snowy2 Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) This post is an attempt to shed some light on what would happen if we were to attempt to mix up the alliances up using the current voting mechanics, and to show that it is essentially impossible to switch nations between the current alliance blocks. Spoiler alert: After 4 weeks of everybody working together to switch the Danes and the US between the alliances, both of those nations could be without any allies at all. First, some notes required to understand the tables: Read down the columns. I.e., the first column shows what GB would see in the politics tab. (This is the opposite to the in-game politics grid... sorry) A = alliance, W = War, E = Enemy (one way war vote), N=Neutral (no war votes in either direction) Votes expire after 3 weeks A: 20D = Alliance, expiring in 20 days Green cell = voting is active in that round The tables are shown for the day after the most recent vote Let's please keep the discussion about the mechanics, not National News style stories about betrayal, etc... Scenario 1: Keep the current alliances. Notes: Nothing unusual happens. It's a three stage cycle. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D W: 20D A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D US A: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D W: 20D W: 6D SWEDEN E E A: 13D A: 20D E A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D A: 20D W: 13D A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D US A: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 20D SWEDEN E E A: 6D A: 13D E A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D W: 20D A 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 (Same as Cycle 1 – CYCLE IS COMPLETE) GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France Scenario 2: Denmark and the US try to switch alliances EDIT: Cycle 2 may very well have an error, since it's really not clear which alliance VP would drop if the US voted for war with GB in cycle 1. Notes: These cycles assume that the Danes and the US try to switch alliances. It's extremely complicated. In the first round Spain can only vote about the US and France, both of whom they now want to ally. In these situations, I assume Spain will vote to keep the French allied, before voting to bring in the US. It's EVEN MORE complicated, because the cycle 1 alliance votes are blocked by being at war with the ally of your enemy... During cycle 3, the US is not allied with any nation. During cycle 4, both the Danes and the US are not allied with any nation. It takes more than a month to get the new alliance blocks, and they are probably not stable even after that. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US. Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D N A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D E A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D N A: 6D W: 13D W: 20D A: 13D US E A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D N W: 6D SWEDEN E W: 20D A: 13D W: 20D N A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D N W: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D N E A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK E N N W: 6D W: 13D A: 6D US W: 20D E W: 13D W: 20D N W: 20D SWEDEN E W: 13D A: 6D W: 13D N A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D E A: 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark. ALONE: US 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D N W: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D N W: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D W: 20D E A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK N N E W: 20D W: 6D N US W: 13D E W: 6D W: 13D N W: 13D SWEDEN W: 20D W: 6D A: 20D W: 6D N A: 13D FRANCE E W: 20D A: 6D N E A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France. ALONE: US. ALONE: Denmark In summary: After 4 weeks of trying to switch the US with the Danes the switch is still not complete, and both the US and Denmark could have no allies. Edited February 16, 2017 by snowy2 7
The Spud Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 First I have to congratulate you with the effort you have put into this. I fail to see what you are trying to achieve here. Are you trying to say we shouldn't attempt to mix alliances up cause it will end bad for one or two nations, or that the alliance system works too slow to put changes in the field (Denmark and US desperatly want to "switch" places) into full effect in a reasonable timeframe so we have to change the system? 2
snowy2 Posted February 16, 2017 Author Posted February 16, 2017 1 minute ago, The Spud said: First I have to congratulate you with the effort you have put into this. I fail to see what you are trying to achieve here. Are you trying to say we shouldn't attempt to mix alliances up cause it will end bad for one or two nations, or that the alliance system works too slow to put changes in the field (Denmark and US desperatly want to "switch" places) into full effect in a reasonable timeframe so we have to change the system? It's really a criticism of the system. I don't think it's feasible to have a system that requires every nation to coordinate perfectly for months to get the desired result. It would be hard enough to get GB players to coordinate for even one cycle. If we wanted new 'stable' alliances, it would require the devs to step in every time we want a change, in the current system. 1
The Spud Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, snowy2 said: It's really a criticism of the system. I don't think it's feasible to have a system that requires every nation to coordinate perfectly for months to get the desired result. It would be hard enough to get GB players to coordinate for even one cycle. If we wanted new 'stable' alliances, it would require the devs to step in every time we want a change, in the current system. Allright, I understand. But as alliances have been prety much the same, aside from sweden switching, its probably easier to have a system that makes it easier for a existing alliance to maintain itself, instead of having a system that needs to be maintained regularly by player votes to keep it up. Now one might say, there is not allot of switching as its impossible to switch with this system, but we all know (at least on PvP1) that there is no big demand for switching the alliances up. IRL it would probabl only take one incident and a penstripe to start a war with a nation, but with so many players with different opinions in this game its better to have a stable system that can't easily be affected by "trolls" or just rogue clans/players who just want to destablise an alliance. So thats probably why its so tough to mix things up. They might be better off resetting alliances every 1st of the month for all nations, and then have a new voting round, so mutualy agreed switches by all nations can be coordinated and done in one go. Its a valid argument, but its probably better to troll proof everything in this game.
fox2run Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 So in you eyes a democratic vote on another alliance is trolling?
The Spud Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 13 hours ago, fox2run said: So in you eyes a democratic vote on another alliance is trolling? I'm certainly not saying its trolling if it is genuine interest, i'm saying if the system is "unstable" (as in, a small amount of votes can have a big influence on the alliances) its a system that may be victim to people intentionaly breaking up an alliance for their own convenience and not that of the nations. (Like Brits would use alts and stuff to break up alliance between DN and France for example, cause it suits their conquest goals). OP is saying the current mechanic is too slow and changes can not be put trough even with nation wide effort, which is good against the above problem, but should probably still be tuned down a bit to allow national effort to show results on shorter notice.
fox2run Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 I think we should have a lot more wars and shifting alliances going on to make a more living game. I remember Sid Meiers Pirates where wars where just coming to you from Europe. Then it was up to you to make the best from it. Every new week we should have a new diplomatic situation. I'm plain tired of this locked scenario where nothing is changed. And where a few leading clans coordinate their votes.
The Spud Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 21 minutes ago, fox2run said: I think we should have a lot more wars and shifting alliances going on to make a more living game. I remember Sid Meiers Pirates where wars where just coming to you from Europe. Then it was up to you to make the best from it. Every new week we should have a new diplomatic situation. I'm plain tired of this locked scenario where nothing is changed. And where a few leading clans coordinate their votes. The problem is that, especialy with this low amount of players, that all allies know eacother so wel and do so much stuff together that splitting up alliances atm would be like splitting up a nation, its like a bunch of friends, you can't force em to fight eachother. I agree that it gets a bit monotone to fight the same enemies over the same ports etc... but it would probably frustrate people to be forced to work together and share stuff with someone they have been fighting (and maybe hating) for nearly a year. I honestly don't see a realy good solution to any of these problems. Would be better to have an additional goal for nations in this game instead of one porting your enemy, maybe use victory point of some sorts and keep a score. Like capping regions etc give you points, PvP kills give points, etc... so if stuff isn't working in the PB part of the game you can go out and sink enemies in PvP and still have it count towards RvR. Could counts countries individualy, so it could create a bit of tention and competition amongst allies. 1
fox2run Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 We are trying things out and making a game here. Not being kind to TS friendships. Go drink a beer with your friends. But please keep things apart. We need a living game not a closed club for old teamspeakers. 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now