Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

I think in a game like this we could use some proper politics system.

1. THE MAIN IDEA

Some in game tool, where You clearly see what are the current status between any given nation.
The possible states would be:

FRIENDLY - No ships of this nation can be attacked
NEUTRAL - You can attack military vessels of that nation, but You cannot attack traders ships
WAR - Any ships of this nation can be attacked

Example (purely hipotethic of course):

Commonwealth of Poland current status is:
FRIENDLY with UNITED STATES
NEUTRAL with FRENCH
WAR with SPAIN

Polish captain is sailing in Open World with his light frigate, and he finds an USA Indiaman. He tries to attack it but instead, he gets message "You cannot attack Friendly ships!" as USA and POLAND are currently on FRIENDLY status. 

Later on, he finds a SPANISH trader, he decides to attack. He can do it, because POLAND and SPAIN are at declared war. 

After the fight, he see a FRENCH trader nearby. He cannot attack him, as the relations are "NEUTRAL". However, the French captain could in his discretion attack the Polish captain who sails a warship and it is allowed to attack warships of neutral nation if he decides to.

2. SETTING UP THE DIPLOMACY

And how could the diplomacy be handled?

Just imagine, that every month, the Clans in one nation holds an election, with their votes beeing valued by their activity.
We all know that the game tracks the PvE and PvP kills already, so every clan would have a pool of votes for each election. Of course the more active the clan is, the more power it will have.

After election, the elected council of nation could issue votes for change of any specific change in diplomacy. 

Of course, any change would require some implementation, and there should some cooldowns for changing status with the same nation every other day, but that's just balancing issue.

3. "WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT STATE OF MY NATION?!"

Play the game more, so You have more voting power next cycle, and try to change it later.

And if majority of the nation does not support Your vision, change the nation maybe?

 

 

PROS:

- Most active clans in Nation have most of the vote
- Alts won't be able to sabotage actions and politics of bigger clans
- Possibly some more diversification between nations, as clans with other point of view will consider changing nation

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the test we did have of mechanised diplomacy wasn't really a test, for reasons of poor implementation, I still feel that diplomacy being entirely player-driven and enforced is the better option than some kind of game-enforced system. Why should the average player be absolutely bound by the diplomatic whims of the biggest clans of their nation?

17 minutes ago, OjK said:

- Alts won't be able to sabotage actions and politics of bigger clans

Oh, you sweet innocent summer child...

22 minutes ago, OjK said:

NEUTRAL - You can attack military vessels of that nation, but You cannot attack traders ships

No! Only traders and PvE-ers would enjoy this. Why should you have to declare war on a faction to hunt their traders? This isn't even historical. There was plenty of commerce raiding between nations that weren't formally at war.

24 minutes ago, OjK said:

After election, the elected council of nation could issue votes for change of any specific change in diplomacy. 

 

Whoa!? A council? Pushed by the game. No thanks!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anolytic said:

Why should the average player be absolutely bound by the diplomatic whims of the biggest clans of their nation?

Because You'd be court marshalled, expelled, or whatever if You'd do something against Your nation ;)
And yet, in this game You can just laugh at everybody's faces :D

 

3 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

Oh, you sweet innocent summer child...

Ok, it would require quite an effort. But just imagine how much would You have to play as an alt get Your voting power to have any meaning in election, to f.e. have substantial voting power to interfere HRE/CABAL in Sweden, BF in Russia, or PRIV in Poland where they all have their main players playing all the time and getting their vote power during the month.

 

12 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

We had a diplomacy system before.  It led to less fights.

I don't propose bringing back the old system. I propose something that could just clarify and fix some stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

We had a diplomacy system before.  It led to less fights.

Ok, but global political situation between nations should be accessible to any players in NA.

A diplomatic system is needed to reflect relation changes, at least for the newcomers to understand which nation is hostile or not.  

Present clan based system does not give any info apart from conquest board which are ponctual info.

A minimum of geopolitical data is required to federate clans/players towards common goals, it should help RvR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OjK said:

And yet, in this game You can just laugh at everybody's faces :D

Which is better for gameplay.

23 minutes ago, OjK said:

Ok, it would require quite an effort. But just imagine how much would You have to play as an alt get Your voting power to have any meaning in election, to f.e. have substantial voting power to interfere HRE/CABAL in Sweden, BF in Russia, or PRIV in Poland where they all have their main players playing all the time and getting their vote power during the month.

You proposed to get votes based on activity, right? And how would you weigh this activity? By most PvE or what? Because if you weigh it by PvP and K/D, then I'm pretty sure @DreamMaker would be the Grand Duke of Poland, not PRIV:

1DDEA9D5CB2B0F82F112713DBF2133816EDBD0B4

In Russia, Lenin's alt-clan is consistently top 10 in the leaderboard. 

In Denmark, before the leaderboard was fixed to take into account other factors than just port ownership, my alts alone once got more PvP-kills than the ten clans on the leaderboard combined for two weeks straight.

You are greatly underestimating players' determination and potential to subvert other nations' diplomacy using alts.

Edited by Anolytic
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Celtiberofrog said:

A diplomatic system is needed to reflect relation changes, at least for the newcomers to understand which nation is hostile or not. 

I don't understand.  Every other faction is flagged as "Enemy Player."  Is that not the case?  Is that inaccurate?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any restrictions for individual players or clans on who they can and cannot attack in the Open world, definitely NO. But an RvR system where your actions have an impact on the global political situation, yes. I like the way PvP has an effect on Port hostility and think it would be good to expand this to other player activities so that even small clans and solo players can feel they are having an effect on global politics and where Clans are required to mobilise support from their national players and work together with other clans to achieve objectives.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

47 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

We had a diplomacy system before.  It led to less fights.

While I wasn't a huge fan of the previous diplo system and the method of voting alliances, I think this statement is false....at least in regards to PBs.  

Back in the E v W alliance system multiple PBs a week, sometimes 2-3 a day.  And this is full 25v25 battles mind you with usually 50-100 players outside screening them during EU prime times.  Now most players in this current iteration of RVR are lucky to get a PB once a week.  Most don't.  

Perhaps the alliance led to less OW PVP fights.  They weren't tracked then via  combat news or doubloons.  We also had higher populations back then.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having alliances would increase trade and profits among the traders, and wouldn´t affect PVP at all. It would give traders some kind of security to visit foreign ports of an ally, and boost their tax income.

Considering RVR, i could imagine that alliances would increase the amount of PBs, because of joint efforts of allies.

Situation we have is, that  you can´t relly on anyone and you can´t trust anyone. This isn´t " better for gameplay", it´s just a huge mess and chaos, and with "prolific forger", this chaos became even larger.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has all been proposed and discussed before. Those who believe in clan-magic and love unconditional pew-pew (often the same) will oppose this until their last breath. It's one of the most substantial topics about the future of NA.

It would be nice if sighting a player ship of another nation would mean something else than just 'pew-pew is coming'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

I don't understand.  Every other faction is flagged as "Enemy Player."  Is that not the case?  Is that inaccurate?

The NA RvR theater is kind of more complex with many nations today. Why have we got nations then ? is NA theater a wild tribal territory to fight in ?

Players need global info about nation's positions (and its evolution) to allow them a better understanding of server battle's circumstances.

Those permanent infos might be the most powerful support for RvR content.

Edited by Celtiberofrog
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the alliance system and diplomacy within nations. It would (for the most part) unify nations and clearly define their enemies, friends, and overall goals. It would also make the game easier on new players as it would open up more of the map (ally waters) for them to explore and PvE safely. But there is one problem: 

There will always be players/clans who will choose to sabotage their nation's efforts because it is impossible to get hundreds of players to agree on every decision and follow orders. Just look at the US nation for example: they had elected officials and representatives that held weekly meetings that allowed everyone to voice their opinions, decide which ports to take, who their enemies and friends were, etc. What was the outcome of this? It resulted in every decent fighter leaving the nation so they could farm the piss out of the remaining US players to the point that their entire nation quit playing the game or changed nations. This is just one of hundreds of times this has happened.. every week its a new clan that changes nation with the sole purpose to attack their previous nation. 

This is why there needs to be an alternative to those who do not wish to work with other clans and/or follow orders/decisions from others. My solution to this has always been to make the Pirate nation a true clan-based nation where each clan has 100% control of who enters their ports and who their friends and foes are. This would of course need to include outlaw battles ("oh great here he goes again") so players don't need to swap nations constantly to settle differences. The same players who argue against this idea are the same players who complain about clans constantly swapping nations and zerg nations rising and falling over the course of a fortnight. I truly believe that if this was implemented that the nation and alliance system would work much better and increase the likelihood of something like this suggestion actually happening.  

Edited by Capn Rocko
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

We had a diplomacy system before.  It led to less fights. 

Long term doctrine should not be bulldoze for short term goals e.g. like what we have just seen with trying to force PvP content.

The more dynamic the end realm game is, the more players will appreciate it, and stay.

Not so sure about whole nations because there are too many opinions from within.

But by designating a clan as friend or foe to a nation, type of system, might work. But there would have to be ledger to show this and to be available to all players to view, could be re-tested.   

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anolytic said:

You are greatly underestimating players' determination and potential to subvert other nations' diplomacy using alts.

That may be the price to pay, like RW nations have to fight foreign intelligence actions.

RvR needs a political background readable for the whole player community, including for players that do not communicate with other groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it apart from the neutral trader thing. Maybe reduced pvp reward for neutrals? And instead of voting for an alliance id like to vote for a King. he can change the diplomatic status at will, with the change being active after next restart.

 

Edit:

Alliances would be bad for me since i like to attack what i can find, but i think it would add more depth to the game. And for example, we are not fighting with Danes and Poles that often so i would not mind to ally with them to give more options to Pve'ers and Traders.

Edited by Durin
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Celtiberofrog said:

Ok, but global political situation between nations should be accessible to any players in NA.

A diplomatic system is needed to reflect relation changes, at least for the newcomers to understand which nation is hostile or not.  

Present clan based system does not give any info apart from conquest board which are ponctual info.

A minimum of geopolitical data is required to federate clans/players towards common goals, it should help RvR.

There is a very fundamental system called "red is dead". And it works. See e.g. the second attack on Philipsburg where HAVOC decided not to join a 18v2 gank in the superior side. If swedes hadn't assumed brits as friendly but had straightly followed the system, no harm, but only fun would have been gained.

A clan based diplo system: Go for it. Nation-wide: oh please not. Also, what about patrol zones? How so you want to implement it there? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No single player, or clanned group of players has the power, or should have the power, to dictate external politics of a nation, only European Powers can do that and hope the Colonies adapt.

And this can only be done with curated "storyline" and shaking any status quo to the core via multiple types of events such as:

- european wars extending to the west indies ( 7 years war for example, also nowadays called as world war zero )

- famine, resources shortages, or new veins of ores found somewhere

- and whatever else could be adapted

- outcomes of those and lasting consequences to both be shaped and shape the future curated content

But this is just wishful thinking as semi-curated content requires a lot of work from dedicated writer/coder group.

As we have it now is simply ... as the community wishes ( and it reduces alt/exploit powers ).

But I also would wish in a more historical setting, and not so much India Companies ( clans ) power.

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...