each other.  And that's with the game being under populated under 600 at a time.  Imagine a full game and trying to coordinate that many people.  It simply wont work.  Take yesterday for example.  1 large clan in Russia refused to fight the Prussians despite almost the entire nation showing up to fight a Russia vs Prussia PB.  It's stupid.     

Personally I feel there are 2 options for diplomacy in this game.   

1 - Hard coded alliances that are controlled via developers OR in-game voting.  No nation leaders decided what goes.  Physical mechanics to enforce alliances.  With the advent of forged papers this could work. 

2 - Ditch nations entirely and use them only as a racial backdrop (what most games do) and do diplomacy on a clan level.  This would work considering we have clan owned ports and smaller BR / Clan PBs

 

[z4ys]

Currently its a clan based RvR system. Agreements are made between clans not between nations.

There is one rule when not in a clan "When it says enemy you can attack it"

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

4 hours ago, Ove Gjedde said:

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.
 

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.

Yes, that sounds like a compromise worth investigating. And make it so, that players or clans honorably tied by diplomatic rules of conduct have a sign on their tag when met in Open World, so it will be clear what to expect from them (no nervosity about doubts if that player is a civilized one or a barbarian... ).

And a billboard is necessary (make it somewhere on the map) where the current diplomacy stance is visible to everybody.

[Aster]

I would like to see a system were a player not in a clan/a clan that owns no ports will receive greater protections. Such as no pvp/mission jumping in their reinforcement zone. This would hopefully help the real new players that do need protection. Or the players that simply have no interest in getting involved in game politics. 

I think clans should be in control of their own diplomacy and can set whatever alliances they want to other clans. To support this idea the clan name would have to show on the players open world info.

[Aster]

3 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

Yes, that sounds like a compromise worth investigating. And make it so, that players or clans honorably tied by diplomatic rules of conduct have a sign on their tag when met in Open World, so it will be clear what to expect from them (no nervosity about doubts if that player is a civilized one or a barbarian... ).

And a billboard is necessary (make it somewhere on the map) where the current diplomacy stance is visible to everybody.

Thats a great idea, personally I think this would make a great tag.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Aster

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

Let's give a small reward to players abiding to national diplomacy rules. Like a reduced tax for trading in foreign ports (belonging to nations you are at good terms with).

Who still "shoots first, then asks" can feel free to do so... but don't ask for the benefits of peaceful cooperation.

[Magallanes]

Diplomacy is necessary to equilibrate the game from a RvR perspective, Despite players are not concerned about that in first instance  when a strong coalition arise to try control the map, an opposite strong coalition is formed  with the other factions in a short time. Nobody like beat a nation totally and this is not desireable from a gaming point of view as much as this is the main objective for nations involved in a war.

I think the major problem is how affect diplomacy to players and if the players want to be concerned by. I can tell something from Spain point of view. We created a confederation open to all spanish clans with a general objetives as Nation from RvR point of view in a medium-large time. All clans are free to sign into the confederation, but they must agreed with national diplomacy lines that is decide in a main council where they are represented. 

All clan players signed must respect the rules of engagement related with diplomatic decisions (different from PvP actions) and I can say this is working acceptably well, despite puntual problems derived from the continuous creation of new clans. Clans outside of the Confederation are free to make actions against the others nations.

The relation among factions derived from diplomacy is rebalanced itself during the time. Just a problem with players if they want receive the benefits of a good diplomacy or they are pull into a situation derived of a bad diplomacy  Good diplomacy or simply "diplomacy" permits to players make something else than PvP in the patrol missions ...

[John Page]

7 hours ago, Ove Gjedde said:

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

This sounds very similar to the PvP flag system that Pirates of the Burning Sea has. It did work. Getting it to work in Naval Action will take some tuning for sure. I think in combination with @van Veen's idea on War and Peace would set RvR and PvP up better than what the game currently is.

[Fargo]

Diplomacy would also be necessary for proper trade between nations. This could only work with trade agreements, properly implemented with mechanics that inform and punish violation. 

When RvR works some diplomacy would probably happen between clans nevertheless. Not including it in the game just makes it more complicated/annoying and excludes many players. Goal should really be nation vs nation, not totally clan based RvR. Sure limited slot PBs will always be clan based and organised, but there is so much more to it.

[Old Crusty]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

Diplomacy should be completely opt-in. But in order for that to work we need full clan control of ports.  Clans should be able to set the port accessibility as part of their ownership:  1) Open to all (which would include tows, etc.); 2) Open to nation only; 3) Open to friendly clans only (which should include other nation's clans); 4) Closed to all except owners.

All other diplomacy then could take place outside of game mechanics using the various tools that players already have (Discord, Teamspeak, forum, etc.). This would be the most dynamic of the solutions proposed, especially if clans could essentially make friendly clans of opposing nations (allowing a much more fluid RvR situation).

No no and no!!! Can everyone forget about other Fantasy MMO games where you are an Orc, Elf, or sexy female Halfling???? This is a realistic model for an actual historical period from our own history. 

1. Diplomacy MUST happen and cannot be an opt in or out system. Whatever Diplomatic stance is with a Nation the game must show it on the other player in the OW so if two countries have a trade agreement there is no option to attack there traders.

2. EVERYONE CAN BE INVOLVED BY VOTING.

3. The number of treaties a Bation can have can be limited by the game to prevent huge Alliances. 

4 Your Clans responsibly is to influence your Nation in its Diplomacy with other Nations.

REALISM THAT IS FUN!!!!!!

[Jean Ribault]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

Diplomacy should be completely opt-in. But in order for that to work we need full clan control of ports.  Clans should be able to set the port accessibility as part of their ownership:  1) Open to all (which would include tows, etc.); 2) Open to nation only; 3) Open to friendly clans only (which should include other nation's clans); 4) Closed to all except owners.

All other diplomacy then could take place outside of game mechanics using the various tools that players already have (Discord, Teamspeak, forum, etc.). This would be the most dynamic of the solutions proposed, especially if clans could essentially make friendly clans of opposing nations (allowing a much more fluid RvR situation).

 

This would stomp on the casual players.  Again.    I can't see that being good for that crowd honestly.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[Hethwill]

We tested that Crusty. It ended in 2 blocks, reds vs blues type of game. Was the most dull period, aka. dark ages. IMO

But yeah, if too many people want it, why not... have fun.

[Beeekonda]

2 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

We tested that Crusty. It ended in 2 blocks, reds vs blues type of game. Was the most dull period, aka. dark ages. IMO

But yeah, if too many people want it, why not... have fun.

Clan mechanics described by Wraith is a good idea.

No Diplomacy voting bs please, just imagine a whole bunch of random people who don't know much about RvR or don't play a lot will affect those in clans who actually do RvR and trying to benefit from that diplomacy mechanics.

[Jean Ribault]

6 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

...No Diplomacy voting bs please, just imagine a whole bunch of random people who don't know much about RvR or don't play a lot will affect those in clans who actually do RvR and trying to benefit from that diplomacy mechanics.

That's how life works.  Your vote cancels mine, sometimes, and not all are educated on the issues.  Why should this be different?  Others' opinions matter as much as yours (speaking of voting in the game), if they bought the game.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[Beeekonda]

2 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

That's how life works.  Your vote cancels mine, sometimes, and not all are educated on the issues.  Why should this be different?  Others' opinions matter as much as yours (speaking of voting in the game), if they bought the game.

Well.. I bought the game too... but you saying that people who don't know how to RvR can ruin my gaming experience because they want a Voting ability? What would be next? You would like me to buy them ships maybe?

[Old Crusty]

43 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

We tested that Crusty. It ended in 2 blocks, reds vs blues type of game. Was the most dull period, aka. dark ages. IMO

But yeah, if too many people want it, why not... have fun.

How many times do we need to say that the game mechanics can be made to only allow alliances of small sizes so that there cannot be a forced 1v1 in the world.

honestly as it stands now there is a huge alliance against a couple other Countries. 

[Old Crusty]

28 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

Well.. I bought the game too... but you saying that people who don't know how to RvR can ruin my gaming experience because they want a Voting ability? What would be next? You would like me to buy them ships maybe?

What exactly are you worried about that they would ruin your game????? You could lose a vote to be allied with another Country? Deal with it and focus your energies on the National concensive. If the Nation decides to War with another, do the best you can to contribute and become the voice the Nation wants to listen to.

Again what are you afraid of???

[Hethwill]

Just now, Old Crusty said:

What exactly are you worried about that they would ruin your game????? You could lose a vote to be allied with another Country? Deal with it and focus your energies on the National concensive. If the Nation decides to War with another, do the best you can to contribute and become the voice the Nation wants to listen to.

Again what are you afraid of???

That's how we ended here today Crusty.

Clan based player made diplomacy.

[Beeekonda]

19 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:

What exactly are you worried about that they would ruin your game????? You could lose a vote to be allied with another Country? Deal with it and focus your energies on the National concensive. If the Nation decides to War with another, do the best you can to contribute and become the voice the Nation wants to listen to.

Again what are you afraid of???

And what are YOU afraid of and why do you need alliances in first place? 

A whole bunch of non-clan individuals and alts will have a power to affect alliances. Strong clans knows what to do and know what they are after, but "people" want to kill this and that. 

Not sure if you even know whom you should be worried about nova days in global politics. 

[Hethwill]

Leave National News out of generic game discussions and suggestions.

[Old Crusty]

7 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I don't know what you read in my comment that set you off but I said nothing that's fantastical. You must be new here because you clearly don't remember the Alliance system of old, which is very much what you seem to be focused on recreating. Voting is a non-feature that resulted in two blocks with very limited opportunities for individuals and small clans to operate.  It was boring and made RvR mostly a matter of coin flips. Voting was meaningless and it actually created less engagement, not more. And with the influence of alts plus the ability to move at will with Forged Papers it just creates bad behavior.

Clan-based systems and alliances are the only way to make it work.

How so?  If casual players advance to the level of being able to start up their one-man clan, then they can negotiate with port-owners on a per-port basis to be added to the Friendly list. Then boom, they have a relationship that allows for them to trade, craft, etc. at will, and as casually as they like?

You simply refuse to read or acknowledge anything said about limiting the number of Allies a Nation can have. How can you have a reasonable conversation if you refuse to see or hear what others are saying 

[Old Crusty]

23 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

And what are YOU afraid of and why do you need alliances in first place? 

A whole bunch of non-clan individuals and alts will have a power to affect alliances. Strong clans knows what to do and know what they are after, but "people" want to kill this and that. 

Not sure if you even know whom you should be worried about nova days in global politics. 

Of course you did not answer my question to how your game will be ruined

[Jean Ribault]

9 minutes ago, Wraith said:

...How so?  If casual players advance to the level of being able to start up their one-man clan, then they can negotiate with port-owners on a per-port basis to be added to the Friendly list. Then boom, they have a relationship that allows for them to trade, craft, etc. at will, and as casually as they like?

Speaking mostly of your option #4.  Their won't be 1-man clans as port owners, we went over that in another thread a couple months ago.  Most casual or solo players do have their own 1-man or even 2-man clans, but they won't be port owners.