Diplomacy suggestion (Medium)

[Dejanira]

And another coding problem. How do you explain to tne game that B in kanoni pledges suppirt to A but in vaasburg Nation B pledges suppirt to nation C. It will be a mess.

I also don't think that pledges would be port specific. If Nation B pledges support to Nation A, it would apply to all ports.

I would also stipulate that you can't have nesting. If Nation C supports Nation B, Nation B as a Host Nation could not be support to Nation A. Nation C's support of Nation B cannot be nested into Nation A. If Nation B became a support for Nation A, all support agreements to Nation B would be voided.

As I understood it, it's Nation A supporting Nation B. Not Nation A supporting Nation B in ports X,Y,Z but not in ports S,T,U...

Also, I think that this should be linked to Treaties between Nations. Nation A may support Nation B only if Nation A & B agreed on a pact, or an alliance.

The whole voodoo casting should be rethinked and based on Diplomacy. If I fly Nation A flag, and if Nation A and B are at peace, may I freely cast and attack Nation B players behaving like a loose cannon? I think I should not have this chance unless I quit staying in Nation A.

[Whitcomb The Feared]

Deznuts i disagree with you. Your idea wouldnt induce in deep behavior and mechanics.

Kings dont care of their national treasure (in general) because it isnt directly their own money. They can also put high stipends cause at the end the money is taken by the community or by the population. With the influence it will be the same. Who cares of losing influece if you withdraw early ? Nobody ! And nobody will be able to revolt for a king's decision.

In my idea, if B pledges support to A, B gives all the national influence of a specific port to the nation B (as i said, in an entity called "national influece support" or in the way you prefer to call it). So this entity will be reachable by the conspiracy cast withiut problems of coding to hit also allies or whoever.
Second point: when a nation pledges support in a specific port. It gives to tje nation its entire (or a part) of its national influence in that port. According to the agreement.
And why port specific ? Because maybe in port X the nation A needs the infkuence of B to conquer the port. But in port Y the situation is the opposite, nation B could conquer the port with A's influence.

But this will oblige in deep thibking cause when the influence is given.. it is given. If we start with deznuts idea that A can pledge support but then withdrawing the support, it will be a mess when kings will change. Influence is like money. When you gibe money away, the other gains yoir money and you lost it.

And thia nation specificity will allow also dinamicity. Bevause if A pledges support to B, but then B cannot pledge support to C. This is very limiting. Maybe B wants to be ally with both A and C for specific but different reasons. Maybe in port Z, B helps A to conquer the port and in port Y, B helps C to conquer the port. But then if A and C are at war and ask B to keir their respective side... it will be diplonatically complicate. If we start withdrawing influence as if they were money deposits, it will be too easy. Let's start from a deep change of behaviors and diplonatical aspects. If you pkedge support, you give your influence away.

[ChaIbaud]

@whitcomb

a few things,

Kings dont care of their national treasure (in general) because it isnt directly their own money. They can also put high stipends cause at the end the money is taken by the community or by the population. With the influence it will be the same.

1) kings do tend to care about the treasury because it is in part their money or other player's money in their nation, you tend to find in the game that the council of each nation, in the same guild or not, will keep in communication and use the national treasury for the nation and its players benefit

Who cares of losing influece if you withdraw early ? Nobody ! And nobody will be able to revolt for a king's decision.

2) there isnt a technical "revolt mechanic" but people may be frustrated at the king, but your logic makes me think that you believe the king could do it without a majority's indifference or aye/nay in a vote. as with all decisions that affect a nation there is a vote and i believe this feature will be no different

But this will oblige in deep thibking cause when the influence is given.. it is given. If we start with deznuts idea that A can pledge support but then withdrawing the support, it will be a mess when kings will change. Influence is like money. When you gibe money away, the other gains yoir money and you lost it.

3) kings and their governors, dukes, etc. will almost always have the same goal in this game mechanic because of my previous point, the vote will have to pass regardless and kings dont have an absolute authority, just a bit more sway with their votes

4) earlier you said people wouldnt care about losing influence from withdrawing early, why would that be? it takes immense amounts of gold to sway port changes and keep it. losing even a minor percentage of that would put you in dozens of millions of gold as a starting point unless your pledged amount was miniscule.

what if someone spent 200 million in influence on tzogos and their nation voted to give it all away but the nation the country were voting for had serious grievances with the player who spent 200 million. perhaps players should be able to choose to opt in or out for this if you dont want a withdrawing function on a national level. i dont want my influence to be given to the slimey spanish or tokelauians

[Whitcomb The Feared]

Sorry but i disagree. Even researches in real life have stated that brokers invest differently if the money is theirs or if it belongs to their customers. It is psychological. You care more of what is yours.
And here a large part of money generated by the nation is made by npc population tax and by the real citizens. So kings will act differently than if they had to manage their own money.
Just check stipends. Why not putting them at 0 ? Or why mot lowering taxes for some and not fpr others ? Just i see nations very similar cause there isnt a real analysis behind. Just stipends and all the rest arr adjusted according to the money disponible.

Revolt... let's say that in the past the major mechanic was to revolt a king. Here it isnt possible. So here even if a king takes a wrong decision, the hierarcy wont be completely changed.

So now this is the same with influence. If the king pledges suppirt to a nation and then another king takes the throne. Who cares if the new withdraw the influence suppirt ? As i see in my nation, many dont care and play individually. So why caring if what happens doesnt really affect you ?

But now it is different if all your influence will go to suppirt another nstion. Then people will have to vote, to interact, to debate ! Because the decision will be importanr
And if people like ypu disagree if the influence will go to spain or tokelsu, you will become an enemy of the crown or a pirate ! This is part of the game too

[not a pirate]

Sorry but i disagree. Even researches in real life have stated that brokers invest differently if the money is theirs or if it belongs to their customers. It is psychological. You care more of what is yours.

And the country belongs to the King, so by your logic he should care about the treasury.

[DezNutz]

Sorry but i disagree. Even researches in real life have stated that brokers invest differently if the money is theirs or if it belongs to their customers. It is psychological. You care more of what is yours.
And here a large part of money generated by the nation is made by npc population tax and by the real citizens. So kings will act differently than if they had to manage their own money.
Just check stipends. Why not putting them at 0 ? Or why mot lowering taxes for some and not fpr others ? Just i see nations very similar cause there isnt a real analysis behind. Just stipends and all the rest arr adjusted according to the money disponible.

Revolt... let's say that in the past the major mechanic was to revolt a king. Here it isnt possible. So here even if a king takes a wrong decision, the hierarcy wont be completely changed.

So now this is the same with influence. If the king pledges suppirt to a nation and then another king takes the throne. Who cares if the new withdraw the influence suppirt ? As i see in my nation, many dont care and play individually. So why caring if what happens doesnt really affect you ?

But now it is different if all your influence will go to suppirt another nstion. Then people will have to vote, to interact, to debate ! Because the decision will be importanr
And if people like ypu disagree if the influence will go to spain or tokelsu, you will become an enemy of the crown or a pirate ! This is part of the game too

That theory is great and all, but you are missing one important thing. This is a game. The in-game currencies are not real and cannot be turned back into real money.

As this is a game, players will care about currency in ways that do not fit the expected pattern and behaviors.

Let me give you a good piece of advice that I received back when I first started playing and getting involved in development.

Do not take the real world and apply it here. You can use the real world as a reference, but do not try to mirror the real world. Look and see how the game currently works. Understand the purpose behind how things were built and developed. Update and build onto what exists.

[Whitcomb The Feared]

The nation does not really belong to tje king. If the king is just the one with more influence.

Deznuts but we are still people and from what i see, many behaviors still work. Just look at how trade routes or tails in fleet work, people check everything to render their system mpre efficient. But when it is about new laws or new guild to join or a nation, people dont take an efficient decision csuse it is not completely affecting them.

I just wpuld like to see some though decisions to be taken
And i think that pledging support by giving away influence is better than just moving it ... one day to nation A and then to nation B. Without the risk to losing it reslly if managed correctly. And i think this is too easy

[not a pirate]

Influence takes a huge investment in gold, credits, voodoo, turns, etc.

Nobody would be interested in "supporting" another nation if it meant completely giving away their influence- this would effectively make the implementation of such a feature useless.

The real dynamic decision making comes when you choose to retain the "ownership" of your influence but pledge it to another nation. Do they pay you for giving you their influence? Do they work to ensure you do not pledge your support to someone else and cost them a port? Does another nation aim to sway the country's leaders into changing their influence support to this new country, which makes the original country lose the port? Could it be avoided if we give our pledges some incentive to remain loyal to us?

By making players basically trash their influence just to give it to another nation, you are actually making the strategic process underlying the original suggestion less viable and virtually unusable if one wants to have fun in the game. Your proposed change to OP would effectively make hundreds of millions of gold, turns, tons of voodoo, many many credits, etc. all go down the drain... nobody would ever do that.

[ChaIbaud]

whit i dont think you have a solid understanding of a lot of the silent goings on in avonmora and you havent been around for a lot of the updates, good suggestions but youre missing a lot of little things

cj will not put stuff into the game without a lot of deliberation but you cannot apply psychological factors in real life to mirror what should be done in the game just like you cannot bring ethics into the game. why does cj promote violence in the game or offer curses to cast on other players? why does he promote the possibility of polygamy? all of these are just overanalyzations like you are arguing

[Dejanira]

* Bump *