Global Diplomacy

[Yetteh]

Hey Guys,

I was thinking at some point in the future how Global Diplomacy should work, I was wondering if anyone had some good ideas?

 

I was thinking

 

A. Perhaps only high ranking players could vote for there nations state against another nation and this would have a cool down of a couple of days, so if a majority of high ranked players wanted to declare war against France it would happen, and say a Majority of players could send an alliance request to Spain for example and then the majority of high ranked players would vote if they should accept the proposal.

 

B. When a port is captured and the majority of the fleet is from a clan the port is assigned to the clan. Each port gives the clan 1 diplomacy point. The top 5 clans with highest diplomacy points gets to vote for diplomatic options.

 

C. Diplomacy is controlled by a fictional or historically accurate story which the developers control.

 

D. Based on players EXP they are given a "Diplomacy Score", the higher the "Diplomacy Score" the more votes they get towards changing global diplomacy. So a new player would get say 1 vote, a top player gets 50 votes. Then players vote based on diplomacy again with a cool-down.

 

 

Any other ideas? :-D

Edited January 23, 2016 by Yetteh

[SteelSandwich]

well, it was mentioned a system will be implemented soon:

 

Allied - Enter ally's ports & battles

neutral - Enter ports

state of hostilities - attack eachother ships

state of war - attack eachother ships + ports.

 

By majority vote a nation can mark another nation that way. voting is possible above a certain rank.

[Yetteh]

well, it was mentioned a system will be implemented soon:

 

Allied - Enter ally's ports & battles

neutral - Enter ports

state of hostilities - attack eachother ships

state of war - attack eachother ships + ports.

 

By majority vote a nation can mark another nation that way. voting is possible above a certain rank.

Oh cool :-D Didn't know this.

[beagleplease]

Currently there is a real problem in the game with the near destruction of the Spanish nation on PVP 1.

I believe the devs are looking for a solution and i have it.  We need diplomacy.

A diplomacy that allows alliances between nations where allies cannot attack each other (without the attacking party turning pirate.

That allows access to allied ports.  That allows allies to fight in each others port battles. 

I believe the french and Swedish currently have an alliance of sorts involving resource trading and military collaberation

This proves how alliances can allow a lower populated or less able nation to avoid complete destruction.

The Spanish supposedly had an alliance with Britain but far from protecting Spanish interests they have done nothing to help them

and even attacked several of their ports.  If the Spanish were able to create an official alliance with the British or switch their allegiance to the US.

Their Allie would be able to support their economy and their military.

 

I hope that people on this forum will agree with me here because as i see it this is probably the only way to stop nations getting completely crushed

in this game.  The problem with unofficial alliances in this game is as the US or British if we cannot rely on the Spanish to hold their ports then we have to take them ourselves

to defend our front lines and prevent the pirate incursions that are currently happening in the gulf of Mexico.  My own clan specifically decided not to take that island chain because

we felt Spain needed them only to have the pirates take them all.

 

Sooner or later a group of players with a mind to utterly crush their enemies can and will ruin this game without the addition of real diplomacy.

[Ruthless4u]

One of the issues is clans. You can have 2/3rds of a faction playerbase agree but if you have a large clan not go along with it then it can still cause issues with port captures etc.

Not saying clans are a bad thing but you have to consider the impact they have in the bigger diplomatic picture.

[beagleplease]

sure but an official alliance would take say a vote from both nations players and if the vote passes they essentially become like one nation as long as they are allied.

So if one clan didn't wanna go along with it their only choices would be to turn pirate or just not cooperate in any allied undertakings. 

 

But yeah convincing you're nation and its clans and the proposed allied nation and its clans to go along with it will create real and interesting in game politics.

Edited February 18, 2016 by beagleplease

[CompassRose]

This would certainly help the player base police their own, so to speak.

 

You never can predict how the game's population will divide up.  It's even harder to predict timezone density and player skill.

 

Ultimately, it's a given that one faction is going to be short on either population in a certain time zone, or skill, or both.  That faction is going to get facerolled.  And no matter what mechanics game developers seek to implement, you can't underestimate the ability of thousands of players to find a way around them and faceroll some more.

 

The best mechanics to implement, are mechanics that allow the players to come up with their own solutions to maintain a stable power base among nations.  I agree a diplomacy feature is the best option if implemented properly.

 

There are plenty of scenarios that would probably have to be thought out when creating this kind of system.  For instance:

 

Let's say a clan allies themselves with the Spanish to help defend their ports.  Another clan from the same nation buys an attack flag and heads for a Spanish port.  How does the system resolve the port battle mechanics?

[beagleplease]

Let's say a clan allies themselves with the Spanish to help defend their ports.  Another clan from the same nation buys an attack flag and heads for a Spanish port.  How does the system resolve the port battle mechanics?

 

Well i think it would be unrealistic for a clan in any nation to go against an official alliance.  No political power could wage open war against their nations ally and get away with it.

[The Spud]

Well i think it would be unrealistic for a clan in any nation to go against an official alliance.  No political power could wage open war against their nations ally and get away with it.

 

Agreed, an official alliance is an official alliance. The problem is who is going to decide for ALL the other players of his nation that an alliance is official between his nation and another nation. Thus making it "game official", so that attacking an allied nation will make you a pirate. We are all players and are all equal. Do we vote? Does the highest ranked player vote? It is difficult. It think no matter what deplomacy at one point, an alliance will conquer the whole map, and will have to fight eachother for fun. It should be increasingly difficult to capture new ports, depending on the amount of ports you have (maybe moneywise). Just to prevent this game from being a two or three nation fight against eachother, and one of these nations getting the upperhand. It would give the "losing" side a benefit.

[Brogsitter]

I agree, we really need a diplomacy to solve the issue with underpopulated nations on a long term.

 

Here is an idea of implementation: There will be an ingame poll on a weekly base. Within this post you can decide if you are allied, hostile or neutral to a nation.

 

If the majority is the opinion to be allied with a nation and the majority of this specific nation is the same opinion, than you will become allies for a week (or another timeframe). 

 

In case the majority is the opinion to be hostile with a nation, there will be war, even if the majority of this specific nation has another opinion

[Azzak]

Weekly may be a little too much.

[komisches]

Can we have fleets consisting of groups, too? Like eve-online does. And then maybe some kind of confederacy thing for pirates.

[drogoran]

diplomacy is key but only if the system enforces that relation state by making the allies or neutrals non-hostile during the duration of the aliance or neutrality

 

caus in online games there is no shortage of people that will do whatever it takes to destroy

[Kameradenschwein]

I just copy paste what I wrote somewhere else 

 

"

 

I will add my 2 cents to this discussion, despite my experience that such discussions in a forum do not get much attention by the developers as in the case a developer would have started the discussion which would show they are interested into that specific topic.

 

 

In my opinion the whole problem with nations getting wiped out can be solved by a combination of certain mechanics. I for myself think that the more ports a nation owns, the more expensive it should get to be able to take a new one – up to a point where a lot of players need to collect money and even above that to a point where it „ridiculously“ expensive. All in all, the bigger a nation is – the more penalties it should get. I would also add a high security area for every nation. This should be the Capital and lets say 3 to 5 Cities near by. These areas other nations can enter but it would be pointless. The cities in the high security area should be guarded by overpowered ai fleets that would spawn immediately to destroy any fleet that is not the nations one. This way you could easily install a save zone for players. Furthermore I think based on the number of ports a nation has ai fleets should patrol their territory. Of course only in a defence way. The larger a nation is, the less defensive ai support it gets – up to a pinot where there is no ai support at all.

To make it short

 

The larger a nation gets – the more expensive it should be for them to take a port and lesser up to no ai fleets should patrol their waters to help to defend

 

 

another question which is linked to it is the possibility to win the game and reset it to start all over again. I would be highly in favour of this idea to prevent the game become a never ending story of a few nations dominate the game as long as game-labs wishes to keep the servers running.

A solution would be easy to bind it as a zero sum game to the number of ports/cities. I was thinking of something about 40% of the cities to win and by that resat the game for another round. I guess something around 40% is reasonable if you take into account that the game has at this point 8 nations (with pirates) gives the remaining nations a share of 7,5% each.

 

Directly linked to this is the need of a diplomatic system. I would suggest a democratic system with the basic rule – one player one vote. You may debate if and how to add certain barriers. Like a minimum level to be allowed to vote and a time window of activness. I would recommend a simple majority system over a 2/3 majority. It is a basic political fact that with the increase of voters the less likely you will get a 2/3 majority.

 

Because it is a mmo i would arrange the voting as an ongoing voting and not the problem which Rousseau faced when he was debating about the peoples will at the very moment of that one voting process. I just draw a very easy example.

 

A player of a nation can set his diplomatic wishes like a switch. I would like to be in peace with that other nation. As soon as 51% of the considered voters turned their switch to peace the diplomatic decision of that nation is opting for peace. If now the other nation also receives a 51% simple majority – there shall be peace, but if enough players of one of the nations switch back to war – well, there will be the smell of gunpowder in the morning again. To prevent an ongoing switching between war and peace there should be something like a one week truce in case there has been negotiated a peace.

 

Well, it turns out i wrote way more than I intended to do..."

[Ahab]

We could put a price on economic and diplomatic relation changes like we do the flags, and buying that would trigger the nation wide poll.

[Aetrion]

I think decisions inside of nations should happen by having political figures in Europe that support certain stances, and you can strengthen or weaken these leaders by supporting them with trans-Atlantic shipments and gold. 

 

For example, you could have someone who supports peace with another nation in your capital, and someone who opposes it. The political influence of these two leaders waxes and wanes with how much profit they generate from their allies in the new world. Sending them shipments of goods or gold increases their influence, and the leader who manages the most influence at the end of a legislative period gets to enact their policy. 

 

Basing it on resources being spent introduces an additional money and resource sink into the game, which is good, and it puts the power to make decisions with people who actually care about that decision, rather than just giving everyone a vote. A person who doesn't really care either way isn't going to send money to a leader, they would rather keep their money, so the ability to influence the outcome is placed in the hands of the people who are willing to work to have the decision go their way. That would also make it very difficult to subvert the decision making process with alt characters. Since you would have to raise substantial wealth to finance a politician you can't just make a character and instantly have full influence over policy.

 

In a peace deal both nations spend on the same leaders, meaning that, for example, if Great Britain wanted to make peace with Spain, but the Spanish players would rather be at war they would end up spending against each other. That enables economic warfare. By creating a situation where you've made the pro-peace politicians in Europe the most powerful by sending them gold and goods you can essentially force a nation to make peace with you, but if the people who want war manage to outspend you by supporting the pro-war politicians the peace is revoked again. 

[Admiral 8Q]

well, it was mentioned a system will be implemented soon:

 

Allied - Enter ally's ports & battles

neutral - Enter ports

state of hostilities - attack eachother ships

state of war - attack eachother ships + ports.

 

By majority vote a nation can mark another nation that way. voting is possible above a certain rank.

You should only be able to move up or down one step. There should be a time of cooldown of weeks or even a minimum of 30 days before the option to change the stance again.

Also I think there should be a middle stage where you can't attack each other's ships, but also can't enter each other's ports either.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Admiral 8Q

[Kameradenschwein]

I think decisions inside of nations should happen by having political figures in Europe that support certain stances, and you can strengthen or weaken these leaders by supporting them with trans-Atlantic shipments and gold. 

 

For example, you could have someone who supports peace with another nation in your capital, and someone who opposes it. The political influence of these two leaders waxes and wanes with how much profit they generate from their allies in the new world. Sending them shipments of goods or gold increases their influence, and the leader who manages the most influence at the end of a legislative period gets to enact their policy. 

 

Basing it on resources being spent introduces an additional money and resource sink into the game, which is good, and it puts the power to make decisions with people who actually care about that decision, rather than just giving everyone a vote. A person who doesn't really care either way isn't going to send money to a leader, they would rather keep their money, so the ability to influence the outcome is placed in the hands of the people who are willing to work to have the decision go their way. That would also make it very difficult to subvert the decision making process with alt characters. Since you would have to raise substantial wealth to finance a politician you can't just make a character and instantly have full influence over policy.

 

In a peace deal both nations spend on the same leaders, meaning that, for example, if Great Britain wanted to make peace with Spain, but the Spanish players would rather be at war they would end up spending against each other. That enables economic warfare. By creating a situation where you've made the pro-peace politicians in Europe the most powerful by sending them gold and goods you can essentially force a nation to make peace with you, but if the people who want war manage to outspend you by supporting the pro-war politicians the peace is revoked again. 

 

I see the point you are making but what you actually want is to install an oligarchic system in which players with the most money decide at least the domestic politics of their nation. I will not start a discussion if this is more real than a democratic system or what so ever. I am just opposed to such a system since I highly believe in the equality and self determination which can be archived in an online game. I stay with one player one vote

[Aetrion]

I see the point you are making but what you actually want is to install an oligarchic system in which players with the most money decide at least the domestic politics of their nation. I will not start a discussion if this is more real than a democratic system or what so ever. I am just opposed to such a system since I highly believe in the equality and self determination which can be archived in an online game. I stay with one player one vote

 

Yea, but why should players who are hardly affected by the broader policy changes in their empire and have no real stake in them hold more power to influence politics than players who actually shape the political landscape of the game?

 

For that matter, it would just lead to a political stalemate, because no side could ever stockpile goods to swing a legislative cycle their way while then other wasn't prepared to spend so big to orchestrate something.

 

 

The system wouldn't give you the option of enacting things that affect how the casual player interacts with the game. It's about global politics, so it should be a system to be people who really shape the world, not by anyone who has no real understanding of any of that.

[Admiral 8Q]

If you're highly influential players in the game, all you have to do is ask all your clan members, and talk to other leaders in other clans or groups, to get everyone to vote a certain way.

Personally however, I think it should be moderators that decide the status between nations based on the idea of keeping a game balance.

[Captain Tylor]

If you're highly influential players in the game, all you have to do is ask all your clan members, and talk to other leaders in other clans or groups, to get everyone to vote a certain way.

Personally however, I think it should be moderators that decide the status between nations based on the idea of keeping a game balance.

Worst idea ever.

Grats 

 

Hope the voting thing above is not gonna be something pirates can do...

Edited February 19, 2016 by MadGelo

[Kameradenschwein]

Yea, but why should players who are hardly affected by the broader policy changes in their empire and have no real stake in them hold more power to influence politics than players who actually shape the political landscape of the game?

 

For that matter, it would just lead to a political stalemate, because no side could ever stockpile goods to swing a legislative cycle their way while then other wasn't prepared to spend so big to orchestrate something.

 

 

The system wouldn't give you the option of enacting things that affect how the casual player interacts with the game. It's about global politics, so it should be a system to be people who really shape the world, not by anyone who has no real understanding of any of that.

 

 

 

Everybody would affect the world in theory with the same count of his voice - noone would affect more or less – one player one vote

this is mostly a question of taste -  I don’t like the taste of an oligarchic system. If you are a one of the big defining players, you will get people to vote for the ideas you have – I don’t like the idea of buying your policy. buy the way, I would not dare to assume that the average player is not interested on global in-game politics or is to foolish to understand …. one coud understand this as paternalism

and to keep a bit your idea of a political elite - if you are rich enough you still could try to buy votes.....

Edited February 19, 2016 by Kameradenschwein

[Dutchpower]

I think clans should decide wich their allies are not the nations.

I dont like that higher ranks can decide for other clans/players.

 

I will never support that idea.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dutchpower

[Fletch]

Who would want someone who can't even defend themselves as an ally? If you allow this type of thing the strongest nations will ally against the rest anyway, it's simply human nature.

It will create more trouble than it solves.

If Spain cannot defend its ports it will have to loose them until they have so few they can actually start defending. If they become a nation with only AI ships then so be it.

I would like to see a system of struggerling nations receive more help in the form of the AI bots if the players are not man enough for the job.

[Mighty Bouff]

Part of the problem with clans deciding for other people has been seen on PvP1. An alliance with Spain was apparently made, without widespread consultation. Not all agreed with this, nor with the 'trading' of ports. The result was division and a conflict in the south, quite a lot of bad blood (intra and extra nation) and ultimately a contribution to the seemingly terminal decline of Spain.

 

Any in game diplomatic tools need to be very carefully judged so they cannot be abused and are not too limiting. As an extreme example what if one clan got a large %age of that nations population, if they used a three line whip to enforce their members to vote for a certain diplomacy option they could easily dictate it to all members of that nation - not healthy in my mind.