Confused

[DezNutz]

who is giving these missions?
the countries ruler? or was i on a mission from god.
if the last is the case then you are right
with the first the ruler should be punished for breaking his treaties
why give targets if they are not allowed (by the same nation) to be attacked?

again who is giving these orders?

Nation Missions are based on certain game statistics and are set by the game. The council members have no say in the composition of nation mission.

For instance: Player X has the most hostility points against your nation. He will appear as a target on your nation mission. Additionally, 10 players with nation X all have some hostility towards your nation, non of them by themselves have enough to be individual targets, but combined have more than another nations total. That nation will appear as a target.

The following is based on assumption, but I think that missions that require BD usage is also taken into account by hostility. Your target will be a port nation that has the most hostility against your nation. Population is also taken into account. However, I'm not 100% certain.

[Lefty]

It is not a problem. Admin has given you voodoo to avoid the issue. Might I suggest keeping an eye on your hostility. When it gets close to kicking you, have a friend cast Hired Diplomat on you to remove the hostility. You just have to be self aware. Lessons learned the hard way are the best lessons.

[Raghnan]

you keep telling me how to avoid something that should not have happened in the first place

[Meliva]

Rag makes a pretty good point in my opinion. When a mission starts it should take into account the nations treaties and status with other nations.
It should make any nation its at war with top priority as targets, and ignore nations that are allies or have a peace treaty. Otherwise players will have a much more difficult time ranking up in a nation with a fair amount of treaties. And besides it makes no sense for a mission to rank up in your nation to target an ally of said nation.

[Kangaroo]

can they be mistaking?
it is a promotion mission
supposed to do good for the nation
and the mission is telling you to do harm to the nations diplomacy?
shouldn't missions be in line with nations goals and strategies?

I agree with this tbh, it should not be expected that a nation's populace be completely versed in their chosen nation's current political gambits.

For this specific reason I queried with admin why no warning is given prior to conducting an action that would break a treaty, I was advised it works as it should.

I disagree completely with admin's stance.

[DezNutz]

can they be mistaking?
it is a promotion mission
supposed to do good for the nation
and the mission is telling you to do harm to the nations diplomacy?
shouldn't missions be in line with nations goals and strategies?

I agree with this tbh, it should not be expected that a nation's populace be completely versed in their chosen nation's current political gambits.

For this specific reason I queried with admin why no warning is given prior to conducting an action that would break a treaty, I was advised it works as it should.

I disagree completely with admin's stance.

I agree with the admins. Actions that you take in game are completely your choice. No one forces you to take these actions. Players that fail to pay attention and fail to understand the consequences of their actions shouldn't get a free pass. A warning, IMO, would only continue a players ignorance to the consequences. It is better for a player to fail and learn from their mistakes, then to prevent them from failing and they learn nothing.

[Meliva]

I agree that players need to pay attention, but I think it doesn't make sense that an allied nation or a nation with whom has a peace treaty shows up as a target in missions. They are your nations allies, and last I checked allies typically do not fight each other. So it would make sense that missions would not set these nations as a target, and instead go for nations whom are at war as top priority, and neutral after that.

[Vane]

I agree that players need to pay attention, but I think it doesn't make sense that an allied nation or a nation with whom has a peace treaty shows up as a target in missions. They are your nations allies, and last I checked allies typically do not fight each other. So it would make sense that missions would not set these nations as a target, and instead go for nations whom are at war as top priority, and neutral after that.

Allies don't typically fight each other you are absolutely correct. However there are always free radicals that hold citizenship with a country and yet still do not follow their own countries diplomatic stance and attack. How do you suppose a national "ally" was at the top of the enemy list to be attacked in the first place?

Either
"A" the player doing the mission used urban legends and made a grave error selecting an ally
"B" the "apparent" ally already broke such a treaty and attacked your nation which is why he is on the list
"C" its a new nation, no hostile enemies so fame is used, in which case no diplomacy pacts were made and this is not an issue

I am going to g with "B". Therefore, I agree with Admin and Dez on this. An perceived ally should show on your mission enemy list as they would have already broken such a pact by gaining hostility with your nation in some way.



EDIT: I rarely use NPC's so I automatically assumed this was regarding the generated list of enemies in which case my point still stands. On the NPC side I do see a slight issue. It should be coded that nations with peace or alliance do not show up on the "5 national flag list". This list is default to the top 5 famous nations. If one is an ally they should be removed and the next nation on the fame list is used. Continually until 5 are selected with the highest fame of which none have a friendly diplomatic stance.

Or

The general flag list changes to being first the most hostile "countries" with your nation just as the individuals are selected, and then secondarily the most famous while again going through the list only using nations with no friendly stance.

[Shadowood]

I agree that players need to pay attention, but I think it doesn't make sense that an allied nation or a nation with whom has a peace treaty shows up as a target in missions. They are your nations allies, and last I checked allies typically do not fight each other. So it would make sense that missions would not set these nations as a target, and instead go for nations whom are at war as top priority, and neutral after that.

Its kind of hard to find targets if a nation has a peace treaty with everyone...


Having this will limit the ability to rank in a nation. Could be a strategy I guess to keep people out?

I guess it is no surprise that Diplomacy is one game feature I dislike, especially with such a limited player base. It really restricts targets/game play in a Pirate Game.

Only thing I would suggest here, is "if" a nation has no one that is Hostile with them, then it doesn't default to the TOP 10 FAME LIST. It goes down the list until it hits the TOP 10 in FAME that aren't ALLIED/PEACE with nation, Pirates included.

***EDIT*** I think Diplomacy is a great game feature. I am just saying from a Pirate/Privateer stand point such as myself.. I dislike it. ***

[Meliva]

I agree that players need to pay attention, but I think it doesn't make sense that an allied nation or a nation with whom has a peace treaty shows up as a target in missions. They are your nations allies, and last I checked allies typically do not fight each other. So it would make sense that missions would not set these nations as a target, and instead go for nations whom are at war as top priority, and neutral after that.

Allies don't typically fight each other you are absolutely correct. However there are always free radicals that hold citizenship with a country and yet still do not follow their own countries diplomatic stance and attack. How do you suppose a national "ally" was at the top of the enemy list to be attacked in the first place?

Either
"A" the player doing the mission used urban legends and made a grave error selecting an ally
"B" the "apparent" ally already broke such a treaty and attacked your nation which is why he is on the list
"C" its a new nation, no hostile enemies so fame is used, in which case no diplomacy pacts were made and this is not an issue

I am going to g with "B". Therefore, I agree with Admin and Dez on this. An perceived ally should show on your mission enemy list as they would have already broken such a pact by gaining hostility with your nation in some way.

I was more referring to the top 5 nations that you get assigned to fight, rather then the individual hostility list, since for example if a person in Tokelau wanted to rank up, St. kitts would be the top of the list since its the largest nation, despite being allied with Tokelau. Which I think doesn't make sense. But for the individuals on the hostility list things are a bit different, since as you mentioned players can be on that list with high hostility despite being in an allied nation. I think perhaps an edit should be made, or a new law that states that any player with X amount of hostility with your nation, is declared an enemy, despite any nation they may be a part of, and will incur no hostility penalty.