Archived Faction Diplomacy System Change

[Kikopuz]

Gridiron encouraged me to make this thread about the faction diplomacy system. I copied most of it from my Original post here: http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/empires.13058/page-3#post-153799

I want to suggest a change to the current faction diplomacy system. I personally don't like the current system, mainly because of the fact that two (or more) of your allies can be each others' enemies. I'm not saying this could never happen IRL, but on this server (with so many individual factions) it starts to become messy. And the line between enemy and ally is becoming blurred. It's not uncommon to see your ally having a dialogue (or monologue.. ) with your enemy in alliance chat. Or when you try to defend your ally against raiders, but realising that those raiders are your allies too.. Or the other way around. When you want to help out on a raid and realise that you can't, because your allies are attacking another ally..

I used to play the old Total War games, and I really liked that system. I don't know how the last few TW games work but in the older ones it was something like this:
Whenever ally A attacks ally B, you would be given the choice to either side with the attacker (ally A), which resulted in ally B becoming a common enemy. Or you could choose not to help ally A. In that case the alliance between you and A would end (become neutral) while you stay allied to ally B.

So (just to show off mah paint skillz)
You are allied to A and B. A and B are neutral to each other.

A attacks B

In game, your faction is asked to support either the attacking faction or the defending faction. So you will have two options. Keep in mind that I'm using the /f support command as an example.

Option 1: You support A, the attacker.
/f support <faction name> (results into enemying the defender automatically)

This is what should happen when two allies enemy each other, Ajax being A and Barcelona being B:

Or option 2: You support B, the defender.
/f support <faction name of defender> (results in becoming neutral with attacker automatically)

Well that's enough of paint, you get the gist. Bear in mind that all allies will get the same choice. So if a large faction with many allies attacks an other large faction also with alot of allies, everything can change in 20 seconds. So an alliance will actually mean something. This system would give us at least some kind of oversight on this server regarding alliances/wars. Because all your allies would then be actually part of an alliance, without you having to worry about an ally being allied to your enemy. I think this kind of system works better than the current one. Especially if they are going to add Empires to the server (if they will add them..). What do you guys think?

PS: Oh and a question for you guys: What should happen if you DON'T choose anything? Would you end up neutral to both factions? Should there be a timer? Ideas are welcome of course

 

[krios41]

I like the idea and at the same time i dont like it.
I am to tired tot explain why and i will explain that later.
EDIT: something i just dame up With maybe add an option to stay neutral in such kind of wars. For if you don't want to choose a side in it

 

[tyrabanksfanclub]

I actually love this idea, it surely spices up war time. Where do I sign up?

 

[Kikopuz]

I like the idea and at the same time i dont like it.
I am to tired tot explain why and i will explain that later.
EDIT: something i just dame up With maybe add an option to stay neutral in such kind of wars. For if you don't want to choose a side in it

Click to shrink...

Yeah okay, so a third option:
You do not choose at all and you will neutral them both. I'd rather choose to side with the defending team rather than being neutral to both, because you would still keep the defending team as allies, and only lose the attacking team as an ally and become neutral.

 

[krios41]

I krant more of keep Boeing allies tot both

 

[Kikopuz]

Hmm arthur's post made me think of more options than just those two though.. Like he said, stay neutral (lose both allies) is a third one. But what about if you want to defend the defenders immediately. You'd have to enemy the attacking faction first.

Just to sum up:
1) Side with the attacker and enemy the defender (and everyone who chooses to help the defender)
2) Choose not to help the attacker and neutral the attacker. Staying allied to the defender.
3) Not choosing side. Neutral both parties.
4) Choosing to HELP the defender (rather than not helping the attacker, there's a difference of course). Which will result into enemying the attacker (and everyone who supports the attack) and staying allied to the defender.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

Yeah okay, so a third option:
You do not choose at all and you will neutral them both. I'd rather choose to side with the defending team rather than being neutral to both, because you would still keep the defending team as allies, and only lose the attacking team as an ally and become neutral.

Click to shrink...

Here are my two major concerns.

/f f Morgannwg.

I would usually end that off at 'nuff said, but to be honest it needs a little explaining. Let's say, Bansheep steals mah cookies, so I declare war on the sexy bastards over at Algaron...


See all of the allies in common that would get that message and have to choose between the two of us? I will say though, Proteus is my alt faction, Tenebrosam is the head of our Empire, I kiss Rick's arse like a mother, and so on and so forth, making the logistics of it a pain. Another thing with this is that it could just become spam.. Maybe a "call to arms" feature, like in CKII. (/f call [Faction])

Seccondly, The plugin would have to be smart about the command. It should remember the status of the factions getting called into war, and revert to that state when the war is over, calling for a rewrite of the system of declaring war on other factions so it knows when that war ends.

Just my humble opinion though. Lemme know what you think.

 

[Kikopuz]

Here are my two major concerns.

/f f Morgannwg. View attachment 18242View attachment 18243

I would usually end that off at 'nuff said, but to be honest it needs a little explaining. Let's say, Bansheep steals mah cookies, so I declare war on the sexy bastards over at Algaron...
View attachment 18244View attachment 18245

See all of the allies in common that would get that message and have to choose between the two of us? I will say though, Proteus is my alt faction, Tenebrosam is the head of our Empire, I kiss Rick's arse like a mother, and so on and so forth, making the logistics of it a pain. Another thing with this is that it could just become spam.. Maybe a "call to arms" feature, like in CKII. (/f call [Faction])

Click to shrink...

Thanks for your input.

Yeah this just makes me dizzy just thinking about it. But maybe that's the point. We shouldn't think the way we currently do with this system. Everyone seems to ally everyone, sometimes just for the sake of it. But are they actual allies? Do they all help out if you really need it? The system I'd like to see makes sure that an alliance is really an alliance. Not just some extension of the General chat. It can be small or large, but at least you know the factions in your alliance got your back (and vice versa). I guess it would be kind of impossible to have so many allies with the new system, mainly because there is going to be war sooner or later, and factions will have to choose. But in the end, you will have smaller but stronger alliances.
And who knows... If you can keep 15+ factions in one alliance, without one causing trouble/war, then you will be more powerful than you are now with 40+ allies with the current system.

Seccondly, The plugin would have to be smart about the command. It should remember the status of the factions getting called into war, and revert to that state when the war is over, calling for a rewrite of the system of declaring war on other factions so it knows when that war ends.

Click to shrink...

I'm just putting this idea in the open for everyone to discuss. I have no clue about the technical side and the feasibility of this idea.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

Thanks for your input.

Yeah this just makes me dizzy just thinking about it. But maybe that's the point. We shouldn't think the way we currently do with this system. Everyone seems to ally everyone, sometimes just for the sake of it. But are they actual allies? Do they all help out if you really need it? The system I'd like to see makes sure that an alliance is really an alliance. Not just some extension of the General chat. It can be small or large, but at least you know the factions in your alliance got your back (and vice versa). I guess it would be kind of impossible to have so many allies with the new system, mainly because there is going to be war sooner or later, and factions will have to choose. But in the end, you will have smaller but stronger alliances.
And who knows... If you can keep 15+ factions in one alliance, without one causing trouble/war, then you will be more powerful than you are now with 40+ allies with the current system.


I'm just putting this idea in the open for everyone to discuss. I have no clue about the technical side and the feasibility of this idea.

Click to shrink...

As well, don't forget though, that it's no use trying to change the whole alliance system, since people will use it the same way either way. and yes. nine out of ten of my allies will rush to help me. The other one of ten, will stand there in ally chat laughing their a** off at our misfortune. But hey, Schadenfreude, amirite?

 

[PaulaDeen]

I have one question about this. From the little chat example you put up it seems like when a faction is getting raided the attackers would have to declare who they were attacking in some way. Correct me if I'm wrong but this could cause problems on the PvP scene.

 

[Kikopuz]

As well, don't forget though, that it's no use trying to change the whole alliance system, since people will use it the same way either way. and yes. nine out of ten of my allies will rush to help me. The other one of ten, will stand there in ally chat laughing their a** off at our misfortune. But hey, Schadenfreude, amirite?

Click to shrink...

Alright, well it seems you're doing a great job then. In my experience 1 in 20 allies help during a raid. The rest is just there in alliance chat doing nothing. Most of the times they don't even notice (or want to notice) the calls for help. If the rest of the server has the same experience as you have, then you're right.. no need to change the system.

Although I don't agree with what you're saying about how there's no use trying to change the system. I actually believe that people won't use it the same way. Would you attack a faction that has so much respect that you know that you run the risk of your allies neutralling you, or worse, become your enemy? I think everything will be much more stable, because of the fact that alliances would be more vulnerable to individual faction relations. What's your opinion about that?

 

[Kikopuz]

I have one question about this. From the little chat example you put up it seems like when a faction is getting raided the attackers would have to declare who they were attacking in some way. Correct me if I'm wrong but this could cause problems on the PvP scene.

Click to shrink...

In my example the attackers (Ajax) would just have to do /f enemy Barcelona. Ajax' allies (including me in this example) would get the message that Ajax is attacking Barcelona. Then the system would give me the options to choose sides (or not choose sides).

Also, for this system to work properly, all the allies of Barcelona (also me) would get the option to help Barcelona. But just like RoofToilet said, it might be better to have this kind of Call to Arms system.

 

[65jes89]

I think this is an interesting idea, but it I think it would be hard to implement, and in some cases might just cause more confusion. Maybe instead of this here could be a better way of organizing large collectives and alliance groups, in which each faction in the group is automatically allied to every other faction in the group, unless manually changed to be enemied to that particular faction? Also, if these were implemented it might help to have a chat channel similar to the alliance chat for everyone in the collective. I'm not really sure if this would take away or add to the confusion though.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

Alright, well it seems you're doing a great job then. In my experience 1 in 20 allies help during a raid. The rest is just there in alliance chat doing nothing. Most of the times they don't even notice (or want to notice) the calls for help. If the rest of the server has the same experience as you have, then you're right.. no need to change the system.

Although I don't agree with what you're saying about how there's no use trying to change the system. I actually believe that people won't use it the same way. Would you attack a faction that has so much respect that you know that you run the risk of your allies neutralling you, or worse, become your enemy? I think everything will be much more stable, because of the fact that alliances would be more vulnerable to individual faction relations. What's your opinion about that?

Click to shrink...

#magnanimustake2 NUFF SAID


In all seriousness, I think the real only way to change this aspect is to add a frendly relations option (and maybe an opposing hostile relations option) and add a fr: chat option to supplement the current trend for allying people. Trucing would need a revamp as well, because of the way people currently use it. Maybe a friendly rule on how allies and truces are supposed to be used? Either way though, I still think that the call to arms feature and the remembering and restoration of relations between parties involved would be a smart feature. Possibly as well turn the truces into friends, and just make truces a form of making sure you can't declare war on the faction for a set amount of time, already probably stipulated somewhere in the rules. Again, like in Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis IV. (My true Paradox fanboy colours are showing now xD)

 

[Mecharic]

While I LOVE the idea... I'd end up without any allies and so I would prefer the "call to arms" idea. The issue with this is that I have 80+ allies, and I'm pretty much dead certain half of them are at war with each other. As such, I would end up losing those allies when they get into their wars.

Maybe only a downgrade to truce? That way you can remain neutral in the conlict. Also, the ability to do /f support Neither, so that you can refrain from getting involved in a war between two far more powerful than you factions.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

Kikopuz maybe we should get together on TS or something and iron out some of the kinks in both of our sides of the idea and make an improved suggestion!

 

[Joshy54100]

But couldn't you just not type the /f support <faction> command at all, and it would still be the same system? There really is not a way to force this command upon a person, unless there were consequences if you didn't type it.