Well it's happening....(huge port exploit)

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I agree. These are all things that should find their way into the game.

Suggest them in detail. Like a rulebook. That can be check for possibility of being put into code.

[Vintorius]

1 minute ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Well, what stops alts from joining a nation now and causing mayhem? You can't kill an alt in your nation. Even if you 100% know they're an alt you can't do anything against them. I'd rather have the control in my hands to STOP the mayhem than let it run rampant un-touchable. 

Look at all the alt abuse we've seen so far. All the spies. Maybe if we could kill these people they'd realize that they don't have their alt-armor anymore and stick to their mains to keep control of their own nation.

It's a crappy situation either way. If players and clans are unhappy with the circumstances within the U.S. they should just leave on good terms and join whatever nation they want. I'm guessing it was TDY? Whatever the case, clans like that that are doing what they are doing to the U.S. should be ashamed of themselves.  I was over there not long ago as a dedicated U.S. Player and it was tough enough. Everyone was coming over for PVP. U.S. had no room to breath. This obviously won't make things easier.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill said:

Suggest them in detail. Like a rulebook. That can be check for possibility of being put into code.

Alright I'll give it a shot. Here's the basics.

Clan diplomacy - we already have this, clan alliances within nations.

Mercenary system - pirate status/bounty system, pretty much what we've been asking for a while now.

Inter-nation dimplomacy of clans -All nations already start at war, let us ally clans from outside our nation/war nations from within our nation.

 

I'm not a programmer, but I don't have to look far to see that many games already have these sort of systems. It may take time but it certainly isn't impossible.
I won't go into extreme detail because not every game is the same, it will take the devs own knowledge and insight of how to implement this things within NA

 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Vintorius said:

It's a crappy situation either way. If players and clans are unhappy with the circumstances within the U.S. they should just leave on good terms and join whatever nation they want. I'm guessing it was TDY? Whatever the case, clans like that that are doing what they are doing to the U.S. should be ashamed of themselves.  I was over there not long ago as a dedicated U.S. Player and it was tough enough. Everyone was coming over for PVP. U.S. had no room to breath. This obviously won't make things easier.

Thanks for the kind words mate, I do remember you with us. This sort of thing certainly isn't new for US, but it could just as easily be any other nation in our shoes. With the upcoming DLC players won't be able to leave if they find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance, let alone do anything about it without outside intervention from devs/other nations 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

25 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I'm not a programmer

Me neither. A rulebook are words explaining how rules work  Any table wargame rules can be translated into machine code

[GrubbyZebra]

3 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

That's not a solution. We knew this prior and we couldn't do anything about it because the game doesn't let us.

This is intentional manipulation of mechanics, the same as alt abuse. It will only get worse from here as more people catch wind that that a single clan who holds 2-3 ports can completely screw over their nation without reprisal.

THIS is why clan wars are necessary. For this exact reason here.

RvR, in it's entirety, should be built around clans, not artificial nations.

[IndianaGeoff]

Allow CvC hostility, but the aggressor is rogue in the battle and any other clan in the nation can defend the port.  This sets a high bar if any in the nation want to defend the status quo.  Maybe no exp or loot in a CvC hostility action or battle and no clan alliances in the battle.

 

If you lose the rebels are tarred and feathered while forced to march through the port while a nun follows shouting SHAME SHAME...

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Mechnics wise same nation cannot attack same nation.

( so far nation is the baseline guiding rule for each player. Nation first, clan second. )

Should a "rebel nation" be dynamically created ? That is a interesting point, and a clan could use enough influence ( marks or whatever ) to "rebel against tyranny".

 

[IndianaGeoff]

The "rebel clan" is only for the port battle instance. So i guess there should be a Rebel Nation that only exists in civil war port battles that consists of the rebelling clan and nobody else. I suppose that a clan could set up a port battle in another area at the same time and jump into the fight, but that would also put them on the rebel side and would be an extreme level of cooperation that further supports the rebel cause.

Can't nation fight nation if to players join a 2nd and 3rd nations fight and choose two different sides?

The key is zero rewards for the hostility. No rewards for the fight itself other than captures and the port itself.

That and careful policing for alt manipulation. Consistent use of alts to cause turmoil should be dealt with.

Of course the rebel flag should be...

Edited February 2, 2018 by IndianaGeoff

[Slim McSauce]

I like the basis but as soon as you put the "rebel" label on one side you're demonizing it, not letting the players decide for themselves. I like the no rewards concept, you shouldn't be encouraged to war within your nation, it should be a very taxing and bloody affair.

IMO it should just be a clan leader goes to clan menu, presses "secede" "schism" or simply "declare war against X clan within nation" in which ALL clan leaders get a notification where they can choose to join the warring clans side, the defendant clan, or remain neutral "for new/small clans, or to make a statement that your little war is silly"

So no one HAS to be involved, and its a self policing system. If some troll clan wants to war a proper clan, everyone will join the proper clans side or just remain neutral if they don't want to fight. This gives clear distinction between war type clans and manufacture type clans.

And if there really is a great schism in the nation where its a 50:50 split, the winning side, ergo the stronger more capable side wins rights to whatever they take, ultimately strengthening the nations resolve while providing edge of your seat content.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Jean Ribault]

2 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I like the basis but as soon as you put the "rebel" label on one side you're demonizing it, not letting the players decide for themselves. I like the no rewards concept, you shouldn't be encouraged to war within your nation, it should be a very taxing and bloody affair.

IMO it should just be a clan leader goes to clan menu, presses "secede" "schism" or simply "declare war against X clan within nation" in which ALL clan leaders get a notification where they can choose to join the warring clans side, the defendant clan, or remain neutral "for new/small clans, or to make a statement that your little war is silly"

So no one HAS to be involved, and its a self policing system. If some troll clan wants to war a proper clan, everyone will join the proper clans side or just remain neutral if they don't want to fight. This gives clear distinction between war type clans and manufacture type clans.

And if there really is a great schism in the nation where its a 50:50 split, the winning side, ergo the stronger more capable side wins rights to whatever they take, ultimately strengthening the nations resolve while providing edge of your seat content.

It might not become a resolution though.  A 50-50 clan split in a nation could potentially turn into an unending nightflipping exercise.  But would likely work for 1 rogue clan.

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Jean Ribault said:

It might not become a resolution though.  A 50-50 clan split in a nation could potentially turn into an unending nightflipping exercise.  But would likely work for 1 rogue clan.

Perhaps but its only in the case where half of the nation disagrees with the ideology of the other half, enough so to drop all rewards and current wars to fight a war against their own. Just looking at history you can imagine how rare this would be. With the option to remain neutral, this would require most clans of a nation to be fueled with enough anger to join the war, and for each side to be so ethically similar that it draws even support.

A time limit would have to be proposed to simulate the wars coming to an end, and one side coming on top, or maybe even ending in a draw. Either way both sides have had the opportunity to fight for their own rights, if it settles the dispute then well done. If it doesn't maybe another way after a small cooldown is in order.

In substitution to a cooldown, a reputation system could limit how many times a clan can war within their nation, eventually turning the clan pirate and kicking them from the nation temporarily, increased the time in pirate status after each reoccuring  incident.

But that's a bit farther into it when the game is more complete.

[iR_Willow]

Ok

Im with Slim on this

To be realistic, the game must allow a equal reaction.

Sure its a exploit, whos not to say to label TDY and there ports as rebels and treat them as such? instantly locking there assets in other US ports?

Now their ports and assets switch over to their clan as a "new" nation. until it surrenders. Or they can conquer the entire nation if they want.

As for alts, when they do such things, they can only command 6th rates and smaller, with no fleet. Cannot buy or sell ports and ships while in ports. Just forced to do there "job" spy.

And when a allied vessel gets in close enough range they can discover said player is a spy.

 

 

Why make these fictional limits, make anything possible, a equal and opposite reaction from any perspective I might say.

 

Except that brig beats 1st rate AC @#$%, not here.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by iR_Willow

[IndianaGeoff]

17 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I like the basis but as soon as you put the "rebel" label on one side you're demonizing it, not letting the players decide for themselves. I like the no rewards concept, you shouldn't be encouraged to war within your nation, it should be a very taxing and bloody affair.

 

I would make it very focused.  One clan gets the rebel flag only while in that single port battle.  The clan that initiates the port battle is automatically put in as the rebel.  Other clans can pick sides while going in, or you can just have it be the rebel clan vs the nation in that port battle.  That way, if the clan has not done the diplomatic work, then it will face a defense.  Tiny clans (alts) will be so disadvantaged it will be impossible unless every thing is set.  Big clans can bully a bit, but it's ok if a couple big clans want to fight over a port.  Might even be a good training tool.

I would have it be one rebel clan vs the rest of the nation and see how it works.  If that has problems then open it up to the nation choosing sides in the fight if that is needed.  I fear that if you let everyone choose sides it will generate perpetual national civil wars and that is not a good thing.

Edited February 3, 2018 by IndianaGeoff

[GrubbyZebra]

On 2/2/2018 at 11:40 AM, Hethwill said:

Mechnics wise same nation cannot attack same nation.

( so far nation is the baseline guiding rule for each player. Nation first, clan second. )

Should a "rebel nation" be dynamically created ? That is a interesting point, and a clan could use enough influence ( marks or whatever ) to "rebel against tyranny".

 

Just switch the mechanic to be clan first, nation second.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

19 minutes ago, BPHick said:

Just switch the mechanic to be clan first, nation second.

Start a new game from scratch ? Sounds okay  

Hopefully a 1:1 timespace scale, no instances.

I'm game.

[GrubbyZebra]

2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Start a new game from scratch ? Sounds okay  

Hopefully a 1:1 timespace scale, no instances.

I'm game.

Haha, 1/2 scale map, but sure.

Seriously though, the RvR mechanic shouldn't be that ingrained into the game as to require a complete scrapping of the game to change. 

[Slim McSauce]

17 hours ago, iR_Willow said:

Ok Im with Slim on this To be realistic, the game must allow a equal reaction.Sure its a exploit, whos not to say to label TDY and there ports as rebels and treat them as such? instantly locking there assets in other US ports?

I'd say objectively, for all intents and purposes, TDY is a detriment to the US nation.

But I'm with people who are saying who are we to decide? I say as long as the players have the ability to choose for themselves, then it's a good mechanic.

The last thing I want is to not give equal opportunity to clans of how they decide whats right and wrong, whether it be 10:90, 30:70 or 50:50; I believe as long you have a substantial number of people backing your cause than it's legitimate enough to fight for.

So the fairest way to determine what's right, is behind the action of the the participants. Whether that be the side with the most numbers or the side with the best players, or most influence over the economy or what not. Ultimately the strongest side will prevail, and that's how we determine who's right.

9 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Start a new game from scratch ? Sounds okay  

Hopefully a 1:1 timespace scale, no instances.

I'm game.

Not necessarily, we've had in nation battles with smuggler flag before. With a little bit of structure it wouldn't be impossible to implement in nation clan wars.
The foundation is already set with in nation clan alliances, just needs to be expanded a bit more.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Teutonic]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:44 AM, Banished Privateer said:

Nations don't work, make it a clan-based game. 

This. End the nations

Clans are the new colonists - clans create their nations - clans create their empires.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

All wishful thinking Slim.

I rather not have it than have rampant powergamers taking advantage of every loophole.

[Slim McSauce]

13 hours ago, Teutonic said:

This. End the nations

Clans are the new colonists - clans create their nations - clans create their empires.

noo stahp. We need nations or else how to we justify historical setting and ships? It'd be silly.

Just allow clans to war each other in nation. Doing that you basically give clans full freedom, don't get rid of nations all together.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

So the one strong clan can bully all the others because.... sssssstronger ... !?

 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill said:

So the one strong clan can bully all the others because.... sssssstronger ... !?

 

I feel like I've already explained this twice.....its NA-TUR-AL. 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just now, Slim Jimmerson said:

I feel like I've already explained this twice.....its NA-TUR-AL. 

Restart then.

Who elects a certain clan the "one true Nation" ?...

Describe the mechanics, in detail, that permit such clan warfare to happen inside the basic game unit - nation.

[Slim McSauce]

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Restart then.

Who elects a certain clan the "one true Nation" ?...

Describe the mechanics, in detail, that permit such clan warfare to happen inside the basic game unit - nation.

ohh my god I already have but OK THIS IS THE LAST TIME.

.....ok.

No one does. Any one clan can become big enough/strong enough to have superior ability in combat to back up their reign as big clan of the nation who makes the most decisions. Why? Because they're they hold the majority of the organized population of the nation.

If they ever drop under the majority (which they eventually will because no empire last forever) then smaller clans will remove them from their throne. Thus, tyranny is shifted out, new order restored and all ports under competent clans who prove'd themselves as better than the others in their nation, therefore the best to take on any outside threat.

Does everyone understand this? Do I have to repeat myself again? S A N D B O X

Edited February 5, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson