[suggestion] Nations, Lord Protectors and Rebels

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

This collection of suggestions refers to:

 

---- Nations must be shaken by the fear of dissidents and rebellions ----

 

The lenient and somewhat social status of Nations might be shaken by groups not wanting to go along with the flow, as we have seen before and will see in the future.

The options at the moment is to change nation or to go free mode with the black flag without any problems to the original nation except the loss of a member.

 

What if that actually hits hard in the established flow of a nation ?

 

 

These suggestions make sense after a map wipe given the necessity for neutral ports and initial nations expansion.

 

 

>>>> As we have it, all Ports, after conquered, are assigned a Lord Protector. Nice and dandy.

 

Suggestion #1 - For healthy distribution of power amongst a Nation's clans and organizations >>> any player status as Lord Protector to a maximum of 3 ports.

 

Now that we have established various interests across the realm, with ports being under the protection of different Lords, we can move onwards.

 

Suggestion #2 - Lord Protectors themselves can only craft flags against other Nations from their own Protected ports. 

Exception for Flags aimed at Neutral Ports, these can be crafted from anywhere.

 

This will enable a more diverse and elastic expansion while relying on a solid social and community driven Nation. A Naval Action Nation must work together and not be reliant on one or two big clans or two or three Lords only.

 

Eventually the Nation will expand, wars will be fought and treaties will be signed. Council meetings, consortiums, accords, meetings of lords, and all that stuff that some people love.

 

>>>> But... what IF one group completely condemns a resolution and really wants to rebel ( basically changing nation ) ? What then ?

 

Suggestion #3 - Loss of a port due to rebellious Lords

Port will change to Neutral when a Lord Protector changes nation resulting also on a return to default state of Conquest regarding the Port.

 

 

______________​______

 

Think the game as a whole without concerns for this or that nation nor considering your own interests.

Read, connect, think and improve. Let's discuss.

[Eishen]

Most interesting...except the implicit proposal of change of nation other than any=> pirate ,  turncoating should be serious ..... Allowing inter-national coat-swapping  will transform the game to a mercenary-houses struggle ... probably  interesting for some people  but totally unrelated with the historical period.

 

The concept of Lord struggle is an interesting one , I would add that any player needs the Lord Protector´s allowance to buy a Flag in one of his ports.... that would make areas within a nation virtually controled by a guild and give way to interesting factionas diplomacy.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Eishen

[Galileus]

 

 

A Naval Action Nation must work together and not be reliant on one or two big clans or two or three Lords only.

 

Wouldn't that be exactly opposite?

 

Let's say France owns 21 ports. How many of them within reliable range of front-lines in one-front war? 6? This means 2 players get to play RvR game. Most likely all of them will be from the biggest clan.

 

If they are not online or go away from the game you are straight up f*k.

 

You need to ask people to come online and allow you to play, because no-one else than 1-2 people can open up flags from frontlines.

 

If they disagree, you cannot play. Sorry!

 

Most of all...

 

YOU PROMOTE IN-FIGHTING!

 

You promote totalitarianism where one group has all the toys and can straight forbid everyone else from playing RvR. If by some lucky coincidence some other clan gets a hold of front-lines port, you ensure there will be fighting between clans - because one and the other hold they keys and can forbid the other from playing the game.

 

I'm sorry, but I find this suggestion awful through and through.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Or maybe it opens new venues for the National protocol with Lords and Fleets expanding to other regions.

 

The In-fighting is an issue in a divided nation already, with lots of interesting flaming and drama. Now if a disgruntled group has the option to simply go away from the nation it should be felt.

 

The love for the Nation can and is, and will be, a stone in the way for many that simply, at this moment with a simple social agreement, bow to the wish of the biggest seats in a council.

 

I can see the issue of the offline situation and this must be imperative to solve, if not now definitely in the future.

[Galileus]

More - how about people who are lord protectors of in-land? They are forbidden from playing the flag carrier ever again?

 

How about people leaving their things in hands of others to switch nations forth and back, so they can free their ports and get back the "allowed to fun" status?

 

How about people loosing buildings in their homeland because that one guy changed nations?

 

How about people wanting to change nations and being forced to screw a lot of people because they want to play and not work?

 

How do you deal with bad apples? How are you supposed to in-fight - because if you allow people to screw their nation, surely there's gotta be a tool to fight them too...?

 

How about having fun in general - you are screwed if you join nation X because the whole nation is dependent on few guys and they want to play their game?

 

If one clan takes over the front, how do you fight your own nation's clan?

 

I'm sorry, I am failing to see anything positive coming from this. The only thing you're accomplishing with this is limiting people from playing and limiting people due to others playing. And limits are good when they throttle fun, not when they prohibit fun.

[Tay-uk]

IMO there should be nothing in any multiplayer gaming environment that requires a particular player to change the status of something in game. As what happens if the said person just decides not to play anymore? He/she won't come on specifically to close off nicely.

 

It's like port capture window timers, as far as I am aware they can only be changed by the person who set them, Now since the specific person has now moved server, we have many port timer windows at ridiculous times, but apparently there is nothing that can be done about that?

[Eishen]

IMO there should be nothing in any multiplayer gaming environment that requires a particular player to change the status of something in game. As what happens if the said person just decides not to play anymore? He/she won't come on specifically to close off nicely.

 

It's like port capture window timers, as far as I am aware they can only be changed by the person who set them, Now since the specific person has now moved server, we have many port timer windows at ridiculous times, but apparently there is nothing that can be done about that?

 

Simply, ports not updated by its owner in a week or two revet to uncontrolled (i.e. current status) and the capture window  to a default . Pairing to allow cesion of port "ownerships" to another player.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Eishen

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

It surely presents itself with a lot of issues of a different nature of those we have at the moment.

 

Granted at the moment if a fictitious free for all in paper and the social status quo is holding out.

 

The Port timers are a different discussion al'together but suffice to say this method would simply rely on multiple timers per day ( to grant everyone a go at Conquest ).

 

Maybe I overlooked the Limitative factors that Galileus posts up regarding the ports ownership, especially with a majority of a council blocking all venues in the frontiers. I usually tend to believe that the good will is everywhere but forget that many play to limit others play, sorry for that.

 

Have to find something else then.

[Eishen]

Wouldn't that be exactly opposite?

 

Let's say France owns 21 ports. How many of them within reliable range of front-lines in one-front war? 6? This means 2 players get to play RvR game. Most likely all of them will be from the biggest clan.

 

If they are not online or go away from the game you are straight up f*k.

 

You need to ask people to come online and allow you to play, because no-one else than 1-2 people can open up flags from frontlines.

 

If they disagree, you cannot play. Sorry!

 

Most of all...

 

YOU PROMOTE IN-FIGHTING!

 

You promote totalitarianism where one group has all the toys and can straight forbid everyone else from playing RvR. If by some lucky coincidence some other clan gets a hold of front-lines port, you ensure there will be fighting between clans - because one and the other hold they keys and can forbid the other from playing the game.

 

I'm sorry, but I find this suggestion awful through and through.

 

In-fighting is already in the system,  paired with  anarchism (very appropiate in the pirate faction but quite strange in any other)  .

 

Your port example is actually why I like the proposal... each guild traslates in lobby/governors/vicerroy interest that control parts of their nation empire and try to use the rest of the players to achieve it....     in your example if a greedy guild controls all ports bordering a nation he can control the posibility or making war with them , but at the same time alienates  the competing guilds in his faction who may refuse help them..... or attack that bordering nation ships 

 

In short, more strategic posibilities, more game posibilities.

[Galileus]

Maybe I overlooked the Limitative factors that Galileus posts up regarding the ports ownership, especially with a majority of a council blocking all venues in the frontiers. I usually tend to believe that the good will is everywhere but forget that many play to limit others play, sorry for that.

 

Have to find something else then.

 

Or try to manipulate your suggestion to work around the limitations and problems I found out so far... As long as you don't end up stacking a hotfix on top of a hotfix. Nevertheless, it's refreshing to see someone actually acknowledge my critique than assume I critique ergo troll. The respect I always had for you is well deserved, sir!

 

I definitely don't hate the vibe of your suggestion. I do feel you are trying to go into a direction I agree with - limiting ease of RvR, giving ownership of ports some meaning, creating more well defined front-lines and most of all - mechanically acknowledging "rebellious factor". Nevertheless, implementation lacks... I do feel you need to concentrate on relieving thew problem of limiting action to a singular lord and limit longevity of the seat. Here is my quick-fire proposal:

 

A Lord is a function that lasts X time - a seat, we will call it further. The seat of Lord Protector is taken by opening and winning a port battle (holding the flag), but can be only taken if said player has no other active seats (is not a Lord or Lord Protector in any other port). There are 4 other seats - 2 for Lords of Commerce (Senior, Junior, Cabin Guy or something), 2 for Lords of War (the 4+1 number is meant to give enough seats for it to be open for any engaged player, can be discussed further - 6+1?).

 

The seats are taken by doing good things for the port - commerce is production/craft/trade, war is PvP and PvE missions from the town. The more good things you do, the more your chance to get the seat. The more points you gather towards the election, the more you get a chance to get a seat or even Lord Protector seat. There might be even special (multi-nation?) behind-the-curtains missions giving you "cheated" points towards being elected.

 

The Council of Lords decides about things going on in the town - they can decide on it's development, taxes, what kind of missions might spawn and so on. Each Lord gets 1 vote, with Protector getting 3 (for 7 total - Protector cannot rule alone without having at least one of Lords on his side). Lords need to "activate" the council first by having a special vote to acknowledge itself (in which Protector doesn't get bonus votes). If the council is hanged, it will disband and next one will be chosen next week. If the second one also disbands, the town reverts to neutral. There are also special behind-the-curtains actions that can be taken by agreement of at least 3 lords to lower Protector's vote power to 1 for the next vote (with a cooldown).

 

There is also space for council to take active part of PvP - deciding what ports can be attacked from this one, crafting flags to be picked up later and so on.

 

This way you need to gain the power to do stuff, and you need to keep earning it to keep it - still with random chance to fail (unless you have 5 guys with 2x as much election points as anyone else). There is no "well, 99% of clans agreed and you are rebels!" - if you are 99% of the clans, surely you can dominate elections. And there is also a place for struggle and for Lords and Protector to "battle" over the political power.

 

Long shot I'm sure, but this is what I would go for to make the whole "Lords as a function" thing viable - eliminating "Lord for Life" and "fun for 20 people, no more!" problems.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I like the finite nature of the Seats of power, definitely. Also the difference between Seats to reflect the different natures of the gameplay with representatives for the crafters, traders and more importantly, navy. I can see Navy adressed in two levels, for strategic and operational levels in Navy Board and Admiralty.

 

Given the whole scenario could very well point out to a more nation wide control of ports maybe give more important to Regional Capitals and satelite ports and develop the points system in regards of an entire region, usually 1 Regional Capital and 4 more ports I think, and then work the way up to Nation power points.