• View topic - On the subject of nation and port security...

Posted: **Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:36 pm**

Two comments from me on this issue, inspired by different conversations occurring in other forums:

In the timeline of Avenmora I realize that I am a fairly new player in the game. That being said, and for what my opinion is worth, it is clear that there is an issue with nation and port security that should be addressed. I would agree with Vane's comment that more realism should be incorporated into the game, especially with regard to how members join a nation. Perhaps any player can join any nation they choose, but the nation council can pass resolutions to remove and/or bar certain players from being able to join their nation ranks. This of course could be undone through a resolution undoing the restrictions.

View Vane's comment and associated thread here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3706&start=60#p55183

Finally, I agree with the suggestion [Can't remember where I read it] that some dynamic be incorporated that requires players to obtain permission from nation leaders before being allowed to pursue certain upper level nation promotion quests. This would allow players of questionable motives to be allowed to join the nation, but would help the nation leaders prevent them from taking leadership positions until they were comfortable with their joining the ranks of leadership. That, or the rank of Duke is granted by council vote and not simply a rank acquired automatically through investment in influence. Perhaps a combination of both.

Just my humble opinion...

~TH~

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:02 am**

Sir Thalius Hayle wrote:
Finally, I agree with the suggestion [Can't remember where I read it] that some dynamic be incorporated that requires players to obtain permission from nation leaders before being allowed to pursue certain upper level nation promotion quests. This would allow players of questionable motives to be allowed to join the nation, but would help the nation leaders prevent them from taking leadership positions until they were comfortable with their joining the ranks of leadership. That, or the rank of Duke is granted by council vote and not simply a rank acquired automatically through investment in influence. Perhaps a combination of both.

Just my humble opinion...

~TH~

-1

Too restrictive. All it would take is the council to deny advancement to all but their best buddies. You can't make something impossible for others to achieve. As well, there has been numerous discussions and topics on the subject to include a Nation Change Barrier suggested by Haron. Some suggestions were too restrictive, while others created alternate problems.

First lets not confuse nation stability with port control. Those are actually two entirely different things. A nation can still control a port while being unstable internally, it just makes it more difficult to do so. Don't believe me, go ask Danik and those that were in the USA during the Spain-USA War and subsequent USA Civil War (hostile take over).

In regards to national stability, a nation needs to defend itself from the ease of a hostile take over. An experience player can complete the Nation Missions in a day or two. How do you limit a player from switching nations and becoming a council member within a day or two without limiting their ability to switch nations or preventing them from completing missions, that is automatically controlled by the game.

A solution that I suggested was simple and straight forward, time limitation. Simply require a player to be part of a nation for a set period of time before they can be part of the council. For instance, to be a Duke, Governor, or King, a player must be part of the nation a minimum of 7, 10, 14 consecutive days (obviously the days are debatable) respectively before they could obtain the title. So if I joined Nation X on day 1800, I couldn't be a Duke until day 1807, a Governor until 1810, and the king until 1814. That is on top of the current influence requirements. This would also work with the suggestions by CJ where Governors would be selected by a King, the appointee would have to meet the requirements to be eligible for appointment. This suggestion would still allow for hostile take overs but it would make it a lot harder for those seeking to overthrow the nation to do so quickly.

In regards to port control, the issue comes down to one thing, influence and that there lies the problem. Influence is costly, can easily be destroyed via undercover attacks, and it follows the player not the nation. There is no simple solution to port control. As well, port control needs to be carefully looked into, because if made too easy to control a port it will be even more difficult for budding nations to take over a port, but in the same instance you don't want ports to be taken over with very little effort. I have a few ideas on port control, but as I said it is a lot more complex than just national stability.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:56 pm**

I have to agree with Dez, a time restriction when changing nations is a very good barrier for slowing down those changing nations quickly to attempt a short time internal attack. However I don't think it is enough to halt there.

While Dez is again right, preventing anyone from joining a nation is too restrictive, preventing certain people from reaching council is not. It was not uncommon at all for someone of power (king in this case) to surround himself with his best buddies. People he could trust to direct the nation in his chosen direction. This doesn't prevent anyone or everyone from joining a nation, but one must prove their self to be acting for the betterment of that nation before receiving any perks. I would like to see the following.

* 5 day restriction after joining a nation before one can start a nation mission to rank.
* King and councils approval via vote to allow a player to rank past Admiral. Then another approval to rank past Marquess.
* King to approve and select his governors (as is the sugestion for plantation feature)

This also makes using stipends once again viable as your nations coin will in fact go to those seeking to help the nation, not those wanting free payouts.

On the topic of ports, they do need a revamp for how they are taken and maintained. Perhaps the cards are the best place to start. The best long term solution would be a new system where transporting immigrants by ship (in or out), natural disasters or plagues, and adverse effects from naval battles in the vacinity all affect the rise or decline of a population. A % chance each day for a plague or population boom to take place at a percentage of current population comes to mind for some stability, while the transport via ship can be a player impacted option. To keep a flow of citizens the Boom rate would need to out weigh the plague slightly.

For influence, cards should remain but reduce their effectiveness and add alternative ways to impact this.

* cut cards effect in half (CD and Prop to 2.5%, cons to 1.25%)
* influence should be gained in larger amounts by helping the nation, ie. transporting immigrants (make this worthwhile), trading between your nations ports supporting their economy, after you've been with a nation for 30 days your influence lost daily is cut in half.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:12 pm**

King and councils approval via vote to allow a player to rank past Admiral. Then another approval to rank past Marquess.

This is a part I can see a problem with for inactive kings and such for low-popular nations. Maybe this can apply if the king is active for a set time?

For example: If a king is active in the last 7 days, he gets the privilege for giving approval of obtaining a noble rank. If the king is inactive after 7 days, the council governors make the choice. If there is no governor or if the governor (s) is (are) also inactive, then the dukes make the decision. If the dukes are inactive, the player can advance without approval of the council.

This should applied to the 7 day activity rule just like nation stipends do.

King and councils approval via vote to allow a player to rank past Admiral.

This part troubles me as well, as the original ranking system is off of nation missions. I believe that the approval should only be at the point of passing Marquess. This would make it easier for the council as they would not have to approve the same player twice in a day or 2. IMO, players should get approval to advance 1 time instead of twice.

Other than that, I agree with Charles Vane and Deznutz on the matter at hand.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:20 pm**

Charles Vane wrote:I have to agree with Dez, a time restriction when changing nations is a very good barrier for slowing down those changing nations quickly to attempt a short time internal attack. However I don't think it is enough to halt there.

While Dez is again right, preventing anyone from joining a nation is too restrictive, preventing certain people from reaching council is not. It was not uncommon at all for someone of power (king in this case) to surround himself with his best buddies. People he could trust to direct the nation in his chosen direction. This doesn't prevent anyone or everyone from joining a nation, but one must prove their self to be acting for the betterment of that nation before receiving any perks. I would like to see the following.

* 5 day restriction after joining a nation before one can start a nation mission to rank.
* King and councils approval via vote to allow a player to rank past Admiral. Then another approval to rank past Marquess.
* King to approve and select his governors (as is the sugestion for plantation feature)

This also makes using stipends once again viable as your nations coin will in fact go to those seeking to help the nation, not those wanting free payouts.

On the topic of ports, they do need a revamp for how they are taken and maintained. Perhaps the cards are the best place to start. The best long term solution would be a new system where transporting immigrants by ship (in or out), natural disasters or plagues, and adverse effects from naval battles in the vacinity all affect the rise or decline of a population. A % chance each day for a plague or population boom to take place at a percentage of current population comes to mind for some stability, while the transport via ship can be a player impacted option. To keep a flow of citizens the Boom rate would need to out weigh the plague slightly.

For influence, cards should remain but reduce their effectiveness and add alternative ways to impact this.

* cut cards effect in half (CD and Prop to 2.5%, cons to 1.25%)
* influence should be gained in larger amounts by helping the nation, ie. transporting immigrants (make this worthwhile), trading between your nations ports supporting their economy, after you've been with a nation for 30 days your influence lost daily is cut in half.

I like most of this, and agree Nation and Port changes are needed. A whole new system.

My record for switching nations and becoming King was 35 mins. While this is fun and anyone can do it, is it right to be able to do so... No. One reason why I don't play the National game much anymore and others (like Danik) have got out of the port control as well.

In a game that is built around ships (I am taking ADMIN/JessicaA words here) as the main characters, we need to have a game play style for Port Control that includes these ships.

- If someone wants to capture a port, I think it should be done with SHIPS
- I think Ports should have FORTS (see DezNuts post about this)
- These FORTS are built and maintained by the nation controlling the port, if the FORT is defeated by invading ships, the port is lost.
- Ships build wealth, wealth builds influence. We need a play style that allows us to gain influence through ships. (I guess selling goods for gold and buying influence works, but there needs to be another way too. Additional)
- Pirates should be able to Sack/Raid ports, but the controlling nation retains control of port but in a weakened state. FORTS would be damaged during a pirate raid.
- FORTS over time should be upgradable (per port) for better defense and harder to take over.
- This would need a new battle system (which CJ has mentioned) that would allow multiple players to attack at the same time together.

Interesting topic. One that I hope gains some traction in the not to distant future.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:38 am**

If another nation wants a port, they should have to do more than throw a handful of voodoo and dump money into it. I suppose the argument exists that a poorly run port might experience a revolt which is simulated by the dissension imitated by the cards/cash. But it shouldn't be hours in the making, rather some time constraints, perhaps over a period of weeks at least.

Shadowood is bang on about the need for a military aspect hostile port takeover. I like very much the alternative of being able to build a force that overwhelms the land based force in the port...wait, that would mean there would have to be a fort, troops etc. in the port. Oh well.

Before we get to that, I still want fisherman to have a .011235% of catching a mermaid that sh*ts 50 credits per fishing vessel with each haul of fish.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:26 am**

Psychodad wrote:
Before we get to that, I still want fisherman to have a .011235% of catching a mermaid that sh*ts 50 credits per fishing vessel with each haul of fish.

On the subject of nation and port security...

On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...

Re: On the subject of nation and port security...