Clear status of peace or war between nation

[John Hill Regard]

Hello

Why not define a status of peace and war between nations.

Today diplomacy is in the hands of a few players who do what they want without worrying about the rest of their nation and have trouble enforcing certain instructions.

A simple voting screen for all the players of a nation each week could determine the status of your nation towards others for the following week.

3 status would be available :

Peace, impossibility to attack the ships of this nation and no RVR, possibility to use the ports of the other nation (contracts)

Skirmish, possibility of PVP and EVP on enemy ships but no RVR.

War, everything is allowed.

I think that would make sense of this great game and the feeling of belonging to a community.

[Christoph]

2 minutes ago, John Hill Regard said:

Hello

Why not define a status of peace and war between nations.

Today diplomacy is in the hands of a few players who do what they want without worrying about the rest of their nation and have trouble enforcing certain instructions.

A simple voting screen for all the players of a nation each week could determine the status of your nation towards others for the following week.

3 status would be available :

Peace, impossibility to attack the ships of this nation and no RVR, possibility to use the ports of the other nation (contracts)

Skirmish, possibility of PVP and EVP on enemy ships but no RVR.

War, everything is allowed.

I think that would make sense of this great game and the feeling of belonging to a community.

that already existed. but was removed

[John Hill Regard]

I know but it was a little bit different with the pirate statuts if you didn't tespect consign .....

By this way of 3 different states the game should be more clear for everybodies

[Iroquois Confederacy]

When you select a player, it tells you.  If you are in the same faction, it tells you their name.  If you are not, it says "Enemy Player."  I do not know how it could be more clear.

[Licinio Chiavari]

10 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Now you cant do that with a clan based system.

So better moving to a clanbased RvR.

[John Hill Regard]

55 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Now you cant do that with a clan based system.

Why ?

Clan leader will be influent in their Nation asking their members to vote the way the clan want ... 

[John Hill Regard]

48 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

When you select a player, it tells you.  If you are in the same faction, it tells you their name.  If you are not, it says "Enemy Player."  I do not know how it could be more clear.

i'm talking of nation status not player , so read again , try to understand  , and come back

[Iroquois Confederacy]

16 minutes ago, John Hill Regard said:

i'm talking of nation status not player , so read again , try to understand  , and come back

You try to understand me.  All nations are at war.  Full stop.

[John Hill Regard]

4 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

You try to understand me.  All nations are at war.  Full stop.

My post is done in suggestion channel , so i suggest to definite a clear state of peace or war .

I don't need a troll to explain me what 's going on in the game right now. I play since a few year's so thank you for your help but if it's for trolling you can keep it.

[Hethwill]

Discuss the game, not the players.

Suggestion is registered but being public it might find way of resistance by mechanics already in place and also human factor of not agreeing with the suggestion.

You must be ready to brainstorm your suggestion.

Always keep respectful.

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

We have a clear status: War.

Kill everyone.

[Angus MacDuff]

So a group of players in a nation can tell me who I can and can't attack?  No thanks.  I don't need other players determining my game play.  No player voting...ever.

When you pay for my game, you can tell me how to play it.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Hethwill]

Semi curated in game politics could exist.

"Events originating in the Forks of the Ohio have plunged France and Britain to war. Prussia, Netherlands and Sweden have allied with Britain. Denmark, Poland and Empire of Russia did not ally with France but allied together and declared war on Sweden. US does not side with anyone. Spain sides with France although not allied with the other France allies."

Event runs for X amount of days. Nations accumulate PvP/RvR points and a victor is declared, just for boasting rights.

 

Player votes ? Chevalier du Ethuville bows to no player will, unless it is the same as mine.

 

 

[Vizzini]

I am fairly certain the point the OP is making , is there are treaties, existing right now between certain nations. This causes confusion as most of the players are unaware of any deals and ignore anybody who tries to give them orders.

 

Try and bear in mind , we're not all native English speakers and google translate doesn't have the knack of processing sarcasm or plain rudeness well.

In essence, there can be no hard way to make peace between nations unless you join their nation. There would be no point voting and that vote being binding as johnny 5 alts would try and cause problems anyway. Just as now

 

Unwritten agreements between clans is far more achievable and requires nothing other than a knowledge between the clans concerned

[John Hill Regard]

19 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

So a group of players in a nation can tell me who I can and can't attack?  No thanks.  I don't need other players determining my game play.  No player voting...ever.

When you pay for my game, you can tell me how to play it.

I understand your point of wiew .

Pirate should be out of this system , only one status for them "war with everybodies" by the way it will satisfy player's who don't want to be managed by their nation collective decision.

  

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Vizzini said:

I am fairly certain the point the OP is making , is there are treaties, existing right now between certain nations. This causes confusion as most of the players are unaware of any deals and ignore anybody who tries to give them orders.

What there are, is agreements with blocks (clans) within those nations.  Doesn't mean anybody outside of those groups needs to pay attention to them.  What OP wants, (this crops up every couple of months) is players within a nation being constrained by a player vote.  That means 51% of the players in the nation can control the rest (whatever that is...my math is weak).

[Lord Gud]

I was born to kill! PEACE IS NOT AN OPTION!

[Vizzini]

Just now, Angus MacDuff said:

What there are, is agreements with blocks (clans) within those nations.  Doesn't mean anybody outside of those groups needs to pay attention to them.  What OP wants, (this crops up every couple of months) is players within a nation being constrained by a player vote.  That means 51% of the players in the nation can control the rest (whatever that is...my math is weak).

there are also agreements between clans of different nations but I think the Op was trying to make it easier for all to understand and adhere to. Not something I want if I am honest.. an emperor whom I didn't vote for, telling me what to do

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, John Hill Regard said:

nation collective decision

Evil words that should never be allowed.  For all nations, not just Pirates.  This is what clans are for and there is an ability to quit a bad clan and remain in your nation.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

We have a clear status: War.

Kill everyone.

red is dead, unless red is friendly then red is not dead 🤔

[John Hill Regard]

7 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

there are also agreements between clans of different nations but I think the Op was trying to make it easier for all to understand and adhere to. Not something I want if I am honest.. an emperor whom I didn't vote for, telling me what to do

I consider by playing a Sailing game in Caraibean at 18th, that it should be at least a little bit of Role Play Flavor.

Being a British Captain (with British Flag) sailing For the Navy and shooting every over nation ship even those with " clan agreement " doesn't look like RP . You are a Pirate if you do that.

Sailing for the Navy , La Royale or whatever you want mean that you have made Alegance to this nation and not only join it because it is the strongest on the map.

Pirate and Nation's have no sens in this game 

[Vernon Merrill]

It’s hysterical to me.  

Im convinced half the people who complain that “it’s impossible to find PvP.  This game SUCKS.”  are the same people that have friends ( and alts) in every other faction that they won’t fight. 

And then moan that they can find fights.  

Red is dead.

You know, it IS possible to have a battle and still be friendly.  It’s actually quite refreshing.  Try it.  

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Vernon Merrill said:

You know, it IS possible to have a battle and still be friendly.  It’s actually quite refreshing.  Try it.

"You're a fine fellow" (bang! Bang!  Aarrghh!!).  "Is that a new jacket?  Verrry Nice!" (hack! slash!  gurgle......thud!)

[John Hill Regard]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

We had this before and it led to a 2 block system of nations where in (I think 2 years?) only 1 nation changed the block.

The system today is more dynamic and it doesnt force the minority into certain playstyles

Yes for sure and now we have only one Block .....Because of impossibility for nation to stabilize their alliance the biggest (only by player number's) Nation take every thing and kill the game ....

I don't think game was less dynamic because of this system , a lot of thing's have changed ,PB are far easier to launch etc etc

[Guest]

One could make a system based on the major conflicts of the 18th century.. First three months: Spanish succession war (1701-1720 if I recall correctly), GB/Prussia/Netherlands/DK&NG/USA vs. Sweden/France/Spain/Pirates/PL.. From 1/4: Seven years war 1756-1763 (if I recall correctly), GB/USA/Prussia vs. France/Sweden/Spain/PL and Netherlands, Pirates, Russia + DK/NG as neutrals.. from 1/7: American revolution 1776-1783: GB/Netherlands vs. USA/France/Spain and Prussia/PL/Pirates/DK&NG/Sweden/Russia as neutrals.. And ofc the Napoleonic wars as the big finale: GB/USA/Prussia/Pirates/Russia/Sweden (switches alliance in 1808 if recall correctly) vs. France/Spain/Netherlands/PL/DK&NG..

 

First off: Pirates should be removed as a RvR nation and I have made some concession in order to facilitate a arbitrarily fair distribution. The problems surrounding the neutral nations is either that they don't participate in RvR in the interrim periods or they get distributed among the two alliance factions or that they become an alliance faction themselves..

There should be a reward for each "round" of conquest culminating in a major prize to the players that manage to drive the conquests to the most points - Map should be reset after each rounds and players accumulate points on the basis of conquest participation:

1 point for a created PB

2 points for a PB participation

3 points for a PB won

 

One could play a bit with the numbers etc. but the gist of the idea is to make conquest a running competition with prizes for the winner, fx. doubloons, chests, paints etc..