Is player nation just a cosmetic trait?

[Ivan]

I was wondering it choosing a nation is just like a starting location and the flag you have on your ship or it goes deeper and it automatically makes all opposing nations your enemies and you won't be able to port at their towns and cities?

I personally prefer that it would be something cosmetic because it's a sandbox game and players should decide how to divide themselves

[MesserJocke]

You could still play as privateer. I hope they not doing it like Elite Dangerous were you can be allied with all 3 major factions and they dont care that you killed them yesterday and today you welcome to run missions for them. It should be: think wisely what you sign up for and then live with the consequenses.

[Aragorn]

hmm..it would be nice to have free roam as it is a sandbox game. BUT at the same time it would add excitement if when you choose a country you were automatically at war with others and couldn't go to their ports without being stealthy. 

[Ivan]

hmm..it would be nice to have free roam as it is a sandbox game. BUT at the same time it would add excitement if when you choose a country you were automatically at war with others and couldn't go to their ports without being stealthy. 

That's true. I wonder if there are going to be many neutral ports.

[ingerad]

I'm not sure how they plan on having people start out or how they'll do careers.  I know one will be a naval officer career/play style choice though as I've seen that mentioned before.

 

If I play a naval officer then yes, I would imagine picking a country should be very important.

 

But outside of that...

 

What I kind of picture the game being is you start as a neutral captain in charge of a ship.  The career choices are basically factions you can choose to join.  If I want to remain a neutral trader, I can.  Nations don't mean too much to me then.  If I want to be a pirate everyone will want to kill me, but that's fine too.  Obviously naval captains will need to think of their nations.  I also think privateers (the guys with letters of marque) will have to consider their nation choice as well.

The part I think may get a bit confusing or tricky is their escort system.  If you want to be a merchant captain and be neutral that's fine.  But I hear you can hire escorts (which are basically naval officer players) to protect you in case of piracy.  If that's the case I would think that at least some degree of loyalty to a certain nation would lower the cost of the escort as I picture the navy wanting to escort ships of it's allegiance more than other neutral parties.

 

Now how player guilds and nation loyalty comes into play I have little idea.  

 

I don't know if you will be able to change your faction either, though I suspect it will be possible.  If it is I hope it takes a bit of effort, at least effort as tough as say building a 1st rate (however difficult that will be, though I imagine it won't be too easy to do).  I don't want a player to be able to change through nations willy nilly.

 

I favor relatively strong ties to your nation meaning something.  Part of what WoW so great was there was always the Ally vs Horde current in the game.  I think trying to capture some degree of that in NA (only say England vs France) would be great.  Causes some degree of tension in the air that will make pvp battles all the more fun.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The only thing is, there were and are no "neutral" traders.  In reality, all ships must be registered with a nation, they must fly the flag of that nation, and they do so in order to receive the protections of that nation and its allies.  Everyone is a citizen of a particular nation, I think you'll find it extremely hard to get about in the world without a passport designating you as a member of a particular country.

 

A very large part of naval action in the Age of Sail was the warfare between nations - "neutral" ships that can put into port anywhere are not a part of this.  In my opinion, all players must be affiliated with a particular nation.  I hope there are player-run nations as well as computer run, but your ship's flag is what drives the interaction between you and everyone else you encounter on the seas.  The only true neutral ship is a pirate ship, and they are kill or capture on sight to everyone.  If you want to be a truly neutral merchant, you're effectively asking to be a pirate that happens to carry cargo.

[ingerad]

The only thing is, there were and are no "neutral" traders.  In reality, all ships must be registered with a nation, they must fly the flag of that nation, and they do so in order to receive the protections of that nation and its allies.  Everyone is a citizen of a particular nation, I think you'll find it extremely hard to get about in the world without a passport designating you as a member of a particular country.

 

A very large part of naval action in the Age of Sail was the warfare between nations - "neutral" ships that can put into port anywhere are not a part of this.  In my opinion, all players must be affiliated with a particular nation.  I hope there are player-run nations as well as computer run, but your ship's flag is what drives the interaction between you and everyone else you encounter on the seas.  The only true neutral ship is a pirate ship, and they are kill or capture on sight to everyone.  If you want to be a truly neutral merchant, you're effectively asking to be a pirate that happens to carry cargo.

 

I thought about it a bit more and I do agree.  I think what I was sort of thinking about was a tramp trader style game play.  Basically ships that sailed from port to port carrying cargo and basically never coming "home".

 

The more I think of it, the more I think nationality should matter.  As I said, there could be a way to defect, and I'd be fine provided it was difficult.  But I think the more we make nations matter the better the rivalry.

 

I will say I don't want player made nations so much.  Unless they were pirate only I guess.  What I picture more are things like the East India Company, organizations blessed by a certain nation with a great degree of freedom, but ultimately still part of that nation.  Heck we could maybe get charters for colonies or something even.  

 

When people start talking about "player" nations I begin picturing players doing some sort of revolt against the established authority.  Any attempt to seize land and say "This is the nation of Naval-Actiononia!" would be met with a large amount of resistance from the player's home nation.  In many ways it would be like going pirate.  Which I guess sure, if you want to turn pirate like this okay.  But expect crushing force applied.  I also hesitate to get into the grounds of revolutions because to me that implies ground troop involvement absolutely.  And as a naval game I don't like bringing ground combat into it.  If we keep the "player nations" really just chartered national groups we can keep the game out of the whole revolution/war that is probably too complex to model in a naval game.

 

Plus then again, we can utilize the national settings to stoke competition between the nations.  

[SchurkjeBoefje]

You could still play as privateer. I hope they not doing it like Elite Dangerous were you can be allied with all 3 major factions and they dont care that you killed them yesterday and today you welcome to run missions for them. It should be: think wisely what you sign up for and then live with the consequenses.

 

 

Yeah, that's a big negative about E:D. It doesn't feel logical at all. Having multiple ranks in the navies of warring factions, at the same time. Just ridiculous and very immersion breaking. Hope NA will follow a different route. 

[ArcadeHex]

I quite like the idea of historical factions being at war, peace or allied with at other at different times for different conflicts, could also be used at a population balancing tool, if Britain is over-populated then they could be at war with both France and Spain to even it out, with the smaller USA and Netherlands being at war with each other in a different conflict, then as the devs see fit they can shake it up and the factions can be in different conflicts later on,  would give players in the non-player factions a more diverse PvP/trade running experience that doesn't become a Port Royal to San Juan zerg that never ends.

 

Player factions could war or peace with whoever they want for there own personal goals which I think would be a more rewarding, long term standbox experience for players who really want that.

Edited February 18, 2015 by ArcadeHex

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The way I have described my personal vision of Player Nations is the following:

 

Similar to Eve Online, the computer runs the core seagoing powers - let's just say Britain, France, Spain, US (northeastern seaboard only), Portugal, Holland.  The initial list isn't critical, just an example.  Those nations hold, on the map, their original core territory - no colonies (so, for example, India's coastline is not owned, neither is Australia, etc).  That leaves tons of unowned coastline.  You then treat the rest of the planet's coasts and islands as player nation ownable.  People who don't want to participate in nation versus nation can stay in the computer run nations, those that want to challenge for territory and make their own way can attempt to settle and hold land.  This should result in an extremely flexible and mostly player-run system which will provide an extremely rich political tapestry within which we can frolic and play.

 

There are certainly a lot of details to hammer out, but that's the system I'd like to see myself.

[MesserJocke]

The way I have described my personal vision of Player Nations is the following:

 

Similar to Eve Online, the computer runs the core seagoing powers - let's just say Britain, France, Spain, US (northeastern seaboard only), Portugal, Holland.  The initial list isn't critical, just an example.  Those nations hold, on the map, their original core territory - no colonies (so, for example, India's coastline is not owned, neither is Australia, etc).  That leaves tons of unowned coastline.  You then treat the rest of the planet's coasts and islands as player nation ownable.  People who don't want to participate in nation versus nation can stay in the computer run nations, those that want to challenge for territory and make their own way can attempt to settle and hold land.  This should result in an extremely flexible and mostly player-run system which will provide an extremely rich political tapestry within which we can frolic and play.

 

There are certainly a lot of details to hammer out, but that's the system I'd like to see myself.

 

I really like this but also hope Game Labs learns also from EVE were huge standing lists created napfests of epic poportions which killed the game for me. Standings are good but there should be a limit how big your Corp/Alliance gonna be at max and how many Corps/Alliances  you can set as friendly ( if this ever gets implemented ).

Edited February 18, 2015 by MesserJocke

[DazednConfused]

my only worry is this -

 

what happens to a clan that somehow goes to war with one of the main player nations like England? (maybe via privateering against them)

 

wouldn't they be destroyed in short order by the massive player disparities?

 

or would the game nations be coded to treat player nations with kid gloves.?

 

Dazed 

[StormtrooperCaptain]

Nations & Career will make or break the game for me. The economy, sailing the high seas with guilds/clans/nations will be what gives the game it's name in the industry.

 

The battles are great. But it's what the game will provide from an immersion approach that will make it successful in my honest opinion.

[Duskguy]

An old Game I used to play had it so that the major nations controlled their historic territories. You started out neutral, but through quests and/or a petition + bribe join a nation of choice. Once part of that nation, you carried that flag and were either friends or enemies with other nations based mainly on your nation's standing. Granted, if you managed to get into enemy ports and do quests/ pay bribes, your ship might be viewed as less hostile (better reputation) and therefore ignored by certain NPCs if you sailed next to someone with a lower reputation, who would in turn be attacked instead.

 

Players/guilds however, could control certain ports/towns. While they couldn't set overall nation policy, they could choose to raise taxes for certain nations and lower them for others in that port/ town. I believe eventually the game allowed players to control and build colonies in set places for their nation. for example, Australia opened up for colonization and players of England would fight with players of France and Spain, etc. to gain control of the colony. And every other week, the colonies would be up for grabs where a competing nation's players could bribe the port officials, blockade the harbor and destroy the defenses and eventually, hopefully take control while the defenders would have to try and keep the enemy ships from getting to land and destroying all the defenses.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Duskguy

[Rutger Van Hoorn]

Not sure how you could play out being "neutral" while being for example a French captain in English waters while both are at war with each other.

This could be done in so many different ways.

 

Just throwing some thoughts around:

*Large ports could stick more with the national line and automatically fire at patrons of the wrong nation, while smaller ports could be more lenient.

*Merchants could get an exempt from certain ports/nations to allow them to trade. (you'd need a special contact in your own nations ports)

*With reputation: if you have a good rep with for example England as a French captain, but then those nations declare war. You could still be respected while being an enemy, allowing you more freedom in trading/visiting at ports of warring nations.

***Question on this: did flying under false colors occur often (or ever) when trying to sail into an enemy port, for whatever reason?

 

As for if nations should be cosmetic or not. I can imagine some nations have certain pluses and minuses. English naval training was known to be superior to most, while the Dutch have always had a knack for trading/merchandising.

Those differences don't have to be big, but "near-cosmetic"/nuanced, for say "flavoring".

(As a negative, the English would have warm beer, and the Dutch can only buy wooden shoes... just kidding!)

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

my only worry is this -

 

what happens to a clan that somehow goes to war with one of the main player nations like England? (maybe via privateering against them)

 

wouldn't they be destroyed in short order by the massive player disparities?

 

or would the game nations be coded to treat player nations with kid gloves.?

 

Dazed 

 

That's one of the details that must be worked out.  I'd assume that unless you wanted to be branded a pirate, you wouldn't shoot at them unless your nation declares war against them, and then preys on their shipping.  You'd likely want to stay clear of their home waters to avoid being stomped by the local computer controlled national fleet.  The protected home waters are a crucial part of ensuring new players and pvp-adverse players have a small place to thrive until they're ready for the big, bad world.  Outside of those home waters, they'd be fair game.  Bear in mind that while they'd have a lot of players due to default membership, there would likely be little to no organization that would rival a well run player nation.

[ingerad]

The way I have described my personal vision of Player Nations is the following:

 

Similar to Eve Online, the computer runs the core seagoing powers - let's just say Britain, France, Spain, US (northeastern seaboard only), Portugal, Holland.  The initial list isn't critical, just an example.  Those nations hold, on the map, their original core territory - no colonies (so, for example, India's coastline is not owned, neither is Australia, etc).  That leaves tons of unowned coastline.  You then treat the rest of the planet's coasts and islands as player nation ownable.  People who don't want to participate in nation versus nation can stay in the computer run nations, those that want to challenge for territory and make their own way can attempt to settle and hold land.  This should result in an extremely flexible and mostly player-run system which will provide an extremely rich political tapestry within which we can frolic and play.

 

There are certainly a lot of details to hammer out, but that's the system I'd like to see myself.

 

See that would be great as a sandbox game.  But I have to ask, what's the point then of the larger nations?  

 

With so much focus on player world building, eventually much of the actual history context would be lost.  For me there is a great bit of interest in the history of the era itself, and if you start putting too much gain in solo player nation states that flavor is completely lost for me personally.  

 

It also makes absolutely no sense.  As I said, these nations are huge and powerful, they aren't going to let some random guys colonize territory without a big fight.  No they're going to say heck no, that's our land thank you very much and the player nation will find a massive fleet on their doorsteps full of troops that are going to take their stuff.

 

I have to wonder, if you want to go and basically let players build their own nations in their entirety, why not go with a pure fantasy world?  It would mean much less baggage and many fewer issues would arise.  Indeed it wouldn't be hard in a fantasy setting to explain why players are just making their own nations as they see fit.

 

This is why I think colonies/charters/East India Companies are the way to go.  There is a massive amount of freedom in these things often.  Especially consider the East India Company.  That thing could declare war, raise private armies, conduct diplomacy, heck it basically ruled early India.  It can do basically every single thing you mentioned, but it also has the benefit of maintaining the historical overlay and realism factor that I feel your scenario does not.

 

Again, I think nations should mean something.  There should be something sweet about being English or French or American.  Sure, on the far side of the world the players can build up, wage some personal wars all that stuff.  But add in the general overlay of France vs England in a global contest for power just makes the immersion all the much more sweeter.

[Kao1808]

Though it will be difficult to follow history exactly I would personally prefer that in game there is some ongoing conflict going on between two major nations in at least some sort of historical context.

 

If the game setting is 18th Century the most obvious one would of course be Britain vs France. These two should be in constant state of war (no peace possible).

 

Starting point could be for instance the American Revolutionary War (1775) with on one side France, United States, Spain, Netherlands vs Britain and Portugal, other nations could then side with either of them.

 

Or later Napoleonic wars (1789-1815?) with Britain, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden vs France, Spain, Denmark-Norway.

 

Over time alliances could then change/develop or maybe even a third major independent faction arise but Britain and France should always remain at war.

 

I would not like it if players can create their own nations apart from becoming rebels or pirates but then they are basically

outlaws.

 

Furthermore if you wish to join the navy of any particular country you should be able to do so regardless of your nationality.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I suppose it entirely depends on whether you're trying to create a perfectly historically accurate game, or a game based on history but that allows flexibility.  I think you run into far less trouble when, say, everyone joins Britain because "Britain is cool yo" if the primary focus isn't on the major powers.

[ingerad]

The one thing that is nice about focusing on nations is that it gives devs a tool to help even out population imbalances.  If England is massively over-populated then sure you would expect it to win it's war vs France.  But  if the devs decide that Spain, Netherlands, US, and Portugal also don't like England anymore then odds are the imbalance can be fixed.

 

I don't need a perfectly historically accurate game, I'm fine with fudging history, provided it makes sense.  I also don't think a purely historical game would be too possible unless they narrow the time frame down significantly.

 

I also wouldn't mind if a player had some small degree of input on national policy overall.  It would make some sense especially if we go the colonial/company route as these organizations were very powerful and could be expected to have significant political power.

[Ivan]

I suppose it entirely depends on whether you're trying to create a perfectly historically accurate game, or a game based on history but that allows flexibility.  I think you run into far less trouble when, say, everyone joins Britain because "Britain is cool yo" if the primary focus isn't on the major powers.

Yeah flexibility def does help for a smoother experience. In Planetside 2 for instance each server had a faction that was stronger than the other 2 and they would always swarm and take over the entire continent in no time. That's not a fun experience...

[Kao1808]

Well I guess in case of Planetside 2 it is very difficult to be historically correct 

 

I don't mind flexibility at all.and of course there has be some kind of balance. Perhaps there could be a maximum number of ships in a navy for each nation, more or less based on history, that can be filled with ai captains if there are not enough players. And if a navy is 'full' you just have to pick another profession and wait until there is a place available. Not sure if that would work though.

 

In any case I think nationality has to be more then just a cosmetic trait.

[MesserJocke]

 

 

 there has be some kind of balance.

 

 

wrong.