https://ccnetmc.com/suggestions/view/2655-don039%3Bt-increase-dp/

Do you really want Smaller nations to get sucked into the cesspit which is Alliance vs Coalition?

I agree with Illyt. Is it wise for a small nation to immediately begin allying the existing large nations and dragging themselves into a war they do not understand?

If the problem is that large nations are attacking neutral small ones *because* of their neutrality, then that, I think, is the actual problem. That's certainly not behaviour I would like to encourage on CCNet, and I'd like to hear the logic behind that -- I don't think "they might join the other side" or "they're free occupation money" are particularly compelling reasons.

I think this could be rectified by not needing loyalties to defend new nations that have not allied with anyone and are new, the logic being defending said nation would come about either through RP or one faction would defend that nation to prevent the other faction from reaping the benefits.

This is a very ad-hoc measure and it's likely the system of diplomacy needs to be expanded. The problem is exactly how you think it Zaify.

It would be interesting if nations could choose their own character, that would allow them some leeway. For example, a 'neutral nation' would require more DP points to siege.

It makes brackets of sorts so big nations don’t seige you if you don’t make yourself a target compared to their enemies. Medium nations seige medium nations so the entire server isn’t in 2 alliances hopefully creating a third side eventually

raptor you sieging a random small nation in balkan literely destroys everything you just said (unless you count alchak as a global superpower)

I can understand your thought process illyt but in reality it's not very true

New nations are never interesting to the two main sides, this is because they contain unexperienced players that can offer nothing to their side thats worth the sacrifice of DP. If DP is increased, the big sides won't drag these small new nations into the war because it's simply not worth the DP. Speaking for myself, I'd rather tacticily siege someone with my spare DP, then ally nation X that has maybe 1 guy who has diamond prot 4 armor but WILL qd the moment they face any sort of good pvper.

The real problem gsouxi is mentioning is that new small nations that are created by players that already came from one of the two big sides are not possible to exist without becomming neutral.
At the moment if youre part of one of the two sides and you want to make a new nation you have two options
1. Make it and never participate in a big siege again, which cause your nation to not grow as much either (new players want to go to war and your nation cannot provide this) + you'll die out of boredom yourself eventually
2. Not make it, give up the exciting feeling you have when thinking of starting your own nation and just remaining where you stand

It's honestly an awful spot CCNet has put itself into where everyone is bassicly forced to choose between never figting in sieges and helping their friends anymore and giving up their dream of making their own nation

1. 48 hour sieges are not enjoyable with low numbers that arent active for a full day. It becomes banner camping for full session just like how it was in N1. Rarely you get interesting small scale sieges but those happen only when experienced players are on both sides. Specific other server that is active for a short time ford not face this issue because they have hundreds of players active mid war so each nation has a manpower equal to ccnet alliance. There is no reason to split sieges when they already lack activity

2. No one sieges small nations unless they did something or are annoying. If you are aggressive towards smaller nations they then take shelter within enemy alliance which can become a problem when you get outnumbered. If attacking small nations is the issue there can be other mechanics or rules preventing it

3. The non DP vassal system worked very well for helping people make their own nation while still giving benefits for everyone

Ccnet sure is shifting away from their old mentality of "free sandbox" and "if players want to make mega alliances and make the game boring let them"

Overall in my opinion the more people at the siege the better. I dont find it overcrowded yet

I don't think either of the prior comments have much merit. Not every siege should be and will be a huge 20+ v 20+. Moreover CCnet should not aspire to be a sandbox style of diplomacy but expand upon the current system.

And as for Blue, quite simply new nations ought to stay out of any conflict at all. They risk being pulled into the Alliance Vs Coalition wars, expanding or removing DP would essentially open them up to being easily sieged again.

I don't think therefore it's wrong to have DP points, I actually think you contradict yourself in your argument by claiming they aren't worth sieging (which is inherently good) but also claiming to expand DP points.

I also dont care about personal friendships, quite frankly they have led to incredibly stale gameplay and I'm all for zaify continuing to expand an ingame system.


I will admit DP points are slightly raw right now, there needs to be more features such as nation characters therefore allowing small nations that want to go to war easier chance to fight but also making it harder to siege nations that perhaps want to remain more friendly. I've already suggested something on this but will rewrite it soon.

The issue is not DP points are bad at all, but rather the system requires refining. Trying to expand the brackets, would simply just undermine their entire purpose .

A stop gap solution is to make defending newer nations diplomatically free.

I also think if your nation solely exists for PVP it's not really a nation.

Newer nations could also try settling on uncontested areas, i.e not Europe and not the siege riddled continents west where there isnt necessarily much space for the existing nations let alone new ones, but then again there isnt much space to avoid that and eventually 1 nation will siege u or u die of inactivity either because your existance blocks locations they want to settle or simply you annoyed them, maybe they have absolutely no reason they see you as dead and siege you to make some money till you get deleted anyway. Personally I believe too many people want to be nation leaders and have their own realms, which is the same issue with town bloating and start making nations with no clue in the diplomacy, the fort u need to make and maintain and the resources which arguably is too much for 99% of new people, not including server hoppers that start up nations with 10 competent people

Honestly, the argument against removing DP doesn't make sense to me. The defence that: "Small nation too small to get dragged into mega-alliance!!" is pretty dumb considering that when those small nations become powerful and want to join either side; they physically can't because of a lack of DP from mega-alliance members.

Now, if the goal of DP is to promote regional alliances or even a third side, I would understand that completely. Unfortunately, we the players have no way to know stuff like this. In the future, some player-staff transparency, or even a vote would be nice regarding additions like this. Especially considering the recent ghost nerf and re-buff to IFV's.

I honestly have only seen positive praise of DP from the alliance, the side directly benefiting from this feature. Now I understand giving them a crutch due to the whole Sahara situation, But they honestly have no right to speak on the issue due to the current size nation-wise of the alliance as they are facing zero adversity at the hands of the DP system. The alliance in its current form comprises 4 main nations: Rome, Floritania, Columbia, and ETM. Allying all four of these nations costs a total of 60 DP. All are under the base DP starting amount.

Now it goes without saying that the Coalition has many more nations under its umbrella. If you were only to ally with the active ones (Japan, Russia, OE, China, Imperio Lusitano, and Canada) you would need 90 diplomacy points! 20 over the base limit.

That plus the 9-day ally cooldown puts the nail in the coffin imo.

"Now, if the goal of DP is to promote regional alliances or even a third side, I would understand that completely."

You are absolutely correct in this assumption and profoundly incorrect in the other. Various proposals for improving diplomacy and reducing the systemic bipolarity present in the server have been formulated and discussed since August 2023, well before Sahara's duping was discovered.

These included:
- A hard alliance cap
- Alliance upkeep, potentially varying by the distance between the two allies
- Victoria 3-style regional "interests" system
- Bilateral nation relations that are affected by in-game actions, such as kills and maintaining embassy plots
- EU4-style "relation slots", which eventually evolved into the concept of DPs

Some of these proposals have been extensively discussed in the presence of leaders on both 'sides', so I will be disappointed if the narrative that these changes are explicitly intended to favour one side over the other has prevailed regardless. The actual goal is, as you suspect, "to promote regional alliances or even a third side".

All that says nothing about the merits (or demerits) of DPs, but it is vital to clarify why it was added before discussing how it can be changed.

Thank you for the response. I understand now more than ever anything I needed to know about DP. I still have one remaining gripe.

Going forward, would it be possible for you to announce the results of these proposals to the player base? It would alleviate the complaining and uncertainty that inherently comes with a new feature and it would provide insight and reasoning as to why a feature was added.

I believe that introducing this level of transparency with players will increase player trust in the staff team and prevent conspiracy theories on the same or even greater level than the one I typed up yesterday.

"Not every siege should be and will be a huge 20+ v 20+."

Sure they dont have to but on lower numbers its way more common for either side to not be able to push the banner or fight for a long time unless its a very well established nation



As for the limits in alliances, you will just get coalition1 and coalition2 vs alliance1 and alliance2. Ya can not just make people war eachother. The diplomacy is based on making friends, not on slots. It would work on slots if there is like 500 players active and not 100. There is far too few people for you to not have a deep connection with everyone relevant in a good or bad way

People currently just want to beat the people they dont like in a war. They dont give a f- about some digital currency or rewards especially when all of those rewards are not even close to time efficiency of regular money farming.

And greymesa you are just at the tip of the conspiracies of ccnet. Some are even spicy lmao. Most people keep them private in dms though so one can only know from their personal pov or from 2nd hand