Global Diplomacy

[Ruthless4u]

TBH, any situation with playerbase voting will end up being a 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner situation.

[Ghroznak]

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

 

While I understand your sentiments from a modern perspective, I can't agree with it from a historical perspective set in the 18th century.

 

Money ruled, then moreso than now, as monarchs had supreme vote and democracy wasn't even "invented" at the time. Wars were waged to seize rich and important areas for trade and commerce. The wealth of the caribbean supported the wars back in Europe.

 

It would be both historically correct and also support the economic gameplay in Naval Action to have a system where wealth and trade influences the politics, even if it doesn't support a modern way of thinking where we have democracies and equality.

 

I'm completely onboard with Aetrions proposal, and I barely even have any wealth in the game

[Frankzy]

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.

If there is one EVE mechanic this game does not need, Concord is probably first on the list.

There are many other way less intrusive methods of making sure a nation doesn't get reduced to just its capital. An alliance system is just one if them....

[Fletch]

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.

Why is this occurrence a problem though? It's player created content that should be sorted out in game by players. Nations had civil wars and unrest and I suppose it's no different in the game as well.

I have a problem with people constantly trying to get the game rules changed because they can't get there act together in game.

[Mighty Bouff]

Why is this occurrence a problem though? It's player created content that should be sorted out in game by players. Nations had civil wars and unrest and I suppose it's no different in the game as well.

I have a problem with people constantly trying to get the game rules changed because they can't get there act together in game.

 

The problem is if one clan or group can force their agenda onto the whole nation via a mechanic. As it is it works ok because, if you don't agree you can dissent. If the dissenters are more numerical than the originators then it gets pushed aside.

[Fletch]

Might be a misunderstanding. I'm for the rules to be left how it is. Diplomacy should be player made and not done by the game mechanics.

If some individuals do not wish to adhere to it,so be it let those individuals do what they want.

[Mighty Bouff]

Might be a misunderstanding. I'm for the rules to be left how it is. Diplomacy should be player made and not done by the game mechanics.

If some individuals do not wish to adhere to it,so be it let those individuals do what they want.

Yup think we had crossed wires!

 

I'm ok for it to come and help formalise things (think standings in EvE) but needs to be specific (my clan can set standigns to other nation clans) rather than broad brush (whole of Britain because allies with whole of Spain)

[Dutchpower]

Might be a misunderstanding. I'm for the rules to be left how it is. Diplomacy should be player made and not done by the game mechanics.

If some individuals do not wish to adhere to it,so be it let those individuals do what they want.

I agree with that.

[Capt. Rice]

There should be a war fatigue...longer a nation is at war the more it should affect that nation declaring war...

[Admiral 8Q]

Worst idea ever.

Grats 

 

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

Haha! 

Pirates get no votes on global diplomacy because, well, they're pirates. Screw politics and everything. 

[Frankzy]

Haha!

Pirates get no votes on global diplomacy because, well, they're pirates. Screw politics and everything.

Peace is for landlubbers anyway..

[Ghroznak]

How is clans going to peace with clans of opposing faction supposed to work? They get free pass to dock in that nations port while the other 90% of the faction can't?

Nations being at war or peace with another nation is something that affects the entire nation as a whole, not just fragmented parts of it, ie individual clans within a faction being at peace while rest of nation is at war.

Voting is unrealistic and allows for multiaccount voting. 18th century was not a democracy anyhow.

The most realistic system is one where we have little influence over what happens in the national politics. You might want to be allied with another nation because it is profitable for trade, strategically good because of port locations or both...however, the kings in europe care nothing for what a little captain in a small wooden boat in the caribbean thinks or wants. If England goes to war with the Spanish in Europe, then you are at war in the caribbean as well.

That is just the way of the world.

Everyone wants to have a say in which way wars and alliances go, but besides affecting this through an economic system where you can nudge the decision slightly, I dont really see how this could be done in a sensible manner.

A background simulation that handles alliances and wars with be much more realistic. If the kings of Europe declare a war, then sorry mateys, but that decision will affect you in your boat, and you will have to start avoiding the faction you just went into war with, or attack them. That is what your nation and your king expects you to do.

You don't like having this forced on you, or disagree with the king? Fine, start hoisting the black flag then..

[Quineloe]

Peace is for landlubbers anyway..

You can't be at war as a pirate anyways. You're just a common criminal.

[Dutchpower]

How is clans going to peace with clans of opposing faction supposed to work? They get free pass to dock in that nations port while the other 90% of the faction can't?

Nations being at war or peace with another nation is something that affects the entire nation as a whole, not just fragmented parts of it, ie individual clans within a faction being at peace while rest of nation is at war.

Voting is unrealistic and allows for multiaccount voting. 18th century was not a democracy anyhow.

The most realistic system is one where we have little influence over what happens in the national politics. You might want to be allied with another nation because it is profitable for trade, strategically good because of port locations or both...however, the kings in europe care nothing for what a little captain in a small wooden boat in the caribbean thinks or wants. If England goes to war with the Spanish in Europe, then you are at war in the caribbean as well.

That is just the way of the world.

Everyone wants to have a say in which way wars and alliances go, but besides affecting this through an economic system where you can nudge the decision slightly, I dont really see how this could be done in a sensible manner.

A background simulation that handles alliances and wars with be much more realistic. If the kings of Europe declare a war, then sorry mateys, but that decision will affect you in your boat, and you will have to start avoiding the faction you just went into war with, or attack them. That is what your nation and your king expects you to do.

You don't like having this forced on you, or disagree with the king? Fine, start hoisting the black flag then..

You cant simulate everything. it is still a game and if we as clan wants to atack or make peace with another clan from another nation we should have the right to do that.

I dont like when a big massa clan is deciding for me what i need to do in this game.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Dutchpower

[LeBoiteux]

You cant simulate everything. it is still a game and if we as clan wants to atack or make peace with another clan from another nation we should have the right to do that.

I dont like when a big massa clan is deciding for me what i need to do in this game.

 

This isn't a clans vs clans game (as a fantasy or Sci-fi game could be) but a Nations vs Nations game (because of the realistic and historical background) where clans should only do what they do well (because of their size, organization and wealth) : fighting, trading and/or crafting. Clans are not good at diplomacy at a national level, the one NA needs.

 

At a national level, to achieve diplomacy, one can think of :

- a democratic system that can be 100% democratic (all players vote) or rank-based : quite unrealistic in the XVIIIth-century,

- a much more realistic monarchic system, mostly managed by an AI simulation as Ghroznak suggested (above) or by the Devs where Captains are only individuals on their ship's deck (members or not of a clan but definitely not politicians) going through various "events" such as storms, shallows or peace treaties and war declarations (Diplomacy).

[Ghroznak]

You cant simulate everything. it is still a game and if we as clan wants to atack or make peace with another clan from another nation we should have the right to do that.

I dont like when a big massa clan is deciding for me what i need to do in this game.

 

It's not a clan vs clan game.

 

It's an RvR, realm vs realm, game. Or NvN if you want, Nation vs Nation.

 

If you play for England, and England is at war with Spain... fine, then you fight the Spanish clans. However, if England finds peace with Spain, then you are bound by the treaties of your nation, ergo you no longer fight against the Spanish clans, you are at peace, or even allied with them.

 

You can continue to attack them, but doing so would be in direct violation of a peace treaty or alliance by your NATION, which means you have gone rogue, which means you might as well hoist the black flag.

 

That's how the world works, and how it should work in Naval Action too, given the era we are playing in.

 

The only "nation" you can fight regardless of politics would be pirates... or as pirates you can just pick a fight with anyone you want. That's part of the point with pirates... not being bound by rules, laws, politics and treaties like the rest of us.

 

From my point of view though, a bunch of gruffy captains in a few dinghy's in the caribbean would have minimal impact on a nations diplomacy and politics... politics that were primarily discussed in Europe and with an eye for what happened in Europe, with the caribbean being just a back yard.

 

Background simulation that alters who is at war, who is at peace (thus allowing trade) and who is allied (thus allowing joint battle operations) should be handled in a background simulations that keeps those national affairs dynamic and shifting.

[mandrake]

hmm i have thought long and hard on this and there are lots of issues with currently suggested plans.

 

1. Players of a certain rank should be the only one to vote..

no good as what is a fair rank? 

2. all players should get 1 vote....

no good with the amount of Alt/Spys this is just not gonna work. (vote rigging any one?)

3. voting for national relations by normal players..

not good ether as a true nation has diplomates who work on these allances in back rooms these people should be able to keep there word and not require a vote in order to make a agreement

 

 

so i have come up with a few options that i feel may work and some that are options for how those options should work please note the * represents my prefered method

 

Option A. Goverment* 

will allow for alot more ingame depth down the road if there are national taxs or requriements for upkeep of ports and the buildings in them IE a goverment may decide 1 port is more inportant then another thus Increase the defenses of that port. this opens up the national options alot.

 

Structure of a a goverment

1. Govenor 

2. Tresurer

3. Forign Affairs 

 

Option B.

Lord protectors Vote on relations between differing nations. (please see section on how Lord protectors get into office)

 

Option A Sub Section

How a govement is formed

Option 1 

All port lord protectors get 1 vote for the governer and the other positions (can only vote for confirmed Lord protectors)

 

Option 2*

All port lord protectors Get 1 vote for Govenor who then apoints Tresurer and Forign Affairs portfolio to lord protectors of thier chooseing (can only vote for Confirmed Lord protectors)

 

 

How to Vote in Lord protector

Option 1.*

in order to vote for or be voted for person must have a Outpost in the town to become a lord protector. those who take the port are just encumbant lord protectors till vote happens. (this will provent 1 clan  from being lord protector of every port as the cost to do so and the limitations on how many outposts u can have would prevent this from being abused)

 

Option 2.

players must travel to port in order to make a vote any one wishing to apply to become lord protector has to pay 50k for the aplication. (issue here is big clans could afford the 50k easy and get there players to zerg the port to win the vote)

[mandrake]

so in a perfect world i would like for the Govenor to be voted in by the Lord protectors then set his cabnet up from said lord protectors and those lord protectors being voted in by people with a vested intrest in those ports.

 

if a port gets taken they then lose that vote thus  it becomes inportant for all people cocerned to protect there voting rights.

 

also limits any major clan taking over the server goverment easly.

 

all that would be needed is a 51%+ vote and the lord protector or govenor would be decided.

 

and if they ever do bring in the option to modifie towns to build them up or increase production a form of goverment would be very useful.

 

regarding tax system i feel the gold would be spend on Upkeep costs for towns and Inproving towns Economic output. but i also feel the gold should not be able taken out and used by players. this would allow for a system that if a nation is large they have to cover the upkeep and they also have to consider which town is worth more upgrades in defence or economic above another.  these would make for jucy targets for the enemy. truly there is alot that can be done in this area. hell there could be just a budget of gold that gets spread thru the ports based on a % that the Tresure sets then its up to the lord protector to use that for Defense upgrades or economic upgrades. 

[Sea Nettle]

This entire idea stinks. It's going to be shite to log in as a pvper and find out that your nations crafters have rigged the system to make peace with everyone. Who am I kidding this system is all talk, will never happen. Certainly not like "diplomats" envision it. You will never be able to indefinitely, or even for a long duration, enforce your will upon other players. It's a pipe dream that would only see people migrating to a new game. No one is going to log in and sit bored because a clan of no lifes each bought 5 accounts and decided they should enforce and decide peace and war for everyone else.

 

The devs need to seriously address the control freak factor developing in this game before its allowed to steam roll and develop as a backlash of ignoring the player base or not upholding your agreements. Because at this point this group believes this system is on it's way and they can't wait to dictate who everyone is allowed to attack and such.

 

It sounds good on paper but the first time X clan is limited by Y clan whom they do not like those players won't bother playing.

 

This isn't a free to play game. You do not have an unlimited new player base that joins everyday and will tolerate those conditions. Ignore this at your own peril.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Sea Nettle

[Snoopy]

People can always say FK dis and 'Take the Black'

Following rules is pretty much the definition of what nationals do and pirates don't.

[Almightybob]

If they did this it needs to be out of player control.  Navies don't run countries, countries run navies.  It really make no sense for a clan to be able to start a war with another nation.

[mandrake]

come on guys right now 1 clan can start a war with another country all on there own. then if no one dose any thing that country could be totaly distoryed in reprisal. the fact you cant have a allance with another nation in this game is a joke. and to say it should be run by a AI who has no clue as to what the people playing the game feel is also a joke.

 

the fact that a clan feels it needs to rebel is also funy.

 

and like anotehr said if you want anarchy Pirate is the faction for you.

 

never did Squadrons attack a random nation to pick a fight why there queen/king back home had allied with them.

 

Goverment is the only fair way to do this and would allow for future elements like Settlement development. and if you dislike the current goverment it just means you need to work on kicking them out.

 

 

with the new building patch making it so you need outposts in national towns to build production buildings this will work perfectly into my plan for Lord Protector voting system. we all gonna need to make outposts in a town thus become its "Citizens"  i beleive all Citizens derserve a right to vote for there lord protector.

 

with this system no 1 clan can control the rest unless they get the votes and truly if another clan cant get even 1 town under there control to vote the other way then realy cant say much there...

 

but yes i get nations coming to me all the time wanting to formalize some form of relations but we cant do it because of rogue clans. 

 

now if you could kick the clan from your faction it would be fine but you cant. so the only other choice is to have somting that prevents them from interfering with the deplomacy of the realms. 

 

rember no 1 clan can force a peace so 1 clan should not beable to force a war ether...

[Louis Marie Dragases]

The less clans will be involved in Diplomacy the better the game will be.

I also think a democratic system would be silly, one only needs to open the page of an history book after the naval battle of Salamis, when the lower class Athenians were given rights to vote, to see Athens become ruthless and quite imperialistic. The last thing I wish to see is alliances changing from one day to the next for no reason, or players/clans being ostracized from their nations because their opinions don't coincide with the "ruling" clan(s).

A system where Diplomacy is handled by the Devs or a "storyline" would be more enjoyable, and would create unity in each nation. 

Orders come from the top, you respect them, or you become a pirate. Simple. 

That is how a nation works.