Civil War Mechanic Suggestion

[van der Clam]

Here are my thoughts on how a Civil War Mechanic should work: 2 days to choose a side, 5 days to wage war, 20 day cool down.

1. Within the same Nation, 1 clan Declares a Civil War against another clan via the Operations Menu / Civil War. From a drop down menu select a clan. (Only clans in your nation will show.)
2. An automatic in-game email will be sent to everyone in said nation announcing the Declaration of Civil War from one clan on the other clan. (Clan X Declares Civil War against Clan Y.)
3. All clans within that nation have 48 hours to choose which of those two clans they want to ally with. Any clan not choosing either clan is not privy to the following mechanics.
4. In OW, all players from one allied side will see all players from the other side as "Traitor Player" rather than "Enemy Player". (Plz for the love of God change "Player" to "Captain".)
5. They can attack each other, same as attacking someone from an enemy nation.
6. ??? This battle will instantly close to everyone from every nation?
7. ??? This battle will instantly close to only enemy nations? (The "Battle Side Locked" will prevent those in the Civil War from joining wrong side.)
8. ??? This battle will have standard OW Battle Mechanics allowing enemy nations to join a side? (Would require listing the two Civil War clans in the Battle Info, so enemy nations can choose which side to help)
9. Both Civil War Clans can raise hostility against each others' ports. Only those clans who chose a side can join in these hostility missions for whichever side they allied with.
10. Port Battles will schedule the same as normal (24 hours after hostility completed)
11. The Port Battle Winner owns said port after server maintenance losing 1 level on each Port Bonus.

I'm no game coder, but it seems as whatever tag "Enemy Players" have it would be required that those within same nation would be required to have a Sub-Tag 1 (for one side) and a Sub-Tag 2 (for other side).

 

 

[Tenet]

Check out the brainstorming thread on this very topic. I've recorded some more ideas on keeping it balanced. 

[Raekur]

I dont think that the civil war mechanic should permit other nations from joining in. This would open up the use of alt accounts and resources from groups/nations not directly affected by the civil war. If other nations want to assist a side, they could bring supplies to the side they want to help through the use of trade ships.

[Severus Snape]

The nation model will never work in this game as long as there are 11 of them.  It really didn't work when there were 8 either.  This is a clan based game and needs to changed into that model if the devs intend for it to survive.

My ideal setup would be a variation of this - - 

3-4 starter nations that are PVE / PVP based with no RVR.  GB Spain France (maybe US).  All new players spawn into one of these starter nations and grind up in large safe areas on the map around their capitals.  Players of a certain rank then have the option of joining a clan based RVR faction.  This faction would exist in a null sec sort of zone.  PVP FFA   ports capturable  clan wars with modest clan alliances.  Ships crafted in this ports will of course be better than the ones crafted in the capital zones, think of like Strong Hull / Pirate Rig from back in the fine woods patches.  A clan loses all its ports and it's players go back to their respective starter nations and have to start over or assimilate.  

Pirate faction will be reputation based.  sink too many players of a certain nation in the safe zones and you get negative rep.  hit a certain amount of negative rep and you turn into a pirate and are barred entry into various ports around the map.  True outlaws.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Severus Snape

[Raekur]

23 minutes ago, Severus Snape said:

The nation model will never work in this game as long as there are 11 of them.  It really didn't work when there were 8 either.  This is a clan based game and needs to changed into that model if the devs intend for it to survive.

My ideal setup would be a variation of this - - 

3-4 starter nations that are PVE / PVP based with no RVR.  GB Spain France (maybe US).  All new players spawn into one of these starter nations and grind up in large safe areas on the map around their capitals.  Players of a certain rank then have the option of joining a clan based RVR faction.  This faction would exist in a null sec sort of zone.  PVP FFA   ports capturable  clan wars with modest clan alliances.  Ships crafted in this ports will of course be better than the ones crafted in the capital zones, think of like Strong Hull / Pirate Rig from back in the fine woods patches.  A clan loses all its ports and it's players go back to their respective starter nations and have to start over or assimilate.  

Pirate faction will be reputation based.  sink too many players of a certain nation and you get negative rep.  hit a certain amount of negative rep and you turn into a pirate and are barred entry into various ports around the map.  True outlaws.

 

While an interesting idea, it will not happen as it would require a complete rewrite of the code that runs the game. The idea of reducing the number of nations might be possible, but also has been suggested before and the devs simply will not do it as they believe the game population will increase still.

[Hethwill]

The simplest form of Civil War is then one as Admin posted somewhere - Any port "open to all" being open to attack from clans of the same nation as well. Was just an idea post, same as we do everyday.

And simplicity is sometimes the best format.

[LeBoiteux]

What's really interesting about a civil war is the consequences if it works : the creation of a new country (the USA, Haiti...), a political change (the French Revolution in 1789, the Russian Revolution in 1917...) or the risk of collapse of a empire (say the Roman civil wars).

Otherwise, it's not 'civil wars', it's just replacing 'nation wars' with 'clan wars' (and increasing the number of opponents) .

And a civil war is a very infrequent event in a country, if ever.

[Raekur]

18 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

The simplest form of Civil War is then one as Admin posted somewhere - Any port "open to all" being open to attack from clans of the same nation as well. Was just an idea post, same as we do everyday.

And simplicity is sometimes the best format.

And with that mechanic what happens if the owner of the port flips it back to nation only? Does the hostility to capture the port become null in void? What about the current situation of the alleged actions by VCO of extortion of gold to not destroy improvements to a port? The only actions that a nation could take against a group like this would be to just "deal with it". Actions of a clan against their own nation should come with some form of consequences, this is the mechanic that is missing from the game. Right now the only thing that could be done is for that clan to be ostracized from the nation and no other clan within that nation assist them and said clan removed from all friends listings. Bounties were used in the past in this game to put pressure on groups, perhaps that is another mechanic that could be implemented. VCO in the past has put up a 20 million bounty for the leader of a british clan though I never heard of anyone collecting.

[Hethwill]

I don't care about current situations hence will ignore the comment on specific situations.

I simply commented that the dev admin opinion on a simple mechanic was really cool.

Is simple and I like it.

So, take your "present situation with this and that clan" to those that are interested. I'm not a fishwife.

 

 

 

[Raekur]

Wasnt it a specific situation that prompted the idea for a civil war mechanic in the first place? The admin idea is simple but is limited in aiding a nation to curtail actions that are against the nation that are more harmful than just opening a port. By allowing any port to be targeted it will permit clans that are in conflict within a nation to resolve the issue.

[Potemkin]

14 minutes ago, Raekur said:

Wasnt it a specific situation that prompted the idea for a civil war mechanic in the first place? The admin idea is simple but is limited in aiding a nation to curtail actions that are against the nation that are more harmful than just opening a port. By allowing any port to be targeted it will permit clans that are in conflict within a nation to resolve the issue.

The specific situation, if i remember correctly, was a prussian clan that was going to join the dutch was allowed or encouraged by the leading clans in the dutch nation to take a port from a disliked clan also in the dutch nation who could not defend it on their own. The same prussians then moved all their shit and retook it when they actually re-rolled. The excuse used by the dutch that orchestrated it was that the disliked dutch clan opened the port to all and was a perceived threat to dutch traders.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Potemkin

[Raekur]

28 minutes ago, Potemkin said:

The specific situation, if i remember correctly, was a prussian clan that was going to join the dutch was allowed or encouraged by the leading clans in the dutch nation to take a port from a disliked clan also in the dutch nation who could not defend it on their own. The same prussians then moved all their shit and retook it when they actually re-rolled. The excuse used by the dutch that orchestrated it was that the disliked dutch clan opened the port to all and was a perceived threat to dutch traders.

I was not aware of that situation, the one I recall was with the russians and a particular clan opening up 4 ports right next to another clans major trade hub.

[Potemkin]

58 minutes ago, Raekur said:

I was not aware of that situation, the one I recall was with the russians and a particular clan opening up 4 ports right next to another clans major trade hub.

Yeah that came shortly after and created a little more push for clan v clan, but everyone sorta forgot about it after like a week. No one gives a shit really until it affects their gameplay. Im sure this situation is no different.

[Potemkin]

9 hours ago, van der Clam said:

Here are my thoughts on how a Civil War Mechanic should work: 2 days to choose a side, 5 days to wage war, 20 day cool down.

1. Within the same Nation, 1 clan Declares a Civil War against another clan via the Operations Menu / Civil War. From a drop down menu select a clan. (Only clans in your nation will show.)
2. An automatic in-game email will be sent to everyone in said nation announcing the Declaration of Civil War from one clan on the other clan. (Clan X Declares Civil War against Clan Y.)
3. All clans within that nation have 48 hours to choose which of those two clans they want to ally with. Any clan not choosing either clan is not privy to the following mechanics.
4. In OW, all players from one allied side will see all players from the other side as "Traitor Player" rather than "Enemy Player". (Plz for the love of God change "Player" to "Captain".)
5. They can attack each other, same as attacking someone from an enemy nation.
6. ??? This battle will instantly close to everyone from every nation?
7. ??? This battle will instantly close to only enemy nations? (The "Battle Side Locked" will prevent those in the Civil War from joining wrong side.)
8. ??? This battle will have standard OW Battle Mechanics allowing enemy nations to join a side? (Would require listing the two Civil War clans in the Battle Info, so enemy nations can choose which side to help)
9. Both Civil War Clans can raise hostility against each others' ports. Only those clans who chose a side can join in these hostility missions for whichever side they allied with.
10. Port Battles will schedule the same as normal (24 hours after hostility completed)
11. The Port Battle Winner owns said port after server maintenance losing 1 level on each Port Bonus.

I'm no game coder, but it seems as whatever tag "Enemy Players" have it would be required that those within same nation would be required to have a Sub-Tag 1 (for one side) and a Sub-Tag 2 (for other side).

 

 

While im at it i might as well tell you that the only way this ever gets implemented in any way whatsoever is against ports that are opened to all like admin said. Any other iteration will be abused by alts. Sorry to burst the bubble, and good luck to all the pirates getting butthello kittyed by alts right now.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Potemkin

[Sea Archer]

The whole game mechanics now do require clans working together. Therefore clan wars is not a good feature.

I would support the option to fight for "open to all" ports, but then it is not clear who fights on the defending or the attacking side. So my suggestion is to disable the "open for all" option.

The whole discussion comes from the fact, that one clan may own a high point port and denies other clans the access.

Why don't we just increase the number of those high point ports?

[Raekur]

2 hours ago, Potemkin said:

While im at it i might as well tell you that the only way this ever gets implemented in any way whatsoever is against ports that are opened to all like admin said. Any other iteration will be abused by alts. Sorry to burst the bubble, and good luck to all the pirates getting butthello kittyed by alts right now.

While I see your concern regarding the use of alt accounts to initiate attacks on other same nation ports could be an issue. But it is an issue that could use the same mechanic to eliminate the alt account entirely. First the alt account would most likely not be the largest clan within the nation so the amount of damage it could do is not that extensive. Second, when the alt clan attacks, the other clans in the nation will start asking questions regarding a reason for the attack. Chances are they will not get a verifiable answer. This now marks that alt clan to be monitored and possibly counter attacked by the other clans. At least with the full scope of a civil war mechanic, problem clans can be removed from a nation or at the very least reduced in power that will lessen the impact they have. I dont think there is really that much of a concern about one clan taking everything as it will be near impossible for one clan to be able to hold it all much less pay for it.

[Potemkin]

22 minutes ago, Raekur said:

While I see your concern regarding the use of alt accounts to initiate attacks on other same nation ports could be an issue. But it is an issue that could use the same mechanic to eliminate the alt account entirely. First the alt account would most likely not be the largest clan within the nation so the amount of damage it could do is not that extensive. Second, when the alt clan attacks, the other clans in the nation will start asking questions regarding a reason for the attack. Chances are they will not get a verifiable answer. This now marks that alt clan to be monitored and possibly counter attacked by the other clans. At least with the full scope of a civil war mechanic, problem clans can be removed from a nation or at the very least reduced in power that will lessen the impact they have. I dont think there is really that much of a concern about one clan taking everything as it will be near impossible for one clan to be able to hold it all much less pay for it.

Never ever doubt or underestimate the capacity for naval action players to find ways to grief. It would also no doubt lead to retaliation in kind. You might be able to mitigate it by forcing the declaring clan to have a port before they can declare, but if you allow ow pvp between the clans you will just get trolling and griefing. What if the alt clan owns no ports? Not only that but it could be used in conjunction with conventional rvr by the main accounts of the alts. Its a huge can of worms. Honestly your best bet would be to show admin how many new alt accounts they could sell if implemented, my guess is it would be on par with the rattvisan. If they let it happen the way it was suggested the game will be truly hello kittyed and theres plenty of salty shitheads that would abuse the hello kitty out of it immediately. Just another door that could have been explored if the game hadn't been developed around the pervading presence of alts.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Potemkin

[Raekur]

If the alt clan owns no ports then they can be starved to death by having to use all their outpost slots just to get resources for crafting. With the constant threat of raiders it puts the alt clans ships in peril more often then the rest of the nation. Add to that the fact that the alt clan traders will most likely have to sail solo, either way it becomes a matter of attrition and the alt clan will slowly die off. 

One thing you stated is very true, there are plenty of shitheads in this game that seem to be here for no other purpose but to cause headaches for others. Would be nice if there was a way to "entice" them to play nice or get the F lost. But the mechanic will need to be build along some strict lines so to reduce the amount of 'unintentional" ways it could be used.

[Potemkin]

54 minutes ago, Raekur said:

If the alt clan owns no ports then they can be starved to death by having to use all their outpost slots just to get resources for crafting. With the constant threat of raiders it puts the alt clans ships in peril more often then the rest of the nation. Add to that the fact that the alt clan traders will most likely have to sail solo, either way it becomes a matter of attrition and the alt clan will slowly die off. 

One thing you stated is very true, there are plenty of shitheads in this game that seem to be here for no other purpose but to cause headaches for others. Would be nice if there was a way to "entice" them to play nice or get the F lost. But the mechanic will need to be build along some strict lines so to reduce the amount of 'unintentional" ways it could be used.

The people who would use alts in this manner would be funneling ships, reps, and upgrades to alts from other alts or mains. Its not really a clan in the normal sense as much as a group of players with alts with the objective of creating as much chaos as possible within a nation. Its bad enough as it is and you're suggesting giving them the ability to use throwaway ships to harass a nations trade, screening, and any other organized operation from within with virtually no way to actually retaliate, especially if they just change alt names so no one knows for sure whos doing what?

 Id love to see civil wars, but i agree it would need to be done very very carefully and frankly i dont think its worth the headaches that would inevitably come with it. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Potemkin

[Raekur]

How would the mechanic give them something they do not already have? Access to throwaway ships (admiralty provided) would be a non issue as they are not as good as crafted ones. If they craft ships then they can be captured and their place of production will be revealed thus showing an idea of who is supporting them. While there will be no way to eliminate bad players at least with this mechanic there will be a way to reduce some of the influence and effect they could have. In simple terms, it will allow the players who actually want to play the game a way to fight back.

[Macjimm]

More options and flexibility is better.  Allow war on the War Server.  

[Koltes]

23 hours ago, van der Clam said:

Here are my thoughts on how a Civil War Mechanic should work: 2 days to choose a side, 5 days to wage war, 20 day cool down.

1. Within the same Nation, 1 clan Declares a Civil War against another clan via the Operations Menu / Civil War. From a drop down menu select a clan. (Only clans in your nation will show.)
2. An automatic in-game email will be sent to everyone in said nation announcing the Declaration of Civil War from one clan on the other clan. (Clan X Declares Civil War against Clan Y.)
3. All clans within that nation have 48 hours to choose which of those two clans they want to ally with. Any clan not choosing either clan is not privy to the following mechanics.
4. In OW, all players from one allied side will see all players from the other side as "Traitor Player" rather than "Enemy Player". (Plz for the love of God change "Player" to "Captain".)
5. They can attack each other, same as attacking someone from an enemy nation.
6. ??? This battle will instantly close to everyone from every nation?
7. ??? This battle will instantly close to only enemy nations? (The "Battle Side Locked" will prevent those in the Civil War from joining wrong side.)
8. ??? This battle will have standard OW Battle Mechanics allowing enemy nations to join a side? (Would require listing the two Civil War clans in the Battle Info, so enemy nations can choose which side to help)
9. Both Civil War Clans can raise hostility against each others' ports. Only those clans who chose a side can join in these hostility missions for whichever side they allied with.
10. Port Battles will schedule the same as normal (24 hours after hostility completed)
11. The Port Battle Winner owns said port after server maintenance losing 1 level on each Port Bonus.

I'm no game coder, but it seems as whatever tag "Enemy Players" have it would be required that those within same nation would be required to have a Sub-Tag 1 (for one side) and a Sub-Tag 2 (for other side).

 

 

LOVE IT! Some tweaks needed, but its good man. Definitely better than my own post about WarDec! 
+1

[Raf Van Boom]

I can come up with a number of ways this could be abused and used in ways not in line with the original idea.

[Potemkin]

These are the same people who would ironically blame the devs and leave negative reviews when they ragequit because the game turned into a shameless alt grief fest (more than it already is) after this gets implemented because people are salty and demand a quick fix/game change to something they're pissed about. The sad story of naval action development.