Redux or removal of Diplomatic Points. • CCNet

Redux or removal of Diplomatic Points. Back

greymesa 10 months ago

At its essence, the addition of a diplomatic point system was created to promote regional alliances and break apart the dominance of mega alliances. It has done anything but that.

Imagine yourself in my position currently. I just created a nation in North America. My neighbours are Aztec, a coalition nation, Eternal Union, an alliance nation, and Floritania, another alliance nation.

As a new neutral nation, you poise yourself as easy pickings for both the coalition and the alliance. It was impossible, given my situation to attempt to be neutral. Having no allies to rely on when in a state of neutrality in the mega-alliance war isn't remotely feasible. All powerful nations that WOULD have the ability to foster the growth of a new nation are on either side of the mega-alliances. Attempting to have relations with either side would immediately face you with scrutiny for "playing both sides".

I needed to pick a side and eventually landed on the coalition. I chose them over alliance because I've been a Japanese member for the longest while. Regardless of what side I picked, I would still immediately be considered the enemy of the nations on the other side (Which I was). I was forced into picking a side because if I didn't I would receive help from nobody near me, be camped by either side and unfortunately, burn out and die.

There is no place for a "Third side" or "Regional conflicts" on CCNet simply due to the nature of existing nations and mega-alliances.

The coalition and alliance will continue to exist through informal agreements outside of the server. The diplomatic point system is not splitting these mega-alliances into bits, all it's doing is providing a nine-day cooldown for allying nations that are already part of a mega-alliance. The diplomatic point limit does absolutely nothing but inconvenience already-established mega-alliance nations, and directly harm new nations looking to join existing alliances. Nobody is going to allow you into their mega-alliance because, at the end of the day, new nations aren't worth wasting the diplomacy points on. (or even dropping an ally for!!).

Hell, my only coalition ally ingame right now is Aztec, I was told that I would get allied should I get sieged. Not exactly the system stomping out mega-alliances, is it?

The concept of diplomacy points themselves are fine. The execution of them, in my opinion, was completely flawed.

I can't think of a solution besides a major overhaul that actually will force regional alliances to be the meta, or just the complete removal of the system altogether.

Comments

ContDJ 10 months ago

As from someone who is in the alliance, for us it seems to be a effective balance because coalition is an alliance of a lot of nations, thracia, japan, russia, china, oceanic, siberium federation, Kievan rus, sub sahara, aztec syndicate, imperium of man, imperio lusitano and maybe more, Versus empire of colombia, imperium romanum, urk, floritania, eternal mayan, thats 11 versus 5 nations, after dp was added it forced both the sides to considerably spend their points and it has been easier for us.

On the other hand, I also see that this system doesn't do much good to smaller nations, as it forces the alliances to minimize the number of allies they can have, arguably some may say, Alliance can take them because they have a lot lesser nations, but we do not own any regions which increases the dp for the coalition (as they hold all the regions as of now).

In conclusion, DP should not be removed, but the whole alliance system needs a new overhaul, it somewhat should be independent nations who are self reliant, 1v1 siege, big nations combat with bigger nations, points which would rather determine the nation strength and only allow them to siege nations with similar points etc
But I have no idea as of now for such

(I may have made some mistakes as english isnt my first language, apologies :P)

lordsrubka5 10 months ago

not really, if it keeps being like this we can just merge and that is that

S3xyBerry 10 months ago

Its a poor feature and not well thought of imo. Considering staff loves the idea of smaller nations and more regional alliances this hasnt done much in that regard but done some in the opposite. Even removing /n merge possibly in anticipation to this, some nations still have been merged away to decrease dp requirements whilst some others have been thrown away for themselves, or any newer nations like your case get pushed away from in plugin alliances and vassalages.

It being resident based is disliked by me atleast as it does nothing but make people invite random members in their nation just to fill the gap not necessarily active or anything just a number on the /n list but nothing better to measure it on

greymesa 10 months ago

^^ agreed.

Illyt 4 months ago

The issue is not DP. Given we now how have foriegn policy stances we need to rework DP to make staying neutral or 'non-interventionist' feasable.

Essentially, thr amount of points it would take to siege such a nation, would ensure sieging said nation would prevent the aggressor joining any other sieges.

It would also be cheap to defend a non interventionist/neutral power. This way sieging smaller nations who chose this path become so hard it becomes counter intuitive.

Ontop of this, no large nation would chose these paths unless in a dire position as sieges keeps nations engaged/active.

I mean isolationist when I say neutral.

New nations should be by default isolationist.

Illyt 4 months ago

DP points have worked in preventing some smaller nations being immediately occupied. They have also made sieges easier for the outnumbered side. Removing them is a mistake.

S3xyBerry 4 months ago

The stances do jack and change nothing, 50% cost to be sieged doesnt do anything, should buff it