too many nations?

[van Veen]

53 minutes ago, admin said:

Merging nations into alliances were tried and the problem remained - there will be 1-2 large alliances and one weak alliances. Players tend to unite and gang up on the weak.

The problem was that it was almost impossible to back out of an alliance again. The reason for this was (in part) one vote per character meant that hardcore players with most alts overrule the majority of players. But even if alts were excluded (which is impossible imho), most people tend to maintain the status quo, even if this means eternal warfare. The system should have been improved, not dropped altogether. Several solutions were proposed in the past (from memory; too lazy to search for the posts, sorry).

1) Admin server setting decides about war/peace/alliance. Random events possible. Players would need to adapt to every new constellation. Requires sensible server admin respected by the whole community. 

2) AI nation leader decides. Player actions influence nation's attitudes. Nation leaders have different traits, some go to war quickly, some prefer trading. Players choose nation that suits their own playstyle. Requires a good deal of coding. 

3) Player defined as implemented before, but with cooldown timers (2 weeks maybe?) for any given state except for neutral. This way, converging to 2 big alliances would mean 2 weeks of total war, 2 weeks of total peace. Some for sure will get bored during peace time, so very soon, one nation will break out of a 2 alliance lock up.

While I personally would go for option 1) as a start while working on option 2), option 3) is only a minor improvement of the system we already had and it would make locked alliances impossible. Which does not mean that nations could have their favorite enemy, but they could not gank one nation without giving them a break. 

[AeRoTR]

51 minutes ago, admin said:

Yet when starting to write the coalition compositions they all break down because we KNOW many players will want to sail under their historical flag AND will not want to be in a coalition with a forced country

Some of the problems can be solved by adding fame system into the game, a loyality system. 

[Sella]

1 hour ago, admin said:

To sum up.
If the desire and benefits to create larger blocks will overcome everything else 

The potential solution in the future will be to have 3 Coalitions.

Yet when starting to write the coalition compositions they all break down because we KNOW many players will want to sail under their historical flag AND will not want to be in a coalition with a forced country

Example
USA/France/Spain/Portugal?
Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Poland?
Prussia/Austria/Russia/Dutch?
Britain +?
Barbary coast/Turkey/Venice?
East India Coalition (Qing Dynasty, Japan, Mogols,?)
Pirates

We are still ending up with 5-6 blocks anyway, and if we go above 3 it becomes irrelevant how many we have.

Personally i would love to have an extremely big variety of nations, even if they aren't big RvR players in the map. If they can capture at least one port and hold it, that's great but even if they can't, they can exist as privateer or merchant nations working out of free ports. 

Those small nations should or could be formed by 1-2 or 3 clans at max. A hard limit of 3 clans per small nation. We will need some benchmarks though, that the clans will need to reach after an X amount of time to make sure that they are not holding that clan/nation spot even if they go inactive. Also new players shouldn't be allowed to create a new character or stay in that impossible nation if they havent proved that they can survive in the impossible environment by, for example, completing the tutorial. 

Big nations like USA/France/Spain/Britain/Dutch etc shouldn't have a hard cap on clans to represent their role in the area and to be new player friendly.

Lastly, i know that Asia is or will become a big chunk of the market after the localisation but an east asia coalition faction will really feel out of place for me.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sella22

[HachiRoku]

4 hours ago, admin said:

why Christiansted exists in the Virgin islands

Since I joined Danish nation the virgin islands are simply known as The Islands. 

[Sven Silberbart]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

The weak nations can not be helped in the current game without some sort of alliances.

When a nation dies, NA dies also a bit. Many players just give up.

Thats bad for the game and its communities.

If you are really worried about pvp, potential targets, online population... then @admin , you should do something.

+ 1.. absolutely true

 

 

1 hour ago, van Veen said:

The problem was that it was almost impossible to back out of an alliance again. The reason for this was (in part) one vote per character meant that hardcore players with most alts overrule the majority of players. But even if alts were excluded (which is impossible imho), most people tend to maintain the status quo, even if this means eternal warfare. The system should have been improved, not dropped altogether. Several solutions were proposed in the past (from memory; too lazy to search for the posts, sorry).

1) Admin server setting decides about war/peace/alliance. Random events possible. Players would need to adapt to every new constellation. Requires sensible server admin respected by the whole community. 

2) AI nation leader decides. Player actions influence nation's attitudes. Nation leaders have different traits, some go to war quickly, some prefer trading. Players choose nation that suits their own playstyle. Requires a good deal of coding. 

3) Player defined as implemented before, but with cooldown timers (2 weeks maybe?) for any given state except for neutral. This way, converging to 2 big alliances would mean 2 weeks of total war, 2 weeks of total peace. Some for sure will get bored during peace time, so very soon, one nation will break out of a 2 alliance lock up.

While I personally would go for option 1) as a start while working on option 2), option 3) is only a minor improvement of the system we already had and it would make locked alliances impossible. Which does not mean that nations could have their favorite enemy, but they could not gank one nation without giving them a break. 

" The system should have been improved, not dropped altogether" .. thats it!

I am sure there are much potential in alliance system and the 2-big Blogs "problem" could be solved. With an alliance system, the players in the low pop nations would be able to participate in RvR again. Friendly clan list should be opened for allys, too.

[Celtiberofrog]

13 hours ago, admin said:

Those pesky invaders
You should file a complaint with the Admiralty or the house of lords. As a lord you already knew importance of colonies, so as other nations are slowly recognizing that. If you do not like other nations sending fleets to take your colonies you should maybe declare war on them? 

There are no unhistorical nations there are just unhistorical wars. Which COULD happen. We are not going to change the number of nations and the number of nations (impossible) will not go down and might tend to go up. I have heard Qing Dynasty roleplayers are extremely eager to take revenge on the GB under the dragon flag.

Hello there,

I'm amazed to see that early access NAVAL ACTION is in fact a game project which is in constant mutation since 2015.

Players who purchased that game were interested by the overall "historical" theater (and incredible graphism).

Those players, like me, are speechless when seeing what NA is going to become with multiple absurbs nations and possibility to add China...

I approve Dev's intention to embrass as many as possible World players but then I think this intention, to create many unhistorical nations, should have been announced from the begining of EA release.

I have bought a game setting that has drasticaly changed in term of "theater" perspective, today what I'm gonna end up with is a Fiction game with nice historical ships...  

Sorry to say that I feel Dev's cheated on me.

What would feel players who bought "Verdun" early access if their dev's decide to add Zulu warriors in trench warfare ?!!!

[Njord]

2 hours ago, admin said:

To sum up.
If the desire and benefits to create larger blocks will overcome everything else 

The potential solution in the future will be to have 3 Coalitions.

Yet when starting to write the coalition compositions they all break down because we KNOW many players will want to sail under their historical flag AND will not want to be in a coalition with a forced country

Example
USA/France/Spain/Portugal?
Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Poland?
Prussia/Austria/Russia/Dutch?
Britain +?
Barbary coast/Turkey/Venice?
East India Coalition (Qing Dynasty, Japan, Mogols,?)
Pirates

We are still ending up with 5-6 blocks anyway, and if we go above 3 it becomes irrelevant how many we have.

I agree with @Sella22, the more nations the better. Maybe we get enough players some day to actually add more parts of the world to the map, like the west coast. The more freedom and diversity in a mmo, the better it is. I agree with you in that having only 3-4 nations would not be very interesting and also limit PvP and RvR targets a lot. The more factions there are, the more conflicts are possible. Sandbox mmo game means the players can decide how the world takes shape, not the history books.

GB already has the advantage with most players and their base in the center of the map with Jamaica, give a bonus to Spain that gives their capital some of the best trade routes and it will be historically accurate enough. GB will have most players and Spain most $$$.

Every discussion about historical accuracy is pointless anyways as long as we have disney pirates... if anything has to change about nations, pirates will have to become actually hardcore first and we can start any further historical argumentations from there.

Best for the game would be to leave nations as they are now, maybe add Portugal.

[Sven Silberbart]

28 minutes ago, Borch said:

So, we are going back to alliances that caused crazy long server stagnation and players hate?

 

No. An improved one is needed wich solves the problems of the last.

AND I know much players who want it back. Just remember a few who hates it. But - as i said - it needs to be implemented in a well designed way, not as before.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sven Silberbart

[Stilgar]

IMHO the number of nations is about right. Choice for players/clans is now good and it is tricky to make and keep mega alliances / mega-powers. I would just deprive both SWE and DEN of their capitals safe zones, and make them hardcore. Pirates is a separate sad story ... so, I will not start that discussion here. 

What create dis-balance atm is low population (ofc) and also disproportionally high BR levels for ports. It is tricky for many nations, let alone clans, to assemble coherent PB fleets. So, with current level of population and number of nations, I would suggest to scale port BR down by 30% or so. (maybe in next patch already :))

With this said, in a short run I hope to see smth like this:

5 major nations: (BRI, FRA, NL, US, SPA).

Attributes: capital (region), safe zone, each player get a (reasonable) weakly salary (redeemable reals, until certain rank?), bonuses to tax income from ports and improved prices for goods (which would allow for faster generation of wealth/resources/ships etc). Good for beginners, casual players, lazy bastards, and multi-account dudes.

??? minor nations (SWE, DEN, RUS, POL, PRU, ???)

Attributes: no capital (region), no safety zone, no salary, no bonuses to taxes from controlled ports (just standard tax rates). Otherwise similar to main nation gameplay. Good for experienced / adventurous players.

Pirates:

Attributes: no capital region, no safety zone, cannot build and sail SOL's, but have access to unique perks, rewards, and (perhaps) ship yard allow ship modification (like changing planking, paints, etc). For hardcore players. (NB Playing pirates is one of the appeal of the game and if it is too hard core it would put off beginners. Maybe 2 pirate nations? Fantasy Pirate nation and hardcore pirates?)

The intrigue would be for major nations to strive for greatness/domination, but they would have to rely on alliance / symbiosis with minor nations. 

 

 

 

[admin]

21 minutes ago, Celtiberofrog said:

 

Players who purchased that game were interested by the overall "historical" theater (and incredible graphism).

Those players, like me, are speechless when seeing what NA is going to become with multiple absurbs nations and possibility to add China...

 

First version of the game did not even have nations and it was planned to be this way initially.


Steam page does not contain any lists of nations just like the steam green light page.
The website mentions nations that were initially planned but the website has not been updated for like 3 years and still lists 10 ships existing in game.

We already stated that will add or remove nations as we see fit to improve gameplay for all players - which on the PVP server means one thing = we must bring more targets.
Historical considerations will always be taken into account but posters who claim nations like Kingdom of Prussia are absurd and non historical will never be taken seriously.

[van Veen]

3 minutes ago, Borch said:

1. Everybody decides that Admin pick sides he likes. This is indeed a risk. Read my post: Requires sensible server admin respected by the whole community. One person, a single point of failure. But it could work if you have the right person. 

2. AI is not working and players dont like that some program decide about how to play. It works in a lot of games out there, why not here? There [might be are for sure] some megalomaniacs mistaking themselves as king of a whole nation, but I am convinced this is a negligible minority. Requires a good deal of coding and testing, but it is possible to come to a good solution. Player actions should influence nation's attitudes. This includes player actions that might lead to a declaration of war by the AI.

Add-on: connect this with a reputation system. So, yea, you can attack anyone you like, but be sure your reputation goes down. Might lead to a declaration of war and have you be declared a pirate by your own nation, all your assets confiscated and rank removed. Throw in some aggressive AI and see where you end up. What a great game this would be! Start a war and become a pirate by capturing the treasure fleet of a friendly nation  Some nation leaders might love you for this, some more honorable ones might declare you a pirate as well. Eventually, you will find the nation that suits your playstyle. 

3. Repeat from what we had. Most of the time after peace time players would choose alliance with the same nation as before. Boredom doesnt matter. We hate "Them" matters more and we can help "Our" guys even without alliance set. After war comes peace and you cannot attack a nation you are at peace with. So you get bored and chose a new target. I think it is as simple as that. At least it could work. Since it's easy to implement starting from the previous system, I would give it a go. But I understand your concern and agree that a voting system in which griefers and their alts have a say cannot be trusted. That's why I'd go for option 1) and then work on 2).  

 

[Njord]

3 hours ago, admin said:

Qing Dynasty Question
If china is added and allowed

Could be a DLC expansion, that makes the US west coast available and maybe even asian ship types that can only be built on the west coast. Just needs a free town on the west coast, where the asian hardcore nations start from. Could be two completely separate maps or connected. Traders used to sail all across the world and oceans to maximize profits, after all...

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Borch said:

But how? I dont see any viable way to do it without causing server stagnation and increasing hate between certain factions. At some point the game would implode because of this issues.

The only way it could probably work is alliance between clans, but then again you would have problems with players not being in alliance and not helping you or even working against you.

alliances were removed for 2 reasons
they reduced number of targets
they remove the political component (complex political discussions, agreements, betrayals were replaced by a button)

We do not see how alliances can come back

[Sella]

Btw @admin, you shouldn't add nations based entirely on sales specifically from those countries. A lot of Brits don't want to play in GB and a lot of Germans don't want to play for Prussia etc..

More nations are always welcome for me

[van Veen]

2 minutes ago, admin said:

alliances were removed for 2 reasons
they reduced number of targets
they remove the political component (complex political discussions, agreements, betrayals were replaced by a button)

We do not see how alliances can come back

The number of targets is not a quality indicator in my point of view. 

What you describe as "political component" is not a game feature, but a lack thereof. It's offline meta gaming that will take place anyway, whatever the game has to offer. 

Please, read my post above. There are ways how to make alliances come back. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

Since I joined Danish nation the virgin islands are simply known as The Islands. 

lol ok, this made me laugh..

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, admin said:

We already stated that will add or remove nations as we see fit to improve gameplay for all players - which on the PVP server means one thing = we must bring more targets.
Historical considerations will always be taken into account but posters who claim nations like Kingdom of Prussia are absurd and non historical will never be taken seriously.

The problem with a game, that exclaims to be "set in the age of sails" is that ppl expect the age of sails. With a historical setting. Why else would you chose the carribean as the map? - the reason is abundantly clear: because that is the theatre that promotes the most vivid imaginations of the age of sail - regardless of the fact that it is one of the worst areas in the world in a gameplay perspective. To state that statements that goes contrary to your policy of developing solely for the markets and forget about the historical setting, will not be taken seriously is rather absurd. To add ahistorical nations is to drive players that are enticed by the historical setting away - this game is a niche game that primarily caters to the historically minded players - all of them will to some degree expect a historical background and it is becoming harder and harder to take this entire project serious. To add China would basically be to throw the entire project overboard simply because even the chinese playerbase would have some predetermined expectations about the age of sails in the carribean - and it is not to find chines factions or countries that has historically ceased to exist three times.

[LeBoiteux]

hoping aliens won't land and buy the game before release

otherwise get ready for flying saucers in NA

[Marquês do Bonfim]

The game went into a direction which is fast paced-pvp gameplay where players go online, equip a ship, go out hunting and instantly attacks someone, win or lose a ship, dock it and repeat, and it has being like that for a very long time. The game first started as a team deathmatch server and players probably still has that mentality even tho the whole theater was changed into an open world, player economy driven MMO game, and for that, the whole team deathmatch mentality should've been dropped by the community and backed by the developers to finally change the dynamics in-game, and it never did.

A nation is not a nation, because most of the times, clans are the only force inside a nation that can write in stones how that nation will act according to their own agenda. Diplomacy was flawed because of that, because clans dictated which alliances were made and which alliances were not.

The only reason players are fullfilling these small nations are because; 1) They don't like a clan or someone from a core-nation (that being GB, Spain, France and Dutch. 2) They are lone hunters that usually only play pvp because they can't do anything else besides that. And 3) They wanna be pirates, act like pirates and do piracy without being in the Pirates nation because, again, they hate the clans that are currently a huge force inside that nation.

 

Saying that merging nations together would lower the 'potential targets' in the open world is just stupid. The only difference that this will make and the impact it will have in the game is; the targets will usually be from a core-nation and not a small one. The only difference you'll see is that it will be a spanish ship, french ship, british ship, dutch ship~ instead of it being a russian, pole, dane, swede or whatever. Sure there will be players leaving the game, that will actually filter a lot of toxic and good players, but that is only because this should've been that way from the get go and doing it now will be a little bit late. But better late than never.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Portuguese Privateer

[admin]

13 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

The problem with a game, that exclaims to be "set in the age of sails" is that ppl expect the age of sails. With a historical setting. Why else would you chose the carribean as the map? - the reason is abundantly clear: because that is the theatre that promotes the most vivid imaginations of the age of sail - regardless of the fact that it is one of the worst areas in the world in a gameplay perspective. To state that statements that goes contrary to your policy of developing solely for the markets and forget about the historical setting, will not be taken seriously is rather absurd. To add ahistorical nations is to drive players that are enticed by the historical setting away - this game is a niche game that primarily caters to the historically minded players - all of them will to some degree expect a historical background and it is becoming harder and harder to take this entire project serious. To add China would basically be to throw the entire project overboard simply because even the chinese playerbase would have some predetermined expectations about the age of sails in the carribean - and it is not to find chines factions or countries that has historically ceased to exist three times.

I suggest you to not jump to conclusions with other nations and focus on nations that exist in game focusing on the topic discussed (too many nations = reduce nations).

Caribbean is just another theater of war. And players come there for different reasons. British players come to rule the waves, German players come to change history and claim all those colonies for themselves. This is what the game is for. Your opinion on Prussia in the Caribbean is irrelevant to players who join Prussia to face the impossible. You are just proposing to cut their gameplay away from them. We are not going to do that.

 

[admin]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

Right now so many nations are diluting the playerbase so much that the quality of the gameplay is not better than before.

We do not see the dilution

People join the nation they like, but the majority still picks traditional nations (like SWEDEN ;)) .

And in terms of the buyers - here are the top 10 countries, ranked by sales, who are buying the game after custom localization file has been added

The two puzzling facts

• Poland buying more copies than UK
• US should be the most numerous nation but it is not.

[Sir Texas Sir]

4 hours ago, admin said:

To sum up.
If the desire and benefits to create larger blocks will overcome everything else 

The potential solution in the future will be to have 3 Coalitions.

Yet when starting to write the coalition compositions they all break down because we KNOW many players will want to sail under their historical flag AND will not want to be in a coalition with a forced country

Example
USA/France/Spain/Portugal?
Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Poland?
Prussia/Austria/Russia/Dutch?
Britain +?
Barbary coast/Turkey/Venice?
East India Coalition (Qing Dynasty, Japan, Mogols,?)
Pirates

We are still ending up with 5-6 blocks anyway, and if we go above 3 it becomes irrelevant how many we have.

I liked the fact you had more than three nations (not counting pirates) in this game, but the problem is we have 11 nations now.  Folks aren't asking to go to three nations.  We are asking to tone down the nations so we don't have so many, specially when some nations are pretty much empty why keep them around.  Also three of those nations was not historical and ya'll pride yourself on that very much.  At list US was a nation and that was a smart move cause 50% of your sales comes from that region right, but why aren't you keeping the players?  You never ask us or try to find out why they leave and don't play long. I got a long list as I'm sure many others do to why.  

Stick to a core nations and if you want to add any extras flags add them to Privateers.

Core Nations:  Dutch, France, GB/US (Merg with both flags as US was a colony for the most part of the time line), Spain

Pirates:  Give them the three extra nations (thought it was all to test for pirates any way.)  Make them hard core nation.  Make Mort Netural all can use.  Pirates can capture ports but don't have a capital zones of there own.

Privateers:  Russian, Prussian, Poland, Swede, Danes any of the above nations that didn't have an influence in these area that might put flag DLC in game for.   They have no capital, they can't capture ports.  They live out of free ports.   They are privateers hunting the OW for PvP.

That is 6 nations....almost half what we have now to give folks variety and a mix but keeping a good amount of targets.  

 

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

You can introduce factions inside nations. Factions are part of the core nations but have their own flag.

Example:

Nation: Great Britain       Faction inside GB: Portugal

Nation: Pirates         Faction inside Pirates: Barbary States

Nation: Spain       Faction inside Spain: Reign of Sicily and Naples

This is why I mention merging US/GB, you can use which flags you want if you want to play a US than use US flags not the GB ones.  They where for most of the history of this game a GB Colony after all.  This is why I also mention making a Privateer faction and put all the odd nations (russian, poland, Prussian, Swede, Dans etc) in them but limit them to not owning ports and playing out of free towns.  They will become an OW PvP nation not an RvR one.  Than have the pirates for the outlaws with the same rules the extra nations had.

1 hour ago, Stilgar said:

IMHO the number of nations is about right. Choice for players/clans is now good and it is tricky to make and keep mega alliances / mega-powers. I would just deprive both SWE and DEN of their capitals safe zones, and make them hardcore. Pirates is a separate sad story ... so, I will not start that discussion here. 

What create dis-balance atm is low population (ofc) and also disproportionally high BR levels for ports. It is tricky for many nations, let alone clans, to assemble coherent PB fleets. So, with current level of population and number of nations, I would suggest to scale port BR down by 30% or so. (maybe in next patch already :))

With this said, in a short run I hope to see smth like this:

5 major nations: (BRI, FRA, NL, US, SPA).

Attributes: capital (region), safe zone, each player get a (reasonable) weakly salary (redeemable reals, until certain rank?), bonuses to tax income from ports and improved prices for goods (which would allow for faster generation of wealth/resources/ships etc). Good for beginners, casual players, lazy bastards, and multi-account dudes.

??? minor nations (SWE, DEN, RUS, POL, PRU, ???)

Attributes: no capital (region), no safety zone, no salary, no bonuses to taxes from controlled ports (just standard tax rates). Otherwise similar to main nation gameplay. Good for experienced / adventurous players.

Pirates:

Attributes: no capital region, no safety zone, cannot build and sail SOL's, but have access to unique perks, rewards, and (perhaps) ship yard allow ship modification (like changing planking, paints, etc). For hardcore players. (NB Playing pirates is one of the appeal of the game and if it is too hard core it would put off beginners. Maybe 2 pirate nations? Fantasy Pirate nation and hardcore pirates?)

The intrigue would be for major nations to strive for greatness/domination, but they would have to rely on alliance / symbiosis with minor nations. 

Along with my self a few others have suggested similar things too.  

1 hour ago, admin said:

alliances were removed for 2 reasons
they reduced number of targets
they remove the political component (complex political discussions, agreements, betrayals were replaced by a button)

We do not see how alliances can come back

The other problem is unlike POTBS there was not resetting the map, there was no win the map mode.  It got very stale when one nation/s ruled the map and owned most of all the ports.  So many folks stopped playing cause when one side gets stacked over the other or you had the EU serve of West vs East than the game gets boring.  We really should have map resets more often.  4 times a year would not kill any one and it will keep the map from getting stale.  It would also means folks will be forced to retake the lands they really want if they want to keep them instead of hiding behind PB timers.

The other problem as folks said there was no way to vote against an alliance if you where out voted and stuck not fighting any one cause of the alliances.  There should of been a way to vote out of them or war with certain nations if folks wanted.  We also didn't have forge papers like we do now to move nations if we aren't happy with the system.  There should of been some tier system where the biggest powerful (most ports owned not number of players) couldn't do alliances with other big power nations.  They have to work with little nations only.  So you wouldn't have like on Global where US/GB the two largest nations alliances against the rest of the server.  They should of been fighting each  other as the two biggest nations and well every one fighting the pirates cause you know pirates are bad.  We never had a problem with that, our issue was no one else was fighting each other cause of the alliance system.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

It is easier to understand Lars' and staun concerns about removing hardcore nations when you look at the map. At the moment it's hardcore nations surrounding Denmark-Norge, from all sides Poles, Prussians and Russians:

To state that the current situation for DK/NG has any bearing on my opposition to the cartoon nations is simplistic. I've been critical of their addition from the very beginning.. and from the picture u post I see no problems.. We can attack in any direction!

[Sir Texas Sir]

38 minutes ago, admin said:

We do not see the dilution

People join the nation they like, but the majority still picks traditional nations (like SWEDEN ;)) .

And in terms of the buyers - here are the top 10 countries, ranked by sales, who are buying the game after custom localization file has been added

The two puzzling facts

• Poland buying more copies than UK
• US should be the most numerous nation but it is not.

I'll hold my tongue about my honest reason why US buyers don't stick around cause it prob get me banned, but I"ll state something helpful. 

Unlike other nations that tend to want to play there home nation like France, Spain and such.  US players aren't locked to there native nation prided like it seems most EU's are.  We play in what ever nation we want to play at the time.  France biggest RvR clan is US players for the most part.  Russia had a good group of us at one time. I know a good number of players that have played Dane and Swede.  We aren't so picky.  We go where we have fun and enjoy the game. I kinda feel the Australians do that too as I seen them melting into many different nations.

On POTBS I played Spain.  When the servers merged I actually wanted to go Spain/France but WO/BLANCE was going french so didn't want to stack that nation.  So we went Russian.  Than tried to help US and many of those guys have since went on to pirates that didn't stay to help.  Pirates seems to be the fall back melting pot for many players that aren't stuck on a national pride to only play the nation they are from. 

National pride is great, but we shouldn't change the game just to give a nation to those players when that nation wasn't in this region during the time period you set up for the game.  Which last I checked was 1700-1820.

This is why I mention just merge US with GB if we are trying to down size the nations total numbers.  Though all this should be done with a wipe not while every thing is as it is right now.   I'm for sure will not be playing US when the game release. I plan to play another nation but haven't picked one yet.  I never liked how it's stuck on the coast and gets beat on by half the server.

Oh put the nations in order to make it easier to read.

GB           28%
Pirate     14%
France    11%
Swede    10%
Spain      9%
Russia    8%
US          7%
VP         5%
KoP      4%
Dane     3%
Polish   1%

GB and Pirates are pretty much the two largest cause they are the melting pot nations.  What gets me I hear all the time folks attack US cause they are the most on the server during there time.  By this I bet you there are just as many GB on, just they aren't stuck in one corner of the map to easily farm.

We are actually missing a lot of the AUS/SEA players that won't play cause of server location.  We really need to move it to a more general world location for all players over all.  

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sir Texas Sir

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If you still dont see the issue with the % of VP, DN, Poland and Prussia then we can end this discussion here.

Average daily playerbase is 700 right now (taking into account both servers and alts) so 5% is only 35 players.

35 players that probably also play along the day, across different timezones. 

I repeat, we can close the thread if you really believe 35 players is fine.

 

And how many are just alts. I have on PvE server my chars in different nations.  Which really doesn't mean crap cause all ports are neutral (should be able to capture them for a time and have map reset for them.)  I'm currently in US, France and Pirates on main server.