Back to Nation driven open world

[John Hill Regard]

 

Hello

the mixture between clan and nation is toxic.

The clans think clan (treachery, abandonment of ports without consultation etc etc) and the nation no longer makes sense We should go back to a nation management.

A simple system would be to have a Governor elected each month by the players.

This Governor would have the privilege of deciding the statue to other nations

Peace: no RVR no PVP

Neutral: no RVR but PVP

War: RVR and PVP.

Another privilege would be to manage the ports, timer taxes etc. except for the neutral renders which should be subject to referundum.

Taxes collected will be divided between the players if there are excedents or taken to the players if the system is defficient .... To the Governor to be good

The Governor would be remunerated for his duties and if he makes the nation prosperous he will be proud and rich in wealth if he even his nation to ruin it will be punished by the next elections ...

Here is a simple system and much more representative of the idea of Nation than the anarchy that reigns today on the open world

[van der Clam]

We once had the Diplomacy Patch where nations voted on diplomacy between nations. Port Owners/Governors had more votes than others. However, alts exploited the voting system so bad that it would be clear that the majority of main players for a nation would be out voted by an enemy nations alts, thus rendering the voting process rigged. This patch was soon wiped. I liked the system, but it needed serious fixes.

[mikawa]

2 hours ago, John Hill Regard said:

the mixture between clan and nation is toxic.

To be honest -- I never understood that clan - nation relationship -- I think it contradicts the idea behind like nothing else. The idea was to ensure more RVR but why do we need clans? They only split the few players left in this game into much fewer by dividing them up in clans. Why are clans necessary? I loved the old flag system and the port battles where all players of a NATION could join. I hate the clan system.

[William Death]

No.

Go the other way, full on clan-driven RvR. Clans control who has access to the port, who can place contracts there, different tax rates for different clans and other nations, etc. 

Why should (casual player who doesn't contribute to the cause) have access to use the port that my clan captured? Clans take care of their own first. If you're that casual player and want access to the port for whatever reason, make yourself useful to that clan, or get a fleet and go capture the port from them if you're upset with their rule. 

 

What you suggest will simply cause less player interaction and less PvP. Imagine this: governor of US sets "Peace" with pirates. Pirates don't want peace, what happens? War (hopefully, as you can shout "Peace!" all you want, but I'll still send cannonballs your way)? What about if Pirates and French set peace with each other, meaning no PvP (how can this even be thought of as a good idea?) and no RvR...now every national who didn't vote for that "governor" is prevented from engaging Pirates. Thats going to be a frustrated national player who dislikes the "nation" system.

 

Go clan-driven RvR with alliances between clans. Maybe have nations be catch-alls for players who don't want to play the clan playstyle. They can go capture ports for their nation's flag, have votes on timers, taxes, etc. 

[King of Crowns]

2 hours ago, John Hill Regard said:

 

Hello

the mixture between clan and nation is toxic.

The clans think clan (treachery, abandonment of ports without consultation etc etc) and the nation no longer makes sense We should go back to a nation management.

A simple system would be to have a Governor elected each month by the players.

This Governor would have the privilege of deciding the statue to other nations

Peace: no RVR no PVP

Neutral: no RVR but PVP

War: RVR and PVP.

Another privilege would be to manage the ports, timer taxes etc. except for the neutral renders which should be subject to referundum.

Taxes collected will be divided between the players if there are excedents or taken to the players if the system is defficient .... To the Governor to be good

The Governor would be remunerated for his duties and if he makes the nation prosperous he will be proud and rich in wealth if he even his nation to ruin it will be punished by the next elections ...

Here is a simple system and much more representative of the idea of Nation than the anarchy that reigns today on the open world

clan driven is the only way to stop alts from ruining the game. full clan driven and do away with nations is the way to go. 

[Slim McSauce]

Where there's clan alliances there needs to be clan wars. If nations are going treated as a dwelling and not a pledge, then individual clans need to be treated with more respect and consideration, which is giving them something to do, so say if the nation votes for peace with whatever other nation, then the clans still have the ability to war other clans and the peace would only apply to non-warring clans, and people who aren't in a clan so their "orders" would come through other means other than large scale OW conflict.

[Raekur]

So along those lines add another option to ports, we have available to all and nation. Add Allies only to the mix seems to be the direction that this thread is headed. Keep in mind though, there will need to be a way for clans who are not allied to be able to gain access to the port. This can be done in a couple of ways, enable clan vs clan combat or allow traders to still gain access to the port (granted then you will need a way to restrict access or interdict those traders to prevent smuggling). So unless I missed something this can become rather complicated. If you go with the clan vs clan option than small clans will get wiped out entirely by large clans who wish to bully others. What is to prevent this from occurring? Small clans will need to become either a single large clan or have it where allies can assist each other even in cases where they are fighting with clans of their own nation. Again, can get a bit complicated and tough to prevent it from being abused in a way that is outside the intent of the system. As far as votes, the only way to get alts from making small clans and causing problems with the votes is that each clan gets a number of votes based on the number of ports they own. While this may exclude small honest clans, it will prevent abuse of the system by alt clans created by other nations.

[LIONOFWALES]

48 minutes ago, Raekur said:

As far as votes, the only way to get alts from making small clans and causing problems with the votes is that each clan gets a number of votes based on the number of ports they own. While this may exclude small honest clans, it will prevent abuse of the system by alt clans created by other nations.

Now this seems logical to me... If we were to get the game to be clan driven rather than just nationally driven, and have political decision making at clan level between clans, this would be a must have in game.

I believe that the Nations as they are can remain... however to have clan wars would be really neat, this could possibly even open up an opportunity for civil war within the nations... the strongest clans could run the empire and control trade, the upstart clans could challenge power and we could always have scuffles for power, even within the in game national complex.

This would complicate things in game for the better... there would be like a super corporate war going on all the time... sounds like a lot of fun and frustration to me... I would love it.

Good idea... wish I thought of it myself.

This however will not be implemented this way if the developers want any form of historical national line. Not sure if they want historical boundaries or not... never know anymore, you know? I think they take great pleasure in surprising us players... maybe this is their form of gag content... you know... lets see what they do when we... or... lets implement this and they will... anyway... getting way off the page now.

If implemented I would really like to see a diverse and creative diplomatic system worked into the game... I really liked the alliances system when it was in place... one week or month you were at peace and enjoyed peaceful trade with a nation that was not your own... the next, you were at war with them.

[Beeekonda]

 

7 hours ago, John Hill Regard said:

 

Hello

 

Your name seems very familiar to me for some reason....

Oh I see

Edited March 20, 2019 by Beeekonda

[Dalai Lama]

I dont like the proposal.

The current way of diplomacy, the good old unregulated social engineering way, works fine for me right now. We are allied with certain clans and nations due to common respect, don't attack each other, not even traders and help each other out. Still do some PvP if its consensual and fair. If in your clan diplomacy is failing you maybe you should replace your diplomat?

Why overragulate things like we are doing with RoE right now, I like it sandboxy and unregulated.

[John Hill Regard]

9 hours ago, William Death said:

No.

Go the other way, full on clan-driven RvR. Clans control who has access to the port, who can place contracts there, different tax rates for different clans and other nations, etc. 

Why should (casual player who doesn't contribute to the cause) have access to use the port that my clan captured? Clans take care

It’s exactly Why clan are toxic .Player’s  Thing firstly to their clan and not nation « my clan captured » ...

of their own first. If you're that casual player and want access to the port for whatever reason, make yourself useful to that clan, or get a fleet and go capture the port from them if you're upset with their rule. 

 

What you suggest will simply cause less player interaction and less PvP. Imagine this: governor of US sets "Peace" with pirates. Pirates don't want peace, what happens? War (hopefully, as you can shout "Peace!" all you want, but I'll still send cannonballs your way)? What about if Pirates and French set peace with each other, meaning no PvP (how can this even be thought of as a good idea?) and no RvR...now every national who didn't vote for that "governor" is prevented from engaging Pirates. Thats going to be a frustrated national player who dislikes the "nation" system.

 

Go clan-driven RvR with alliances between clans. Maybe have nations be catch-alls for players who don't want to play the clan playstyle. They can go capture ports for their nation's flag, have votes on timers, taxes, etc. 

What you propose sound more like a pirat game not à nation game.....

A Nation should be in peace or in war 

Attack all nation is non senses....

so remove Nation give all player’s Thé pirat flat and let clan manage thé anarchy in Carabean.

I dislike clan system and it’s frustrating yes it is to see this game be so far from what it should be ..A Great War Game between Nation..

Clan are ruining this great idea ...

[admin]

10 hours ago, mikawa said:

To be honest -- I never understood that clan - nation relationship -- I think it contradicts the idea behind like nothing else. The idea was to ensure more RVR but why do we need clans? They only split the few players left in this game into much fewer by dividing them up in clans. Why are clans necessary? I loved the old flag system and the port battles where all players of a NATION could join. I hate the clan system.

Clans remove trolling and griefing by alts or spies in port control or port battles. National unity is nice but 3-4 alts in lynxes could ruin your port battle before. Now they cant.

[John Hill Regard]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

Clans remove trolling and griefing by alts or spies in port control or port battles. National unity is nice but 3-4 alts in lynxes could ruin your port battle before. Now they cant.

Just ban this alts abuse player’s and you will fix the problem.

Cure the problem where he is instead of making the game what it should’ent be ...a full pirat game.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, admin said:

Clans remove trolling and griefing by alts or spies in port control or port battles. National unity is nice but 3-4 alts in lynxes could ruin your port battle before. Now they cant.

@adminA solution to this is that you could let the group leader assign the battle group to a port battle group, and if i were you i would make it so only officers of the engaging clan and diplomats from friendly clans are able to assign such role to the group.

So the players in this group are able to join the designated port battle. Not unlike raid group in wow, where people only in the same group can enter same dungeon

 

10 minutes ago, John Hill Regard said:

Just ban this alts abuse player’s and you will fix the problem.

Cure the problem where he is instead of making the game what it should’ent be ...a full pirat game.

You cant cure Alts, there is no technical solution what so ever, alts are in every game, it just needs mechanics that doesent make it that such an advantage to have several accounts

Edited March 20, 2019 by Guest

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

12 hours ago, van der Decken said:

However, alts exploited...

Alts... alts... alts....

As long as this cancer isn't fought against, a game like this cannot prosper in all its glory.

How often ideas get obstructed with that argument (not your fault obviously, but system-related) and die. As the first thought is always "but the alts" which destroy everything being good.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Cetric de Cornusiac

[Alonso Alvarado]

12 hours ago, John Hill Regard said:

 

Hello

the mixture between clan and nation is toxic.

The clans think clan (treachery, abandonment of ports without consultation etc etc) and the nation no longer makes sense We should go back to a nation management.

A simple system would be to have a Governor elected each month by the players.

This Governor would have the privilege of deciding the statue to other nations

Peace: no RVR no PVP

Neutral: no RVR but PVP

War: RVR and PVP.

Another privilege would be to manage the ports, timer taxes etc. except for the neutral renders which should be subject to referundum.

Taxes collected will be divided between the players if there are excedents or taken to the players if the system is defficient .... To the Governor to be good

The Governor would be remunerated for his duties and if he makes the nation prosperous he will be proud and rich in wealth if he even his nation to ruin it will be punished by the next elections ...

Here is a simple system and much more representative of the idea of Nation than the anarchy that reigns today on the open world

Avoid trolls and put the conquest game in hands of a small group of players. That is what is happening after erase the old flags system. All players could help and play port battles in the past and that was fun. But the port battles are now played by the same players. They know the day and the hour for each port battle now. Whole clans move from one nation to other destroying the political and conquest system of a weak game. People who has double account and play port battles with diferent nations in game. They are not interested on trading, crafting and collection of resources to craft. That is bored to them and they are only interested in ganking and playing port battles. If another clan wants to play in another way then its time to bullying them ussing the alter accounts.

Do you think that it has future?

[Cabral]

19 minutes ago, Alonso Alvarado said:

People who has double account and play port battles with diferent nations in game. They are not interested on trading, crafting and collection of resources to craft. That is bored to them and they are only interested in ganking and playing port battles.

 That's a new phenomen that's happening from some months to now and it's spreading. Same people with clan in Russia then their alts with clan in Spain, now we also have french players playing in both France and Russia. And they control the most important ports in both nations, it's plain stupid but is how it works on the game we have today.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

57 minutes ago, Alonso Alvarado said:

Whole clans move from one nation to other destroying the political and conquest system

Exactly this happened last summer with France. And I went back to PvE Peace Server.

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Henry Durnin said:

I dont like the proposal.

The current way of diplomacy, the good old unregulated social engineering way, works fine for me right now. We are allied with certain clans and nations due to common respect, don't attack each other, not even traders and help each other out. Still do some PvP if its consensual and fair. If in your clan diplomacy is failing you maybe you should replace your diplomat?

Why overragulate things like we are doing with RoE right now, I like it sandboxy and unregulated.

See this this that weird cope I was talking about. There is no actual feature for clan diplomacy in game, it doesn't exist, yet the sandbox enthusiast will say the made up portion of the feature  IS the feature. Instead of having the actual programmed feature for said mechanic, we name that which doesn't exist, or is left empty as a "sandbox" element, as if it's by choice that we lack the said feature, because it somehow grants more freedom to the players to make pretend things are going on instead of it being official, like wars and alliances between large factions tend to be, not just a mere word of mouth type thing.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Angus MacDuff]

No player voting, ever.  As soon as you allow one group of players to determine the play of another group, you have chaos. 

[Slim McSauce]

2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

No player voting, ever.  As soon as you allow one group of players to determine the play of another group, you have chaos. 

If clan status overrides nations status is doesn't matter. Only those without clans will actually follow the official wars/peace, the clans will dictate which clans of other nations they choose to go to war with, or ally with. If anything the voting is a good way to verbalize through consensus which nations are favorable to each other and which have beef. Otherwise it has almost no effect on the clan side of things, just two aspects of game managing to fit very closely together without actually touching.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Vibrio Cholerae]

I think that you are overthinking the problem! 

Let’s take the Russian navy for example, the diplomatic stuff and RvR plan is made by a «Chief ». He will keep the clan informed and take in consideration their opinion. The clan either follows the nation guidance line! This system work fine for us! 

The dev doesn’t need to make anything! Because if the nation cannot work together your system is condemned! The nation must work together and there is no need for the dev to get involved between the animosity of some players

John, your system has some good point but you need to satisfy all player not just the majority! And if you have a big clan with a lot of players you will overruled some small clan and this is not the best thing for the game

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Cabral said:

 That's a new phenomen that's happening from some months to now and it's spreading. Same people with clan in Russia then their alts with clan in Spain, now we also have french players playing in both France and Russia. And they control the most important ports in both nations, it's plain stupid but is how it works on the game we have today.

british players with alts in polish and swedish nation

but that prob is solved at release. (XP Wipe)

Edited March 20, 2019 by Guest

[John Hill Regard]

22 minutes ago, CanorJax said:

I think that you are overthinking the problem! 

Let’s take the Russian navy for example, the diplomatic stuff and RvR plan is made by a «Chief ». He will keep the clan informed and take in consideration their opinion. The clan either follows the nation guidance line! This system work fine for us! 

The dev doesn’t need to make anything! Because if the nation cannot work together your system is condemned! The nation must work together and there is no need for the dev to get involved between the animosity of some players

John, your system has some good point but you need to satisfy all player not just the majority! And if you have a big clan with a lot of players you will overruled some small clan and this is not the best thing for the game

Hello

if you have big clan in the system we have today they will overrruled small clan far more than if small clan could work together to counter big one in a nation driven system.

in a clan based system big clan take what they want leaving other player’s nothing ...That’s not my idea of nation 

In a nation driven clan will have no real power’s the power will be in player’s hand.

And pleased only the majority is not the best thing but it is far better than pleased only the minority..

You take example of Russian fleet..Right  now it simce that it is working well but imagine a big clan decide to leave that nation giving back all the port they owned ,they probably ruin the all nation effort and that is in my opinion is overpowered .

A clan should leave a nation but with no other impact than loosing player’s.

It’s why I really believe that the clan power is to stron and really toxic for the community in a nation.

my system is not condemned if the nation can not work together because the nation has to work together no other choice ,clan system give an alternative so nation has no more interrest ,change this give the power back to nation and you will see people work together because their interest are the same 

best regard’s

 

[John Hill Regard]

1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

No player voting, ever.  As soon as you allow one group of players to determine the play of another group, you have chaos. 

I believe you are wrong.

Right now a single player (clan creator) can decide by opening a strategic port to all with no concertation...And by this one player determine the play of a lot of player’s and that is Chaos.

I prefer if it is the majority who decide instead of leaving a few dictator’s decide for all.

But that’s my opinion