Diplomacy post-patch

[NINTHTJ]

Hi All,

 

Something I discovered today, while watching the latest Letter to The King is that diplomacy in Naval Action is essentially run by the largest, most successful clans in the game (something that may seem obvious to most, but to a newbie such as myself this comes as a welcomed surprise)

 

Something I am curious about though, is the ramifications that the new patch will have on this community-created mechanic, and what the developers opinions are of a concept I am calling "clan orders" - The only way that clans can retain the power they currently have over diplomacy in the game, is to instruct their members on how to vote in upcoming polls for who to and not to declare war against - essentially, clans become a little like parties in a parliamentary system, the clan with the largest number of co-operative members basically becomes the governing body for the nation (assuming the majority of players are in a clan and following clan orders on how to vote etc etc) - Which is a very interesting concept in my opinion, and adds an incredible level of depth to the game (should it work out that way) - Coalitions could form, allowing 2 large clans to have joint ownership over a nation, it gives clans even more of a reason to recruit as aggressively as possible etc. The only possible downside I can see is a potential increase in Piracy - There are going to be clans that loose out in this arrangement, which thus fuel's an internal power-struggle in a nation, the aggressive party essentially becoming rebels/pirates going forward - Entire player groups may join piracy as a result of the way a nation was being run - "The British Rebels" for instance - Fighting against the reign of the BRITS clan (For example) - Although, thinking about it, this may actually be a good thing, it fuels as interesting back-story behind a nation.

 

So I suppose the only real question is, what is the developers opinion of, if they have any at all, the concept of "Clan Orders" - The idea of clans dictating to their members which way to vote, obviously, this is not something the developers can do much about if done out-of-game, but will there be anything in-game to actively discourage this behavior? Personally, I would like to see all this type of behavior go unimpeded, I see no issue with it and it creates an excellent degree of organisation and community atmosphere within nations, as well as creating more interesting and in-depth game-play due to the political ramifications of voting within, and thus being in, a clan.

 

What do you guys think?

[Prater]

Well, pirate is supposedly something that you will only choose at character creation.  The amount of support tickets created by people accidentally becoming pirate was pretty significant.  So the only way people would be able to become pirate is to delete their character and start a new one.

 

A lot of nations already have councils of clans in place, so it will probably be those pretty much telling their members how to vote.  Whether those members vote that way or if non-clan members' votes have a significant impact is yet to be seen.

[Bramborough]

It's certainly going to be interesting to watch (and participate in) during the coming weeks as the alliance blocs form.  I've kinda sketched through how I suspect the majority of different nations' playerbases (PvP1) would likely vote on the first two rounds....and it's become clear to me that internal opinion differences within a couple of key nations will be critical.  Haven't been on the server that long, so I could be completely wrong about what some nations do...but however it turns out, yeah, there's going to be a lot more depth and complexity to this than might first meet the eye.

[The Spud]

If the voting is done anonymously, there is no real way for clans to tell who ignored the orders. Obviously if the outcome is totaly not like expected, one might accuse other clans of betraying their mates. And this will happen, I am sure.

 

The councils do most of the talking and decision making, I'm not involved in any of this in NA, but was in some other games and I am prety sure its a ton of work and you need to put up with allot of badmouthing and other difficulties. So i'm kina glad, others can do this and I only need to vote.

 

Most of the problems people have with decisions from councils is the giving away of ports where they probably had an outpost with some building and ships. But I believe with the alliances in place one can still enter friendly ports, making this problem non existant. Leaving only the alliances to be discussed and the sectors that will be attacked, and as of right now I didn't realy hear anyone complain about the location of a battle, especialy with the TP in place. Just move an outpost close to the zone and you are set.

 

Some people would always do stuff differently, but with PB's now being announced in advance there is plenty of time to explain why we attack that sector. Because now there is no communication, as a fear of losing the surprise element.

It'l be interesting, but I don't realy think we'll see allot of tention between clans. Its only about who are our friends, where will we attack. They can't force anything else on you.

[NINTHTJ]

Well, another interesting aspect of this, is that it now creates legitimate reasons for outside-clans to challenge the membership of a clan that is already in the Council - Should an outsider one have more members they could easily depose a member of the council by diminishing their ability to have any significant impact on the outcome of a vote within their nation - Surely this will create some tension at the top, fights over that small inch of extra power that gives a clan control over a nation - More piracy, more fights, more fun! I cannot see many clans being removed from the top without a fight, surely.

[fox2run]

Well, another interesting aspect of this, is that it now creates legitimate reasons for outside-clans to challenge the membership of a clan that is already in the Council - Should an outsider one have more members they could easily depose a member of the council by diminishing their ability to have any significant impact on the outcome of a vote within their nation - Surely this will create some tension at the top, fights over that small inch of extra power that gives a clan control over a nation - More piracy, more fights, more fun! I cannot see many clans being removed from the top without a fight, surely.

 

I prefer less fighting and powermongering and more clear alliances made by players votes. Make it simple and dont favour the top too much as the top seems to think they are more valuable to the game than newcomers which creates a bad mood in-game. One player-one vote! Or alternate you could make the votes according to ranks... (But NOT the other factors like PBs, landownership etc. as you will end up with a rather non-dynamic dying game controlled by a few, hardcore players. 

Edited August 16, 2016 by fox2run

[NINTHTJ]

I prefer less fighting and powermongering and more clear alliances made by players votes. Make it simple and dont favour the top too much as the top seems to think they are more valuable to the game than newcomers which creates a bad mood in-game. One player-one vote! Or alternate you could make the votes according to ranks... (But NOT the other factors like PBs, landownership etc. as you will end up with a rather non-dynamic dying game controlled by a few, hardcore players. 

 

I've always thought that's what makes the background behind games so interesting - A power-struggle is a great way to have a self-perpetuating story going, a long term MMO such as this one needs this sort of stuff going on to keep it interesting and fresh in my opinion.

 

Clans leaving nations and becoming pirates because of the new ruling power, clans fighting internally for control over the nation, will make for some awesome, meaningful battles and stories for the forums.

[The Spud]

Its always interesting how small changes can influence the game allot, right now the population is realy small so you kinda know everyone or see the same names in chat or in OW.

 

Now Imagine the patch drops and all of sudden there would be 1000 players back online having waited for months for the patch, or a ton of new players, now all of a sudden these "new" players have 2 times the voting power (an average of 500 online now vs 1500) of the people who have been here every day for the last half year. This is allot of imagination, but still.

 

This could completely reshuffle the game, as all of a sudden the alliances we have now would mean nothing anymore...

I'm curious what it will do.

[J30_Reinhardt]

The alliance system as it stands to be implemented needs an upgraded weight of vote system IMO.

I.e. player's exploits = increased or decreased number of votes.

More PvP = more votes.

More Port battles = more votes.

or for the PvE types, econ I guess(gotta have something for the PvE types on a PvP server).. but likely with less weight.

 

This way it isn't a simple numbers game, alleviates issues with multi-accounts, etc etc.

[fox2run]

Its always interesting how small changes can influence the game allot, right now the population is realy small so you kinda know everyone or see the same names in chat or in OW.

 

Now Imagine the patch drops and all of sudden there would be 1000 players back online having waited for months for the patch, or a ton of new players, now all of a sudden these "new" players have 2 times the voting power (an average of 500 online now vs 1500) of the people who have been here every day for the last half year. This is allot of imagination, but still.

 

This could completely reshuffle the game, as all of a sudden the alliances we have now would mean nothing anymore...

I'm curious what it will do.

 

In-game mechanics should provide these changes. Not who is - by chance - talking to who on TS. The silent players should also be heard!

Edited August 16, 2016 by fox2run

[NINTHTJ]

In-game mechanics should provide these changes. Not who is - by chance - talking to who on TS. The silent players should also be heard!

 

Clans will still have majority say in the running of things, even after the upcoming changes are introduced (in my opinion) for reasons I outlined in my original post. The "silent player" will of course have their vote, but it will be of little consequence if the large clans issue an order to their members to vote in a certain fashion - They will still decide who their nation is and is not at war against.

[The Spud]

In-game mechanics should provide these changes. Not who is - by chance - talking to who on TS. The silent players should also be heard!

 

I didn't intend to make it sound like something negative, but upon reading it again I sure made it sound like I would hate it. But I'm actualy quite curious as to what this will bring, in a pleasant way that is.

As to me right now, on PvP1, I kinda feel like the game could use an injection of some "mayhem and chaos".

[Jeheil]

It will be very interesting to see how it all shakes out. For me there are a couple of things :

 

o Lets hope its anonymous !! so although clans (and councils) can lobby it is still your vote.

o I hope it means we always have AT LEAST 3 "alliances", 3 sets of alliances will sort of guarantee a bit of biff no matter what

o Will councils oppose some 'enemies of my enemy' in order to stay friends...that should be interesting

o I suspect it will take about 3 weeks to actually get us to the first "SETUP" to see how this begins to shakeout

o Will the "Life as a Lord" or whatever it was called ever be brought in as part of additional voting power for those who contest Port Acquisition

o Will old alliances fall away quickly (I hope so)

 

I think quite soon we will need a 'port reset' and indeed seasonal port resets. To make this more palatable to those who spend MILLIONS and HOURS moving ships to ports at the front lines, paying for ports etc. I hope resets become a bit like a server transfer where essentially your assets become redemables that you can recall. So if after a reset 5 of my ports now live in 'not my nation' I don't need to spend 48 hours moving everything back !!

[Tac]

I didn't intend to make it sound like something negative, but upon reading it again I sure made it sound like I would hate it. But I'm actualy quite curious as to what this will bring, in a pleasant way that is.

As to me right now, on PvP1, I kinda feel like the game could use an injection of some "mayhem and chaos".

I get the feeling after the patch that the current "peace in our time" will be very short lived and I also think the rats may be more of a force than some people currently think.

Will the councils be rendered impotent? Who knows , but it does feel like this cycle of early access has ran its course.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Tac

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

"It comes down to the war Captains to solve what the Diplomats couldn't." - a grizzled old veteran at the "Snobbish Shark" tavern in Tumbado.

[Blkmgc]

Unless there is a decent influx of new players , alts are going to skew the voting process for the main's advantage. My opinion.

[Jean Ribault]

I agree with the flavor of some of the comments above that clans should not rule the world in diplomacy.  The clans certainly have their place, but if there's a voting system then every single individual vote should count, not just those who have the platform to strongarm others.

 

As far as clans dictating the votes of their members, the votes need to be anonymous to protect every player's game strategy and future interests, but it's a good game dynamic to have clan leaders calling for members to throw their votes in a certain direction.  Similar to what's done now with large organizations like teachers' unions and labor unions.  You still have the right to vote anonymously your own way, but are strongly encouraged or bribed to vote per group policy.

 

And yes, per the comment that was just made, this voting system is already impure anyway because of alts.  If one has a vote in one Nation 1, say, to vote for war against Nation 2, and they have an alt in Nation 2, then that alt can vote for war against Nation 1.  That's 2 votes for war, for one player.  I don't see any way of avoiding that, although the impact might be lessened with new (and unique, not alt) players.

[Kloothommel]

In-game mechanics should provide these changes. Not who is - by chance - talking to who on TS. The silent players should also be heard!

And, what if: The votes match the politcs of the big bad clans?

[Skully]

And, what if: The votes match the politcs of the big bad clans?

Sshhh... you're spoiling the fun.

[fox2run]

And, what if: The votes match the politcs of the big bad clans?

 

Then its fair and have to be like that... But at least its not up to them alone to decide... The sum of small clans and single players shouldnt be underestimated ;-)

[Jean Ribault]

And, what if: The votes match the politcs of the big bad clans?

 

 

Other than this statement makes the cart before the horse, that would be the concept of Representation, which is a good ideal to strive for in each nation, IMO.

 

You guys appear to be trolling fox2run, but he does have a good point if you read through all the posts.  If one of our collective goals is to get more players attracted to this game, then as that happens the individual clans (even large) should become less and less influential, and the will of the people should govern.  On the other hand if we make the game a dictatorship and the largest clan simply thumbs their nose at everyone else, the everyone else probably won't stay to sustain the game.  It's one of the reasons there is so much dissention in the game now, at least from what I see happening and read in forums and chat.

[NINTHTJ]

Other than this statement makes the cart before the horse, that would be the concept of Representation, which is a good ideal to strive for in each nation, IMO.

 

You guys appear to be trolling fox2run, but he does have a good point if you read through all the posts.  If one of our collective goals is to get more players attracted to this game, then as that happens the individual clans (even large) should become less and less influential, and the will of the people should govern.  On the other hand if we make the game a dictatorship and the largest clan simply thumbs their nose at everyone else, the everyone else probably won't stay to sustain the game.  It's one of the reasons there is so much dissention in the game

now, at least from what I see happening and read in forums and chat.

 

This is a really odd thing to aim for in my opinion, why would you want individual votes to govern a nation - I imagine the majority of players don't really come on the forums or know much about what ports have recently changed hands - This is a job that can be taken on by the higher-ranks in the larger clans who can then make sensible decisions on voting and instruct their members thusly rather than Nations having a completely random outcome because players are voting against whichever nation ganked them last - You will have no structure or sensible decision making if players just vote randomly rather than having a solid reason.

 

I am not saying all the power should be bestowed upon a few select individuals, but I think the clans should take it upon themselves to seize this power (if they have the numbers) and ensure their nation is making voting choices that is best for it's prosperity (ie. Declaring war on nations that impede us or prevent our progress)

[fox2run]

We have this already. And it does not work very well. Time to renew the game!

 

BTW: you shouldnt - by chance - be a member of one those "power-seizing" clans?

[Snoggy]

I'll wager there'll be the 3 alliances or whatnot, plus more than a few unofficial agreements.... we're seein it now.

[NINTHTJ]

We have this already. And it does not work very well. Time to renew the game!

 

BTW: you shouldnt - by chance - be a member of one those "power-seizing" clans?

 

No, not at the moment - very new to the game and don't have much time to play - Most have annoying activity requirements. I just like the idea of having a governing body for the nations, gives it a sense or purpose, otherwise we end up with a voting system where decisions are made arbitrarily and randomly rather than for a real purpose.