Alliances discussion + Poll

[admin]

Captains.

Let's discuss the number of nations for the release state of the game.

• Should we keep current 11 nations at war with each other, where smaller nations have less chance to compete in RVR
• Should we enforce alliances from Europe by game rules.

 

Current populations

• Pirates 14.52%
• Spain 8.83%
• France 10.21%
• Great Britain 26.86%
• Dutch  4.88%
• Sverige 8.76%
• Denmark 2.87%
• United States 9.15%
• Russian Empire 9.33%
• Prussia 3.61%
• Polish Commonwealth 0.97%
   

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%
   

Proposed coalitions will have separate starting capitals but will act as allies allowing clan alliances between nations and port usage rights.

Coalitions will increase minimal size of the nation from 43 average daily players for the smallest nation to 600 average daily players for the smallest coalition, greatly increasing the potential and ability to have effect on the map.

[Jorge]

i think we need alliances but no forced by game....

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jorge said:

i think we need alliances but no forced by game....

yes

brits are zerg 😂

Edited May 3, 2019 by Guest

[Pablo Frias]

I want alliances back but I completly disagree with the proposed coalitions. Let the players decide their alliances, with restrictions to avoid unbalance, of course.

[admin]

3 minutes ago, Jorge said:

i think we need alliances but no forced by game....

 

1 minute ago, Pablo Frias said:

I want alliances back but I completly disagree with the proposed coalitions. Let the players decide their alliances, with restrictions to avoid unbalance, of course.

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

[Kloothommel]

Option 3: Player alliances.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Introduce Portugal / as a new option or at the expense of one existing one.

Make Portugal an historical ally of Great Britain.

I don't dislike the system as you present, but not a fan of player made alliances as well.

 

[Guest]

Just now, admin said:

 

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

then we do not need alliances

[Bragan Benigaris]

With this proposal the territory of France would be surrounded by the Northern Coalition... Is this wise in combination with the frontierline concept?

[Isaac J Smith]

I think doing any sort of balance on player count now is super unlikely to represent player count in the future.

 

Also one thing to keep in mind: Nations like GB/Rats/USA might have a decent amount of players, but I would wager a decent percentage of them do not participate in RvR compared to some of the more hardcore nations.

Alliances sound great, but they should be player-controlled (perhaps have a weekly "Lord of a nation" that can set/change alliances, and is voted on by the players of that nation).

 

IMO there are FAR too many nations though. Some of the smaller ones need to be chopped.

Edited May 3, 2019 by isaac_j_smith

[LegoLarry]

 One Nation alone and alliance type construct not matter.

 Player will use paper and join strongest so same as now.

 

Am confused you say smallest will be 600 player but that make 1800 on server and more. 

Cannot be correct most player i see is 500 range.

Best players joining together make best, not quantity of population.

Will be fact whatever done best players will move together like herd of cows.

Will eat grass of all weak people and afraid to fight equal, just get fat and moo .

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Doh

[Jorge]

3 minutes ago, admin said:

 

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

lol, are you telling that USA,+ France + Spain has the same power than GB ??? sorry but only in your imagination.

[Sella]

I don't think that the game needs to force alliances. The fluidity of relations that we have right now is nice although i would prefer that nations would be inclined rather than forced, to work together in their whole for a common goal. By that i mean no individual clan alliances between clans of two "hostile" nations when the majority of the clans in those nations are actively fighting each other. 

Also i think its time to replace Poland with Portugal. It will be a more popular choice and it will help reduce the massive numbers of GB players. The playerbase seems to be spread fairly evenly currently

[Jorge]

3 minutes ago, Bragan Benigaris said:

With this proposal the territory of France would be surrounded by the Northern Coalition... Is this wise in combination with the frontierline concept?

and very far from spanish territory....

 

[jointventure]

as long russia is in another alliance im fine

[Guest]

Just now, Jorge said:

lol, are you telling that USA,+ France + Spain has the same power than GB ??? sorry but only in your imagination.

that cant work. the most players in the us nation are us guys. different timezone. 

[Angus MacDuff]

I voted for keeping 11 nations at war (but I would love to see Portugal instead of Poland!), with the caveat that ALL nations have a capitol and hostility cant drop from free ports.

[Teutonic]

If it was my choice - we'd have less nations.

I do not condone game forced alliances..

Edit: hello kitty it. I changed my mind. Force alliances. Itll make for "less nations."

Edited May 3, 2019 by Teutonic

[Anolytic]

Keep in mind not all of this player numbers distribution is necessarily representative for what we will see at launch. The relative sizes of the coalitions are not fixed. 

Personally I think I would prefer the no-alliances system we have now, where diplomacy is purely player-created content. However our RvR-model should have some way for nations to trade ports.

If we were going to have alliances I like admin's proposal. This is basically fulfilling the request by many of reducing the number of nations. In effect with this system we will have 5 nations instead of 11. There are certainly advantages to that. And at the same time we do not need to abandon our flag or our national identity. And it is still possible to form temporary, player-arranged alliances between coalitions.

Player-made, mechanics-enforced alliances are too tricky. Even though our last test was not a proper one, it is right that it would be all but impossible to create a system where the strongest did not band together to destroy the competition.

I voted for 11 independent nations, but I would support admin's proposal if settled upon.

[AeRoTR]

I vote coalitions because more player per nation is better with the new system, wish you had not introduced unrealistic nations !

Only Problem is Western Coalition will be very powerful, we can keep them as seperate nations. British having %28 has no meaning as after wipe it can be %15 percent while western coalition becomes %35.

What about introducing dynamical coalitions according to balance of power by developers. There is no king of Spain and Queen of Britian at our waters, what they have decided we have to obey. ( Queen = Admin , King = Ink  may be)

----------------------------------------------->

But my dream;

British Nation

Spanish Nation

French Nation

Dutch Nation

Privateers (remaining nations with flag of their nation but under privateer faction, where clans able to get letter of marque from nations)

Pirates (not a nation but clans, end game for best players, only level 1 shipyard, fame board, can retire from pirate with forge papers and join a nation (very expansive), but very profitable during pirate life if you are good)

 

[Jorge]

No....with this system

[Pablo Frias]

10 minutes ago, admin said:

 

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

You pretend nations to be allied with each other based on their population. You forget about extra factors such as RvR interest, players skills, map situation... that usually are more important than the number of players. 

 

[redbear]

only because brits have 26% does not mean that in there power rember the number dont tell the full story and northing stop a no attck agreement for ofter nations

[Archaos]

10 minutes ago, admin said:

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%

The problem with these proposed coalitions is that they will make certain coalitions too strong. Just look at the current map after the wipe and you can see that although Russia has under 10% of the population compared to GB's 26% they are still more than capable of taking huge swathes of the map. This is because they have more dedicated RvR players in their nation compared to GB which tends to be a starter nation for new players till they learn the ropes and move on or they remain in GB and do their own thing with trading and PvE.

Looking at the proposed coalitions I would rank them from high to low as Holy Alliance, Western Coalition, Northern Coalition, British Empire and lastly Pirates. 

I could also foresee problems with some nations struggling to expand due to the proximity of coalition members.

Personally I would say stick with individual nations without coalitions, but get rid of some of the smaller non-effective nations.

[ElegantWay]

As a global language, English has led people around the world to choose the GB.

I think Britain is the biggest PVE country and cannot be independent of the Alliance.

Edited May 4, 2019 by ElegantWay
Think seriously