Diplomatic tools.

[Herminator]

Short version of my idea of diplomatic tools.

 

 

Clans should have a rating system based on the rank of it's members. This rating system was then a leverage for a voting system for the nation to change diplomacy standing to other nations.

 

For a nation to declare war on another nation you would need a certain amount of votes. And every clan can have a vote, and the value of that vote depends of the clans rating system.

In this way it would be benefitial for players to be affiliated in clans. Clans would benefit from being large in their national diplomacy. And also a large clan inspires more action and is easier to organize port battles and such in.

 

If the nation is not at war with another nation, then you can not buy flags either towards that nation.

With such a system you could also probably increase the port attack timers a little bit.

Just my 2 cents

Edited March 28, 2016 by Herminator

[CptEdwardKenway]

Not possible. Since we have major issues with alt accounts when alt accounts start creating alt clans that would be an absolutely game killer if they are voting not to be at war and one nation can simply overrun another nation while this nation is not able to defend, recapture lost ports, counter attack or anything. First we should solve the problem with all the alt accounts. Or if enough clans created they could declare war to allies too.

 

There should be a council ingame too and only high ranked players of those clans can make a vote and you need 2-3 from each clan. This would work maybe. Or an overall player vote. Alt accounts have already too much power.

[chappy]

One needs to be very careful about hardcoding a System that prevents a subset or even potentially the majority of the nations population in doing what they personally want as individuals or smaller clans. 

I would suggest that in many cases the nations are comprised of 50% large organised groups and 50% smaller clans and solo players. they each have a right to play the full content of the game in a manner they wish 

 

Your system rewards clan players primarily and large clan players at that. And your specific system further rewards rank over game time or activity, which is problematic. Why is a player that spent a lot of time levelling in pve 3 months ago and plays now 1 hour a week worth more than a new player who is active 5 hours a day and mostly pvps? and why is that pve player from 3 months ago worth even more because he chose a large clan and the new player hasnt?

 

The answer you gave is based on, indeed assumes that clans are needed to provide the organisation for portbattles. This is unfortunately the case currently you are right however  I disagree it should remain the fundamental avenue for strategic gameplay.

System tools, communications and fleet mechanics are needed to provide the organisation not clans. The rework of the strategic and diplomacy system needs to be more than just who allies with who and who declares war. it needs to be a complete revamp of the UI to enable coordination and communication between players (not just clans) much more easy.

 

Any individual , whether clan or not should be supported by mechanics that allow him or her to create a fleet (large fleets that people can physically join with a button click through a menu or window interface at a port) to engage in strategic gameplay. Any individual should be able to contribute to the decision if they want to about who is the current war target, and choose not to be involved as well.

Any player, clan or not, should be able to get a persistent overview of what fleets are available for their nation, where they are and how to join in. 

Once you do this properly, the assumption that large clans provide the strategic layer becomes defeated. as it should.  

Large clans should provide social, organisational economic and teamwork related benefits to players who want those things but they should not drive the nations diplomacy. The overal population should. 
*if* you go with a vote system, that system should not be predicated on the assumption that being in a clan is worth more. and it should factor in activity within the recent past (hours this week, pvp kills or some other battle rating) rather than overall game time (rank)

 

 

returning to the actual question of diplo, wars and alliances. (after the UI is built to support better information and coordination between all players of a nation)

 

 

Why can't clans and even individuals declare wars or targets? if the larger clans are of similar mind they will all declare war on the same nation, if a player logs on and sees that 49% of the nation has declared against the brits  then they can make an informed decision about that themselves as well.  thus enabling their involvement in the port battles. 

But smaller clans should be able to say no thanks or even i'd rather declare a clan war on x nation. A further mechanic can exist that forms the majority of clan declarations into an official national war declaration at a suitably high threshold, say 75% with attendandt bonuses or benefits at reaching this % in favour.

, however those that declared against another nation are given a slightly different mechanic whereby they are declared privateers for duration of the period and get a set of pvp mechanics that revolve around that sort of activity. (port raiding for money/cutting out expeditions etc)

 

Alliances on the other hand are tricky.. i suspect this is something that can only be solved through a full national vote mechanic , which again should be about recent activity of the player in terms of their vote weight and should not be linked to the clan status of said player either. (and would require a majority of players from both nations to fully engage) There should probably be a limit on the number of alliances. perhaps 2. 

 

 

It is worth noting  i am in a clan, although im arguing against clan power hardcoding, as i see it is in the greater interest of the game.