Don't increase DP • CCNet

Don't increase DP Back

Illyt 9 months ago

The arguements to do so are pathetic. A new nation should not be considering committing to a grand alliance under any circumstance. It makes very little sense. Given their fort is likely to be not-meta by ccnet standpoints they equally are likely to be targeted and given the fort most likely lose or fall victim to a larger nations investment therefore holding the smaller nations essentially captive in a coersive form of power play.

The entire point of DP is to break up stupidly large alliances and avoid the stale gameplay we currently have, fueled by personal animosity and hatred. These personal grievances forming bonds between people who may share a grievance and therefore cementing the structure. This system is raw, unseasoned and needs expansion but this suggestion is not for that. However enlarging the DP pool will only legitimise the dull and unintuitive system of diplomacy we have now, essentially undermining the entire point.

What a new nation is:
- A nation that has been created newly retains new status for 2 months.
- A new nation loses new nation status after sieging another nation or taking part in an offensive siege (via enemying another nation and participating in a siege).
- A new nation can siege another new nation in what's called a Skirmish, but it would be limited in reward and playtime.

How do we protect new nations (ideas that could be used):
- Extended fort immunity, newer nations will gain double the fort immunity of a new fort. Essentially giving realistic time to prep itself and allowing new groups to come to ccnet and make their nation and prep at the same time rather than having to join another group and becoming somewhat bastardised.
- Sieging new nations provides a diplomatic debfuff akin to diplomatic shunning or condemnation that reduces a nations pool of DP and makes allying that nation harder (more aggressive more expensive ally).
- It should be free to attend a siege of a nation in the defensive role and not the attacking role.

Comments

Illyt 9 months ago

Clarification:
It would only be able to freely defend new nations.

lordsrubka5 9 months ago

People will just merge if there is ally limit. Happened on a different server

Illyt 9 months ago

Quite simply change the parameters of a nation so that is not possible.

Overstretch debuffs?
Keep merging disabled
Make nations behave like actual nations in spaces they occupy

We suffer from an acute lack of vision.

lordsrubka5 9 months ago

There is no way to prevent it. If you limit the towns people will just disband all the useless ones, never invite new people or just stack up all active players in the same town like its factions. Regardless of merge being enabled or disabled you can just leave nation and join another one

For a server meant to be a "sandbox" diplomacy and "staff not wanting to interact with alliances" along with "if people want to all become allies and never do wars we wont stop them" there sure is starting to be more and more limitations. The quotes listed are from the high staff fyi

The servers diplomacy is based on knowing people and there is human interaction between them so no form of gameplay changes will prevent people being friends. At most what u will get is mega alliance being in 2 parts sieging 2 different towns which makes no sense to enforce now given that even with the old settings people were never consistent with starting/preparing sieges

Overall it may seem interesting and whatnot on paper to have "limited allies and regional wars" but what people really want to do is have large active wars and not camping tbe banner for 90 minutes cause the enemy is scared to jump down

At most u can limit or prevent attacking small nations without reasons so they can improve slowly in wars

lordsrubka5 9 months ago

People were never consistent in starting sieges refers to the fact that sieges dont happen that often these days so its not like splitting people will make them happen more often. And you can hardly count these past few sieges since there was barely any movecraft due to "not having pilots" so splitting no pilots seems even more stupid to me

Illyt 9 months ago

I don't accept the premise you have provided. I have already stated id prefer diplomacy to be done through in game actions as I've mentioned in previous suggestions and as zaify has too explored.

If people are just going to group in one town then perhaps the situation is rotton at the core and needs correcting. But I think you have over exaggerated in your view.

Also large sieges being rare isn't bad, it's id argue a good thing giving more time for preparation and given how long sieges are 1 big siege a month is satisfactory. With other less important smaller opportunities for PvP presenting themselves.

Illyt 9 months ago

I will respond fully to your criticism in another post. This should be focussed on the leeway I have suggested for smaller nations which is reasonable and fair.

S3xyBerry 9 months ago

Being able to not be sieged for 4 months is stupid, imagine a nation just forms on ur doorstep and clearly acts aggressive or starts claim blocking ur nation and u cant react for half a year with a siege. I dont think immunity is the issue