On War and Balance

[DazednConfused]

Im tentative on starting this particular thread...but here goes.

 

I will begin with the question - how will the game conduct wars between various countries in this game?

 

There have been various points raised by individuals that one could 'vote' about which country to war against but there will always be dissent with this option and i have the opinion that there will be chaos if we go down this route.

 

Alternatively it could be decided by the country / factions leadership to fight against a particular side - but this also has issues - (who decides who is in charge?)

 

I have a possible solution. - Rolling switches over time (suggestions for better name here)

 

ill elaborate.

 

Each nation will have a turn at war with another for a certain period of time (ill throw out a month as a suggestion but it could be any period of time) and then there will be a small window for negotiations (with lower XP for attacking during those times, and more for avoiding combat with that nation) and then the switch to two other nations being at war, or one of the combatants fighting another nation. possibly there can be more than 2 nations at war at once but ill need help from someone to come up with a viable matrix.

 

this type of switch-over will be very beneficial.

 

- it will allow players to explore the whole map over time without always getting attacked

- it will encourage more vigorous trading between all nations

- prevents boredom over time with nations like the brits and france always being forced to war. 

- get to attack everywhere if you play long enough.

(add more here) 

 

This brings up the other half of the title 

 

Balance.

 

As we all know by now there will be certain nations that will have larger player bases -  England, France and the US. Correspondingly, over time these nations will inevitably squash the other nations back into their home ports over time until everyone will try to play for the victorious nation - we all know its true.

 

so how can we help the underdogs out?

 

I propose the freelancer - Privateer - as a nation choice.

 

If you go down this route you will get a selection of nations who are offering letters of marque - and these will probably be the smaller nations. Every now and then your letter of marque will come up for renewal, and if the nation you are fighting for is getting too powerful you may not be able to renew with it. Possibly you could rig the system so the more experienced at privateering you are, the smaller the options become until you can only choose the smallest contractor. 

 This will make the small nation rife with experienced players - allowing it the chance to become a powerhouse, and possibly giving all the nations a cyclical change from weak to powerful depending on how many choose to take the path of privateer - and creating a more dynamic game.

 

it could also be possible that entire clans could work into this - as a clan contract out to nations that require assistance - moving with the balance changes, and ensuring that larger nations always have a significant opponent where required.

 

i can hear the cries of the naysayers already for this one, but unless we do something there will be an inevitable end with one nation dominating all the others. - please suggest alternatives if you dont like this possible solution.

 

let the debate begin

 

Dazed

 

 

[Chustler]

I don't know if the smaller nations being squashed into their home ports is as inevitable as you suggest.  Some of the polls suggested that there are many people who are purposely rolling small factions because they want that challenge, and I imagine that they will do fine with good organization, and good skill.  Hard to say right now either way though.

 

I would love to see nations choose to go to war rather than being assigned their wars, but how to implement such a thing is something I would have to think more on.

[Doschichis]

start a war is easy, you can set a limit number of ships in one nation were captured by other nation. Go over that limit, you are at war.

 

After some time, a week, a month or whatever, you have a limit again. But this time will be for stop the war. If your nation kill less than that limit, you are at peace. If you go over that limit,  your war will go on and on.

 

this will create a problem: all of the nations will be at war most of the time

Edited April 29, 2015 by Doschichis

[Zeekoning]

start a war is easy, you can set a limit number of ships in one nation were captured by other nation. Go over that limit, you are at war.

 

After some time, a week, a month or whatever, you have a limit again. But this time will be for stop the war. If your nation kill less than that limit, you are at peace. If you go over that limit,  your war will go on and on.

 

this will create a problem: all of the nations will be at war most of the time

 

Instead of becoming a pirate to go to war, how about having a council of players.  In this sort of system, the five most influential naval officers and four representative from the top companies aligned to the nation (numbers chosen at random) get together and talk to the councils of other nations.  Also, to give incentive to be a trader, a spot or two could be given to the person with the most amount of money (one person cannot hold multiple spots on the council).

 

The top companies could be determined by either most money, warships, trade ships, ports, one of each, or the top two companies in two of the categories.

 

Even though not the most historical system of government, this would give structure to wars and give opportunities for all types of players to shape the future of their country.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Zeekoning

[DazednConfused]

Instead of becoming a pirate to go to war, how about having a council of players.  In this sort of system, the five most influential naval officers and four representative from the top companies aligned to the nation (numbers chosen at random) get together and talk to the councils of other nations.  Also, to give incentive to be a trader, a spot or two could be given to the person with the most amount of money (one person cannot hold multiple spots on the council).

 

The top companies could be determined by either most money, warships, trade ships, ports, one of each, or the top two companies in two of the categories.

 

Even though not the most historical system of government, this would give structure to wars and give opportunities for all types of players to shape the future of their country.

 

Hmm. brings up a thought - at least about navy's anyway.

 

How about a seniority system for player ranks? as you work your way up you will be on a seniority list of that rank up to post captain (with ship crews increasing as you go up the lists.) once you are the most senior you are the next in line for rear admiral and go up through the British system of flag ranks. but in admiral ranks you are only given a certain period before you are automatically promoted to the next rank up, until you are fleet admiral. once your time is up you go to the bottom of the post captains list, but with a star next to your rank to signify your experience, and keeping your higher crew option. rinse and repeat.

 

This allows all players the opportunity to lead naval forces if they so desire - and perhaps if they don't want to be an admiral the can 'yellow' themselves (an option i guess that will come up when its your time to be a rear admiral of the blue)  - this may tie in nicely to the 'commanders tablet' if that is still happening.

 

With traders it might be harder to find a delegate but im sure someone has an idea.  

Edited April 29, 2015 by DazednConfused

[Doschichis]

Instead of becoming a pirate to go to war, how about having a council of players.  In this sort of system, the five most influential naval officers and four representative from the top companies aligned to the nation (numbers chosen at random) get together and talk to the councils of other nations.  Also, to give incentive to be a trader, a spot or two could be given to the person with the most amount of money (one person cannot hold multiple spots on the council).

 

The top companies could be determined by either most money, warships, trade ships, ports, one of each, or the top two companies in two of the categories.

 

Even though not the most historical system of government, this would give structure to wars and give opportunities for all types of players to shape the future of their country.

 

 

this will work really well with self-made nation. However, for the biggest 6 nations we have at the moment, I'm not sure it will work or not. 

in my theory, you are not becoming a pirate, you have the right to attack players from other faction. So in this case, we will have people in trade guild want to make peace which is good for them. However, people in pvp guild want to show other nations their power so they go with their route. 

 

From my economic class, from 1500s to 1800s is mercantilist time. They consider trade = war

[DazednConfused]

this will work really well with self-made nation. However, for the biggest 6 nations we have at the moment, I'm not sure it will work or not. 

in my theory, you are not becoming a pirate, you have the right to attack players from other faction. So in this case, we will have people in trade guild want to make peace which is good for them. However, people in pvp guild want to show other nations their power so they go with their route. 

 

From my economic class, from 1500s to 1800s is mercantilist time. They consider trade = war

 

A point in favor of taking the decision out of players hands. no matter how reasoned our arguments here the average players will disagree. Also if its the same old nations warring the traders will eventually find that one route that gives more profit than the rest and then all that find out will grind that to the exclusion of all else. mixing things up will force exploration of new trade routes (giving the explorer trade a reason to exist), and will sync well with Admins intent of making resources finite.

[Zeekoning]

Doschichis

While I don't mind your system, I think that it would lead to every major country to be always at war along it's borders.  This would make alliances between smaller nations such as The Netherlands and Sweden harder to create due to the fact that some Swedes would want to target Dutch players and vice versa, even though it is in the national interest to stay at peace.  Also, I think that if you are at peace with a nation, you should not be able to attack someone from that nation without turning pirate.

 

DazednConfused

Hmm. brings up a thought - at least about navy's anyway.

 

How about a seniority system for player ranks? as you work your way up you will be on a seniority list of that rank up to post captain (with ship crews increasing as you go up the lists.) once you are the most senior you are the next in line for rear admiral and go up through the British system of flag ranks. but in admiral ranks you are only given a certain period before you are automatically promoted to the next rank up, until you are fleet admiral. once your time is up you go to the bottom of the post captains list, but with a star next to your rank to signify your experience, and keeping your higher crew option. rinse and repeat.

 

This allows all players the opportunity to lead naval forces if they so desire - and perhaps if they don't want to be an admiral the can 'yellow' themselves (an option i guess that will come up when its your time to be a rear admiral of the blue)  - this may tie in nicely to the 'commanders tablet' if that is still happening.

 

With traders it might be harder to find a delegate but im sure someone has an idea.  

While I like your idea of the seniority changing over time, a completely time based promotion system would not be ideal.  That sort of system would allow someone with multiple accounts to start an account with an opposing nation and wait for a chance to be on the council.  That being said, I would not be against time in service to count towards promotions; however, there must be a thread somewhere that discusses naval promotions and I'm content to let them sort out that particular detail.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Zeekoning

[kang]

You could make everyone a privateer and then apply your balancing mechanics to the letter of marque process as you briefly mentioned in the OP.  The winning nations might require a payment of some sort to maintain your marque where losing nations might pay you to sail for them.

 

Another thought is the "why not both" option.  IIRC, Captain Jack was not above flying someone else's flag even under false pretenses.  As privateers, there's even less reason not to.  Align with multiple countries and then pick and choose who you fight.  When you kill an enemy of a nation, you gain faction with them.  Kill a friendly of that nation and lose faction.  The successful nations should have lots of juicy targets whether real or bots that would entice folks over to the other side.

 

No matter what you do, I think you have to make "nationality" a fairly fluid thing.  Otherwise, you're going to have a difficult time building in a strong balancing mechanism.

[DazednConfused]

Agreed Kang. 

 

Having people locked into 1 nation for the duration (leaving piracy aside) will limit long term game-play.  I would suggest  players be locked to nations for a particular time period and then be able to move on - with loss of rank implied.

 

There has to be this time lock though to prevent flighty individuals from jumping a weak ship, but also there might need to be a percentage cap for each nation per total players to stop all people gravitating towards strong nations. 

[Doschichis]

So lets say you can request to change nation 1 a month and after your request, it will take 3 day or more to process (paper work and stuff) or instance at the cost of everything you have with your current nation. You can only request to change your nationality during peace time!

 

 

I just think, developers could sell the document to change nation too. The first time you change your nation, it is free. The second time, you will need to buy it with real money and still need to way 3 day to process.

you will have 3 kind of documents.

 

1st: the cheapest: wait 3 days, lose your house, rank or whatever,

2nd: medium: wait 3 days, transfer your house or what ever but not rank.

3rd: highest: wait 3 days, transfer everything

 

the first time you transfer, you will have the highest one.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Doschichis

[scepo]

I payed for this game already and making me pay again and again for every little thing will make me hate it.

Wars can be balanced by having very heavy npc presence near capital nation ports that make area around them completely safe and occasionally patrol further. That would provide a point of retreat and the rest should be up to players. Nation changing should be free but with loss of all assets left in original nation ports and severe demotion in rank, which is somewhat realistic.

As for which nations should be at war i'm prone to an all out war scenario but i see other options working as well.

Edited April 29, 2015 by scepo

[DazednConfused]

The problem of having an all out war is that there will be no economy, and if you have merchants being 'neutral' and sailing around oblivious it is going to create back doors to players getting bigger ships fast.

 

Before someone steps in and mentions crews, i would submit that by the time id lost 5 durabilities on the first 'larger' ship i purchased (say surprise), i would be leveled up in xp to have enough crew.

[scepo]

Safe area should be big enough to have basic economy for all nation. Neutral nations in my opinion should not exist because if they do all economy will be broken. If they do no progress of characters made in neutral nations(basically PvE) should be transferable to waring nations as those are completely different.

[Aragorn]

Safe area should be big enough to have basic economy for all nation. Neutral nations in my opinion should not exist because if they do all economy will be broken. If they do no progress of characters made in neutral nations(basically PvE) should be transferable to waring nations as those are completely different.

 

neutral nations would be good places for trade though. How about the neutral nations you cant play...they are only NPC's? You can interact with them and learn various crafts and do various things in the neutral nation that you ant do in a warring nation. 

[scepo]

Of course, i meant nations that players sail under.

[ObiQuiet]

Regarding Dazed's original idea, I like the concept of ever-changing national alliances, tensions, and declarations of war as a large-scale, long-time external force driving the player's game.  It would give a flavor of the "who are we at war with this year?" that those people dealt with, like that way France and Britain used Spain as a pawn.

 

I can imagine an "international tensions" gauge which showed the gradual warming or cooling of relations between nations from month to month, which could be used by us players as a indicator of where things *might* be going -- to predict future commodity prices, make pre-emptive fleet movements, etc.   

 

Also, I can imagine us players sitting around in a pub years from now:  "Ah, mates, let me tell you what happened when I was stationed in Bermuda during the Anglo-Franco Alliance against the States in '17..."

[Doschichis]

I payed for this game already and making me pay again and again for every little thing will make me hate it.

Wars can be balanced by having very heavy npc presence near capital nation ports that make area around them completely safe and occasionally patrol further. That would provide a point of retreat and the rest should be up to players. Nation changing should be free but with loss of all assets left in original nation ports and severe demotion in rank, which is somewhat realistic.

As for which nations should be at war i'm prone to an all out war scenario but i see other options working as well.

That why my post has 2 part, the first part is free and the second part is pay with real money, I prefer the first part of course

[scepo]

That why my post has 2 part, the first part is free and the second part is pay with real money, I prefer the first part of course

 

Your post only mentions that first time is free not that there is a free option. 

[Doschichis]

Your post only mentions that first time is free not that there is a free option. 

 

Sorry, I did not make it clear.

my first part is this part :

 

So lets say you can request to change nation 1 a month and after your request, it will take 3 day or more to process (paper work and stuff) or instance at the cost of everything you have with your current nation. You can only request to change your nationality during peace time!

 

you get a free ticket to change your nation 1 a month.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Doschichis

[kang]

Agreed Kang. 

 

Having people locked into 1 nation for the duration (leaving piracy aside) will limit long term game-play.  I would suggest  players be locked to nations for a particular time period and then be able to move on - with loss of rank implied.

 

There has to be this time lock though to prevent flighty individuals from jumping a weak ship, but also there might need to be a percentage cap for each nation per total players to stop all people gravitating towards strong nations. 

 

The thing about time limits though is that they're arbitrary and don't necessarily reflect the current state of the game.  These types of games are very dynamic. In a perfect world, the balance would be built into the system so that, as the state of the game changes, the incentives and disincentives change right along with it.  So the balancing happens automagically as the state of the game changes.

 

If you take the OG Pirates as an example, a treasure ship spawn regularly.  It visits all the main ports of a nation.  When it visits them, it brings resources (like manufactured goods) and trades them for gold.  That port then trades those resources to neighboring friendly ports for the gold it will give the next treasure ship.  And so on down the line.  Resources come in, gold goes out and vice versa (sugar, lumber, etc). 

 

The more successful a nation the fatter the treasure ships/ports/merchants become as targets for enemies/privateers.  The more enemies taking treasure ships/ports/merchants the weaker and less enticing a nation becomes. Now all you need is a mechanism that rewards loyalty but at the same time rewards those enemies/privateers to come along and keep the various nations on a level playing field.

 

I wouldn't think that there'd be enough unaligned privateers to ensure a good balance when or if the various nations get completely out of balance.  But then again, I can't think of a mechanism that provides strong nationalism but at the same time allows the flexibility I'm suggesting.  It would pretty much water down the nationality thing considerably.