make diplomacy mean something

Do you like this idea?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
at the moment the diplomacy aspect of the game
seems like nothing more then a backstab waiting to happen - which is unfortunate

so i put together an image of what could be added to the diplomacy screen
in the hopes that it will add a little more depth to diplomatic relations
by holding tribes to the deals they make

diplo screen1.png
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
Accept / Reject with notifications has been suggested before, and is therefore not in scope of this idea.

I am however interested in hearing opinions on the map color option and the terminate options.
 

Aretas

Well-Known Member
Anyone with a premium account can mark tribes/players whatever color they want on their map. Having leadership change enemies colors would likely just mess up people's maps as everyone usually uses different colors for everything. And if you can't trust a tribe to honor whatever agreement/cooldown you made with them, then why are you making diplo with them in the first place?
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
What about sending retakes etc on allies? Merging between accounts? Internals done by both tribes?
new conquers/members - would be exempt from the attack block for 24-48hrs from the time of conquer/joining
mergers between members could be cleared by leadership and become a more official part of the game
crossnobles would be exempt for 24-48hrs based of the noble planner if tribe holds diplomacy or sharing planner with you - since it lets you know

Internals/merge/recaps sadly would be affected by this, as nice as it may be.
didnt consider recaps - but might be able to be added as an option that can be toggled on and off by tribe leadership in the properties settings

Anyone with a premium account can mark tribes/players whatever color they want on their map. Having leadership change enemies colors would likely just mess up people's maps as everyone usually uses different colors for everything. And if you can't trust a tribe to honor whatever agreement/cooldown you made with them, then why are you making diplo with them in the first place?
i suggest that tribal highlights/diplomacy out-weigh personal highlights/allegiances so everyone is on the same page
players would still be able to set some of their own colors if the tribe/player is outside the tribes diplomacy

think everyone has had their fair share of being backstabbed especially by friendly tribes - hence why this suggestion was made
if someone makes a deal and both sides agree then both sides should be expected to honor it (not just when its convenient for themselves)

personally think ive been in more tribes that have been taken out by allies
then those that were taken out by enemies
 

Aretas

Well-Known Member
Having tribe highlights "out-weigh" personal highlights would be a terrible idea imo. Often times people like to highlight certain players or tribes specifically on their front. Having a tribal highlight that out rules a personal one would mean that players could no longer highlight individual players in tribes that you have diplomatic relations with, like enemies. Also why should someone personal map and map highlights be controlled by tribal leaders. If you want to know your tribes diplomatic relations, then check the diplomatic relations page in game for your tribe.
 

Americans

Well-Known Member
Thats the beauty of the game, that an alliance is only worth as much as both tribes decide to honor it.

Maybe you don't want to give it a 48h coldown since they have been supporting your enemy, or planning to betray you. Maybe you decided the pna is no longer beneficial to your tribe, maybe you were lyng the whole time and always planned to attack them. Thats what makes the game fun, a pact is a pact as long as both sides decided to comply.

if someone makes a deal and both sides agree then both sides should be expected to honor it (not just when its convenient for themselves)
Why? You don't get to decide what the other person wants to honor. And why shouldn't they cancel it when it's convenient for them only? If you make a deal is because you trust the other person, if you think you can get backstabbed maybe don't do it in the first place, or have safeguards so that doesn't happen.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Having tribe highlights "out-weigh" personal highlights would be a terrible idea imo. Often times people like to highlight certain players or tribes specifically on their front. Having a tribal highlight that out rules a personal one would mean that players could no longer highlight individual players in tribes that you have diplomatic relations with, like enemies. Also why should someone personal map and map highlights be controlled by tribal leaders. If you want to know your tribes diplomatic relations, then check the diplomatic relations page in game for your tribe.
in my personal opinion if your part of a tribe, then the tribe comes first
for example theres very few reasons to highlight specific players of a tribe marked as an enemy - unless setting up a Personal Alliance (PA)
that separation between player preference and tribe preference seems to cause alot of issues as the world progresses

Thats the beauty of the game, that an alliance is only worth as much as both tribes decide to honor it.

Maybe you don't want to give it a 48h coldown since they have been supporting your enemy, or planning to betray you. Maybe you decided the pna is no longer beneficial to your tribe, maybe you were lyng the whole time and always planned to attack them. Thats what makes the game fun, a pact is a pact as long as both sides decided to comply.

Why? You don't get to decide what the other person wants to honor. And why shouldn't they cancel it when it's convenient for them only? If you make a deal is because you trust the other person, if you think you can get backstabbed maybe don't do it in the first place, or have safeguards so that doesn't happen.
it basically comes down to how long players are willing to wait to attack tribes that used to be friendlies
1hr??? - 6hrs??? - 12hrs??? - 24hrs??? - 48hrs??
may i ask personally how long your willing to wait??

with the suggestion above you can still "terminate" diplomacy, you just wont be able to backstab diplomatic relations on a whim
if people enter into an agreement they should atleast keep to their word
if you dont intend to keep to your word to begin with, why would you make diplomatic agreements (only dishonorable actions come to mind)

ive got no issues about diplomacy being cancelled, just the way that its done - its currently lacking any integrity/honor in my mind
 

One Last Shot...

In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Team
I voted 'no' on the suggestion as it stands, although I do appreciate the desire which I am assuming is based on some negative diplomatic ingame experiences.

I have a number of problems with this setup (from a duke's point of view):

1. Map marking.
- Leaders in tribes often use different diplo settings to mark tribes on the map specifically for the tribe to see. This isn't necessarily anything to do with diplomacy. I've done this on every world I have played. Yes, players can also add their own colours onto the map, but that is an individual thing. A tribe-wide basis is something that I am strongly against impacting on - making other tribes aware that you are marking them on your map is dangerous.

2. Diplomacy pit-falls.
- This could be heavily abused. Here is my example based on what is proposed in the OP. Tribe A wants to ally Tribe B. They add them to the 'ally list' and it triggers a non-attack clause. Tribe B then launches on Tribe A, deliberately using that block to have 48 hours with no retaliation.
- Diplomacy can be set up for the long-term, and often is. However, things happen ingame that completely undermine it. Just because a tribe doesn't honour an agreed cool-down, doesn't mean that's a bad thing. It's a tactic. Whether you like that tactic or not (I don't personally) is irrelevant - it is part of the game.

3. Enforced cool-downs.
- Having a set 'period of time' for cool-downs removes a large part of diplomatic relationships. Some tribes prefer to have diplomacy with no cool-downs. Some prefer a week. Again, this is just limiting the human experience.

I personally feel that there is no value to adding this game. All it does is enforces 'trust'. This is a war game that should represent war from the time period it is based on. Old leaders and warriors were sneaky. Removing that option for the players who do enjoy playing like that seems unnecessary.

And all this is coming from someone who believes in honouring any agreement to the T. I accept that tribes I deal with may turn on tribes I lead at a moment's notice. It's part of the risk / reward element of diplomacy.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
I voted 'no' on the suggestion as it stands, although I do appreciate the desire which I am assuming is based on some negative diplomatic ingame experiences.

I have a number of problems with this setup (from a duke's point of view):

1. Map marking.
- Leaders in tribes often use different diplo settings to mark tribes on the map specifically for the tribe to see. This isn't necessarily anything to do with diplomacy. I've done this on every world I have played. Yes, players can also add their own colours onto the map, but that is an individual thing. A tribe-wide basis is something that I am strongly against impacting on - making other tribes aware that you are marking them on your map is dangerous.

2. Diplomacy pit-falls.
- This could be heavily abused. Here is my example based on what is proposed in the OP. Tribe A wants to ally Tribe B. They add them to the 'ally list' and it triggers a non-attack clause. Tribe B then launches on Tribe A, deliberately using that block to have 48 hours with no retaliation.
- Diplomacy can be set up for the long-term, and often is. However, things happen ingame that completely undermine it. Just because a tribe doesn't honour an agreed cool-down, doesn't mean that's a bad thing. It's a tactic. Whether you like that tactic or not (I don't personally) is irrelevant - it is part of the game.

3. Enforced cool-downs.
- Having a set 'period of time' for cool-downs removes a large part of diplomatic relationships. Some tribes prefer to have diplomacy with no cool-downs. Some prefer a week. Again, this is just limiting the human experience.

I personally feel that there is no value to adding this game. All it does is enforces 'trust'. This is a war game that should represent war from the time period it is based on. Old leaders and warriors were sneaky. Removing that option for the players who do enjoy playing like that seems unnecessary.

And all this is coming from someone who believes in honouring any agreement to the T. I accept that tribes I deal with may turn on tribes I lead at a moment's notice. It's part of the risk / reward element of diplomacy.
1. there is no map marking notification for enemies, so tribe wide marking is still possible

2. this would not be possible due to the accept/reject aspect of the suggestion
once a tribe accepts the diplomacy request, it would update both sides involved
while imposing the same cooldown/non-attack phase on both tribes
that way theres no one direction diplomacy

3. would it be better if the tribe diplomat could set the cooldown period instead of it being a fixed duration??
left a column in the middle (initially for adding border agreements) that could be used to set the duration of the cooldown period
along with a count-down timer

personally dont think diplomacy can work ingame as it did in medieval times
due to a few factors on how it was carried out
theres no signing of treaties - just someones word
theres no physical terms - territory, people, assets, trade or any real bargaining
theres nothing but 2-4players talking in a room

the only paths are
trust the person is being straight up and doing what they say - nothing binding in game
or
intimidation through size to get a desired result, starting a war if what is desired aint done

diplomacy already seems to mean nothing as it stands now
personally just trying to add in something to make it more tangible and mean something
and with some fine tuning of the suggestion i believe we could get there

but looking at the current votes (and since votes cant be changed)
the suggestion will probably fail to meet the quota and wont be able to be suggested in the future
ideas for improvement only seems to allow a single suggestion for any idea (auto-rejected if suggested before)

so i simply ask that people dont vote hastily based of the exact wording of the original idea
but instead on the concept/ideal which is to make diplomacy mean something
and put fourth suggestions to improve the idea as a whole so it suits everyone
 

One Last Shot...

In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Team
Tribe wide map marking usually relies on multiple colours. The 'enemy's option, particularly in early game, isn't enough.

You are also leaving tribes wide open to be abused and forced to disband. Get a spy onto a leadership account in a tribe and use them to set up diplomacy to create an attacking block. Tribes would disband and players would quit if this happened midway though an op as it would kill all fun in the game.

This just is an idea that has spawned from what seems like a sad ingame experience. And it feels like it hasn't been thought through in any meaningful way.


Diplomacy means something if you do it right, with the right partners. All of those things you suggested, players can already put into completely personalized agreements.

All this idea is going to do is stop players changing their minds or having freedom to make their own decisions.
 

chanevr

Non-stop Poster
The backstabbing is part of the game. I was told that for many years... so I say... its part of the game live with it.

The kind of profiles that backstab are usually the co-owned ones... that have this ….wasn't me, it was him …. defence when the backstabbing happens.

To many complications with not being able to attack allies and tribe members. Recaps are an important part of the game and merging profiles is as inevitable as starting.

For that reason.... live with it.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
The backstabbing is part of the game. I was told that for many years... so I say... its part of the game live with it.

The kind of profiles that backstab are usually the co-owned ones... that have this ….wasn't me, it was him …. defence when the backstabbing happens.

To many complications with not being able to attack allies and tribe members. Recaps are an important part of the game and merging profiles is as inevitable as starting.

For that reason.... live with it.
if we all kept to the idea of "live with it" then this game wouldnt evolve much (and in my opinion things that dont evolve die)
and we wouldnt have some of the features that players take for granted these days
pp exchange wouldnt exist, trains would be sent manually, no daily bonus, alot less items, etc.... the list goes on

i also find that those that say backstabbing "is part of the game", "deal with it" or "it has been around since day dot"
are usually the players more inclined to do the backstabbing in general - which does make these sorts of suggestions difficult to get through
pretty much the same if people mention pp or coplayer improvements but thats beside the point

now since people seem good at shooting down suggestions without making a suggestion to improve the idea to a point that suits everyone (including themselves) im going to repeat myself

ideas for improvement only seems to allow a single suggestion for any idea (auto-rejected if suggested before)

so i simply ask that people dont vote hastily based of the exact wording of the original idea
but instead on the concept/ideal which is to make diplomacy mean something
and put fourth suggestions to improve the idea as a whole so it suits everyone
so again i ask that people atleast attempt to alter/improve the idea
*what aspects do you like??
*what aspects dont you like??
*what can be changed to improve idea??
*and most importantly why you have come to such decisions??
 

One Last Shot...

In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Team
I'll answer your questions one more time, just to make it clear where I stand as I feel you are only choosing to listen to the messages you want to listen to :)

What aspects do you like?
- I genuinely dislike every part of the suggestion. It will massively hinder and limit game play in lots of ways, directly and indirectly.

What aspects don't you like?
- Attack block.
- Fixed 'cooldown periods'
- Tribes being notified of you setting up or terminating ally / NAP markings
- Setting enemy tribes to different colours

What can be changed to improve the idea?
- I just think this is a really poorly thought through idea that will only serve to damage the game.

Okay, so now I will explain my reasoning for each comment made.

Attack block
There are times when being able to send attacks at an ally or NAP is useful, without breaking an agreement.
-Timing a recap to keep the village within your alliance.
-Timing a nuke to kill an enemy escort as it takes a village.
Your suggestion blocks this level of teamwork. Yes, their tribemates could do the same. But every circumstance is different and so you would be putting a complete block on a way of 2 tribes working most effectively together.

Fixed cooldown periods
This could be easily abused.
-One tribe could agree to diplomacy purely to get some time to 'rebuild' and cancel it so that it ends just as they want to open fire with an op. The other tribe has no way of countering it by launching as soon as they are ready should they find this out.
-Players could join a tribe with this agreement in place purely for a window of protection. It may actually result in encouraging disloyalty.
-Players can just disband and reform, or leave a tribe and set up a new one, to turn against diplomacy unexpectedly. It will again encourage players and tribes to not remain stable.

Notifications of diplomacy changes / setting enemy tribes to different colours
Map markings are useful.
-The 3 colours are important as players make specific connections with them without impacting too much on their own player maps.
-Most tribes I have played in use diplomacy to mark key tribes on the map without it being linked in any way to diplomacy, at different points in the game.
-Diplomacy is built on trust. Notifications letting tribes know what you are doing removes that element, which can be a really valuable tool.
-Tribes who may not be paying you much attention would be alerted if you set them as an ally or NAP to mark their position on the map for your full tribe.

You are asking for suggestions to improve or alter your suggestion. I just think it's a really poorly thought through idea. We have a saying in my country - there's no point in polishing a turd. That just means, there are somethings that just won't work.

Sorry :(
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
I'll answer your questions one more time, just to make it clear where I stand as I feel you are only choosing to listen to the messages you want to listen to :)
you have been giving great responses giving reasons and information that i take as constructive criticism
which is overall good for the idea (even though you disagree with basically all of it)
since it gives a place to start and information on how aspects could go about being fixed
to make the idea more acceptable and more functional with current play styles

was more directing those questions towards the other people commenting
that dont help build upon an idea (even if its just pointing out the flaws - that atleast helps)
if you look at some of the replies - they dont contribute much to the discussion