+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Critique: The disco diplomacy system (/showthread.php?tid=103271)
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Thyrzul - 08-16-2013
(08-16-2013, 10:23 AM)Tel-Aviv Wrote: Let me tell ya something bro, I've seen dozens of factions violating every code of conduct that in a real diplomatic world would be otherwise ilegal and outright insane. People claim upon individuals that what they do has an equal reaction - The opposite effect, or "consequences" - But when these self-rightouess preaks do something everybody is busy looking at the floor. Now you may think Im angry but thats the general attitude that I have toward people like that. Consider the ZA case, ( i think it rivals zonerzonerzoner nower days ;] ) - They went anti-cloakwise against zoners at first, but have changed since then, and as a reaction, The Order + "unheard" of zoner factions went the same way ~ again, everybody is busy looking at the floor.
From you it sounds kind of hypocritical to talk about "consequences" (it was the ZA who forgot what Zoners are, and that's not just my opinion - to this relates that your actions should have way more severe consequences than you have admitted to have and than what game mechanics (read: PoBs) let the rest of the Omicrons do to you), "unheard" of zoner factions (up until your first trouble-making in O74, I never even knew you guys exist) and diplomacy.
So, how about not consider the ZA case? Too many people have too different views on it, about their change, whether was that an improvement or not, that simply mentioning the ZA would bring up a debate derailing the entire thread. Most importantly because this thread is about diplomacy and representatives of ZA have proven in the past how "good" they are at diplomacy. Including yourself.
The attitude "lemme tell ya da sh*t, bro" just adds the flavor to this...
@Rodnas
What about relations you cannot check/know about easily/at all inRP?
Like LaFlamme was mad at 141 and CR for operating in Gallia without the consent of the Council, an issue which has been discussed since then, but neither of them told him yet the involvement of the UC. Now, LaFlamme would go mad again if he would get to know about UC's involvement, and that CR is still working with them. CR knows this, so won't tell, regardless of how allied they are. They are allied against the GRN threat in the Taus, but Giroux stated too that CR is not welcome in Gallia. In short, their alliance is based on being close to eachother (Roussillon and Coronado) and having common enemies (GRN, OC). But then, CR's partner within Gallia is UC, and this triangle can exist as long as nobody will acknowledge something which can crush it.
Imagine it as you tell B you don't know who C is.
So, how about not consider the ZA case? Too many people have too different views on it, about their change, whether was that an improvement or not, that simply mentioning the ZA would bring up a debate derailing the entire thread. Most importantly because this thread is about diplomacy and representatives of ZA have proven in the past how "good" they are at diplomacy. Including yourself.
The attitude "lemme tell ya da sh*t, bro" just adds the flavor to this...
@Rodnas
What about relations you cannot check/know about easily/at all inRP?
Like LaFlamme was mad at 141 and CR for operating in Gallia without the consent of the Council, an issue which has been discussed since then, but neither of them told him yet the involvement of the UC. Now, LaFlamme would go mad again if he would get to know about UC's involvement, and that CR is still working with them. CR knows this, so won't tell, regardless of how allied they are. They are allied against the GRN threat in the Taus, but Giroux stated too that CR is not welcome in Gallia. In short, their alliance is based on being close to eachother (Roussillon and Coronado) and having common enemies (GRN, OC). But then, CR's partner within Gallia is UC, and this triangle can exist as long as nobody will acknowledge something which can crush it.
Imagine it as you tell B you don't know who C is.
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Rodnas - 08-16-2013
I am not sure if your question points at how i personaly would handle it ruleswise or how i judge the situation - so one after the other!
Bear with me, i know as much about gallia as a toddler about quantum mechanics ( also, the faction status pages are a bit outdated it seems?!)
Sot he Situation is that the CR cooperates with the Council to fight against the GRN as well as working with the Corse for an unspecified goal within Gallia.
So i take it that "in reality" the Council and the Union Corse are no longer friendly to each other and the Council has a good reason to dislike the CR-UC cooperation.
Now...can the Council know of the CR working on both sides?
-Yes, if the UC operate in areas where the CR-GRN combat takes place- they would have a solid chance of witnessing the CR-C tag team.
-Yes, if the GRN ever discusses anything about getting in and out of Gallia or recent battles officially or randomly with some of the UC - at least the GRN faction status hints that this is plausible.
- Yes if there is any kind of news coverage or war reporters reporting on what happens on the fontlines( Which i would strongly suggest)
Now can the Council know of the CR in Gallia? I take it that at least in theory there are ways to not bump into the GRN on your way in...so it leaves the question of what do the CR do in Gallia?
- Behind the frontline assault? Then they are busted, see news coverage.
- Smuggling? Depends where to...if only to Union Corse bases, i would say it can stay undetected(probably not forever) - if somewhere else...then someone will notice and the CR are busted.
So to sum it up- if the CR is extremely extremely careful, they might have a chance of going undetected. If they get caught there may or may not be consequences - i have little knowledge of the operative procedures of the Council and their morality/buyability...so you might better know what happens to people who betray them.
My gut feeling tells me that i would simply cross the CR-C alliance and drop it to a neutral point. The Council doesn't like them in Gallia and being snake tongued and the CR seems to have some kind of reason to go to Gallias heartland that is worthy to risk the wrath of the Council. I have no clue about the councils military strength- but for the CR i remember them as rather bloody nosed and down in the dirt- which means that they might not be such a big addition tho the Councils interests in any way, making them even more droppable if they don't comply to their demands and lessening the reason to help out.
Neutral attitude suits well- other than that you could argue for the OC and the Brets to enter a formal Alliance ( just don't tell the Libertonians!)
And rulewise, this looks fine to me for a "grey" slot - if only temporary
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Ivan - 08-16-2013
(08-15-2013, 02:37 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: @Miloslav - let's put some things in perspective:
Quote:For example IMG-Gateway relationship. It's cool, but right now (and probably for last 4 years) it's hard to see they're close parthners.
What about this relationship doesn't make sense to you? [...]
Relationship makes enough sense to me, but lack of interaction [between player factions] doesn't.
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - SummerMcLovin - 08-17-2013
Looks like it is time to jump in here. A general opinion of mine on diplomacy is that plenty of people make too many friends and NAPs around the place - usually the more enemies you have then the more opportunity for conflict and activity. Some groups, dating back to vanilla, do have some weird diplomacy which usually overlaps with the "too many friends for no real reason" category - primarily unlawfuls.
Some examples would be the Mollys who seem to get on with a hell of a lot of people (two houses, getting on well with all Liberty unlawfuls, all of Rheinland unlawfuls, most Kusari unlawfuls), and a lot of factions' reluctance to shoot the IMG (Gaians, Chrysanthemums, Xenos) and to a lesser extent ALG (who have a fair few unlawful friends - Mollys to me seems pretty pointless other than Tyler and Nik/Jeni getting on well).
Things to consider with diplomacy include but are not limited to previous interactions, shared (potential) friends and enemies, trading possibilities, tech sharing, shared ideologies, not having the resources to fight them.
Now onto the Colonials, whom I obviously am rather involved with and probably can give the biggest run down for interest. Of course, =CR= diplomacy is rather shaky and changeable, so that makes it either a very bad or a very good example to use.
"We", "us" etc. now refers to the Colonials, both historically when I wasn't involved and currently as CR|. "They" might be =CR= or another faction.
We were previously at war with Bretonia after their historical shunning of us, leading to reasonable relations with the Gaians (maybe Mollys too, although they disliked us at the start of CR|) and Kusari. We later made peace with them and ended up at war with Kusari (I think for unrelated reasons), and now we've sided with them against Gallia, along with setting aside the squabbles with BMM over Tau-23. Their neutrality with the Outcasts isn't particularly liked but we're alright with shooting GRN first in Leeds - Bretonia shouldn't take the Outcast relations any further than neutrality in my view.
The Gaians aren't really around to interact with, but I'd say they are definitely against us either as Gallic pirate lackeys or ideological environmentalists (the two sides of the movement) since we are one of the more terraform-y groups.
The Mollys were lobbied for neutrality to allow the Movers to safely trade in Bretonia, and since we didn't fight in Bretonia at the time things were ok. However, their increasing cooperation with Gallia and our increased presence in Bretonia (which has caused a couple of incidents) will likely lead to hostility which I am ok with. The economy has recovered enough to cope with some extra pirates on us, and some extra targets in Bretonia is always fun.
Rheinland is a decent enough neutrality, despite the small dispute over Omega-7 a few years ago and some of their hesitations from Gallia's opinion about it. However, I doubt that'd come to much unless they ban Bretonia too.
Kusari remains our enemy, although we don't particularly fight them inRP because of both our small size of fleet and ooRP because of not very much overlapping ZoI. After a fair bit of cooperation through this Rebel RP I hope to come to some sort of ceasefire since it is mostly just annoying KDS shooting my transports and trying to get screens to ruin the IMG's standing with both Kusari and Gallia - this would stop and is more of a pro than the con of losing only a small number of pews.
The SCRA, forming after the Colonials left for Crayter, don't suffer the same "you engaged without RP at the Balma Treaty Massacre" hatred as they do from Alliance houses. Neutrality is fine, and them losing our ships keeps it hidden since they krieg some of our friends.
Hellfire Legion is another neutral unlawful, although I don't know the history for this one. Common enemies in the Outcasts and their Liberty allies and a shared proximity to the border worlds work well enough. Kind of annoying that they are disbanding but inRP we'll still be getting a fair chunk of resources from Guadalajara mining after that is set up. ooRPly it means I can get friendlier with Liberty a bit easier!
The Order and Colonials had some old coop against the Outcasts before my time, and have had a few recent (both impromptu and prepared event) ones too. With them moving into Inverness with the Atum and Tau-117 being made into the more accessible Drake this will likely increase.
We've also been neutral with the Core since I'm not a fan of playing both sides. If they get pissy about the Order, I'm not all that bothered - we've had a look at their public databases (plus a little extra data thanks to Prudence) and can move on without very much mess.
The Council is a bit tricky, relations vary on each side and over time and it also being based on some ooRP reasons. I agree that Fallen Grace had some mistakes in it, mostly from Jeremy wanting to include CR| which required a bit of a stretch and left out the Council. There is also a bit of imbalance with too many people on the same side - while the Council have more ships and Gallia in their ZoI, they can't really use that last part so are mostly a Tau faction. They lack the history of the Colonials in the region and a strong leadership, so fall behind in activity since you can do most of and more of the same actions on CR ID.
I prefer to think of it as the Gallic Council who have a large defensive fleet in Champagne/Artois and a more subtle presence around the rest of Gallia. They are kind of pissed about Fallen Grace and don't like us being in there (which we don't have all that much reason for, other than sneaky CIS stuff or transports moving Refugees). On the other side of the minefield you've got the Sirius/Roussillon Council (note the two S, one I, two L spelling, devs!) with a similarly-sized active fleet to ours (with some of ours inoperable until 4.87) without the infrastructure of Sabah. Although they have the Gallic lot's annoyance, they still cooperate a lot against the Outcasts and in the TAZ/C/CR triumvirate in our region of space. We get on with them, and the Gallic lot are more just a useful distraction for our enemies like the Exiles (distrusting neutrality, which will likely continue).
The Corse friendship was also based originally on largely ooRP reasons - there weren't many other Gallic factions active when we were raiding the house. While I do admire the faction, they were and kind of still are a bit too close to the anti-Royalist side than I'd have thought of a quasi-lawful faction. That has left them to consider us allies while we just had them as friendly, and getting on well with the Council while they didn't fully distrust the Corse. That being said, C-UC cooperation can still happen; nothing too important though. You may be confusing them with the Gallic Junkers who are much more disliked by the Council.
Thankfully we've settled to them being an anti-Outcast assistance outside of Gallia and a source of intelligence and supplies through their connections to the Gallic lawfuls. You've exaggerated the problems here, CR gets on with both sides and the Council has no real problems with the Corse (lower end of neutral-friendly both ways) so there would be no problems with any cooperation as any pair or all three together.
So hopefully others do have a similar attitude to their diplomacy other than "make friends with everyone". Don't be afraid to make more enemies where you can cope with it (ooRPly, but inRPly to some extent) rather than having allies all over the map that don't do anything for you. Shoot the IMG once in a while: all you have to fear is our defence wing!
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Thyrzul - 08-19-2013
(08-16-2013, 07:18 PM)Rodnas Wrote: So i take it that "in reality" the Council and the Union Corse are no longer friendly to each other and the Council has a good reason to dislike the CR-UC cooperation.
No reason to dislike, Council is not even aware of it. Council views Corse as something they don't trust because they don't know much about them, but don't even care that much. If they knew the involvement of UC in FG, that might change stuff regarding how they view the Corse in general and the relations of this triangle, but that's yet to happen.
(08-16-2013, 07:18 PM)Rodnas Wrote: Now...can the Council know of the CR working on both sides?
-Yes, if the UC operate in areas where the CR-GRN combat takes place- they would have a solid chance of witnessing the CR-C tag team.
UC knowing about C-CR relations is not the same as C knowing about UC-CR relations. UC knows about Council and Colonials being buddies down in Taus by my knowledge, and so far they don't seem to mind it. If they meet a mixed task force taking down Gallic Royals, they can still act like they have nothing to do with CR.
(08-16-2013, 07:18 PM)Rodnas Wrote: -Yes, if the GRN ever discusses anything about getting in and out of Gallia or recent battles officially or randomly with some of the UC - at least the GRN faction status hints that this is plausible.
UC involvement against GRN forces may raise questions about them, but sure not about their relations with the CR.
(08-16-2013, 07:18 PM)Rodnas Wrote: - Yes if there is any kind of news coverage or war reporters reporting on what happens on the fontlines( Which i would strongly suggest)
Again, I can't see how that would spoil/reveal UC-CR relations to Council. UC doesn't really operate on the frontlines, do they?
(08-16-2013, 07:18 PM)Rodnas Wrote: My gut feeling tells me that i would simply cross the CR-C alliance and drop it to a neutral point. The Council doesn't like them in Gallia and being snake tongued and the CR seems to have some kind of reason to go to Gallias heartland that is worthy to risk the wrath of the Council. I have no clue about the councils military strength- but for the CR i remember them as rather bloody nosed and down in the dirt- which means that they might not be such a big addition tho the Councils interests in any way, making them even more droppable if they don't comply to their demands and lessening the reason to help out.
Neutral attitude suits well- other than that you could argue for the OC and the Brets to enter a formal Alliance ( just don't tell the Libertonians!)
By my ooRP knowledge it only happened once that they got into Gallia, and that was because they were offered getting their taken home system back if they do so. Council got the military strength of like a smaller house trapped within Champagne, surrounded by a force outgunning them vastly, so that's a force they can't really do anything else with than defend that system. Council also got the military strength of about the same size of CR within Roussillon: like 5 battleships, a good dozen or two cruisers, etc. Given the proximity of Coronado and the already mentioned TAZ-C-CR triangle, the three factions are good to go along with eachother. Prior to FG, our stance with CR was allied. Your gut feelings are somewhat accurate, the revelation of FG dropped this stance to strongly friendly, only because of a talk on Ravenhurst Watch LaFlamme had with Anders, and mainly because this proximity, but they got banned from Gallia for indefinite time by Giroux. A possible revelation of the CR-UC relations would bring us more close to this neutrality, but there is still the fact that the Roussillon branch is approximately as much bleeding from the nose as the Colonials do, we still live close to each and we still have common enemies. These might be the most important factors making LaFlamme think thrice when he conducts diplomacy between Council and the Colonials.
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Rodnas - 08-21-2013
Apart from this being a very nice dissection of the CR-UC-C triangle, i don't know where this information should lead to to be honest. I am sure you don't need my seal of approval for anything- and you have already taken steps to get away from the "unneccessary alliance between teh council and the colonials it seems, too.
But i do want to comment on the "how could anyone possibly know" thing - in times of Wiki/whateverleaks, NSA spy affairs and whatnot, combined with journalism embedded in modern armies - i think there is not the slightest hope of ever keeping information secret about who attacked an organized military such as the gallic one.
If the CR strike with the Council or with the Corse against anything i would expect it to be covered by the general news in Gallia at least. You could theorize something about radar jamming or whatnot- that also means though that you win and won't leave a single survivor anywhere, if at all possible.
But basically the only problem i see after your description is that the Gallic military will find out that the Colonials and the UC or the Council and the UC work toghether, right? And from what Summer sugggests, this sounds like the UC should try to "get away" a bit from the Council and a bit more from the Colonials for their own sake....
So i would point out that this triangle is a lot more solid(maybe not perfect which is arguable) than the dropped-into the discussion- Mollys - where you will get into problems of justifying why keeping badly thought out original lore or not healthyly evolved disco relation just for the sake of it- here you could dig out a lot of potential by looking at all relations and their feasibility...here a revamp could refreshen and vitalize things as well as improving the diplomacy sanity
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - blubba - 08-22-2013
I'd suggest that for the purposes of players trading or even trade factions, both parties have a reason to maintain it. Getting supplies from your allies enemies is nothing new and whilst it might cause 'some' concern, as long as all parties attempt to keep it quiet or at least not wave it in your face, I can't help but think it's really on the level.
Military action is however something entirely different. It's not something that can be easily explained/hidden.
From 'The supply ship was hauling badly needed medical supplies' to 'Yes it was us. We blew it up' have a hugely differing affect on your allies.
That kind of thing might happen once and people get yelled at/fired/shot. Happens twice and then things I would imagine would be a whole lot harder to get away with.
Diplomacy is very messed up and it has very little to do with vanilla lore, either way. It's definitely who you know in skype and not what your badge says.
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Rodnas - 08-23-2013
I agree with you, still i would love to have some more "clearly defined" rules or guidelines ...or basically the question simply is this:
Does the server have interest in improving this (at least to me) important part of rp and getting rid of old slack ...of course if 99% of the players simply say that they don't care if it makes that much sense what their factions do and how they behave, then the try is futile of course.
It boils down to check if people want to give up some "privileges" and safety in exchange for more inRPdrama, conflict and so on - which would help the server on the long run...then again, i could be completly wrong, too
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - Sarawr!? - 08-24-2013
You can't simply expect everyone in every faction to handle diplomacy/diplomatic relations in the same way, nor is it fair to try and look at something from the outside and go "Omg omg those guys are so bad at diplomacy", when you may or may not have the whole context of a given situation.
My opinion (and a common piece of advice I've given to many people I run into around here), is that if you want to make a change in the diplomatic affairs of any particular faction or group, you should JOIN that group, and work at it from the inside, and see how things are -really- handled, instead of trying to look at something from the outside, and pass judgement on it without knowing all the right information.
That's my two cents, may or may not be relevant to the entire point of this thread, but I think that it is, so there you have it.
RE: Critique: The disco diplomacy system - ProwlerPC - 08-24-2013
Diplomacy is tricky at best Pretty much a case by case scenario and most of the time not always apparent as to why. Some of the alliances or hostilities that has occured is based on a lie. For example GMG's hatred of Kruger is based on the popular belief (both sides of the border) that Kruger started The Eighty Year War. When even secret to most of Rheinland is the fact that it was Daumann that manipulated the war into starting.
Obvious diplomacy is certainly found everywhere, however, and can give the appearance of black and white. There's even seemingly complicated diplomacy that isn't so complicated after all (I've come to learn long ago that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an utter lie).
Oh, yeah GMG hires Reavers and knows Hogs have hired Reavers for their own things as well. They are just hired guns, if they were hired specifically to come at GMG we'd just engage those mercs with more money, something GMG has no shortage of XD.