Alliances discussion + Poll

[Angus MacDuff]

I keep thinking of this in the context of the front lines discussion.  With coalitions spread out like that and hostility from free ports, there are effectively no front lines.  This all has to work together or else just give up on the concept.  I don't think I was ever a fan of front lines anyway.  Bring on the chaos!

[Angus MacDuff]

Just now, Wraith said:

As they're implemented they've hugely cut down on the number of possible RvR targets and viable pathways for RvR participation, especially for clans that can't field full 25+ screener fleets.  It's really sad.

If they were to be implemented properly they would be even more limiting.  What it would do is make several very safe backwaters for peaceful crafting and PVE.  The problem with that is that there would be only a few areas of focus for RVR and they could become stalemates...…..I'm trying to think where else in history there were stalemates due to front lines being tough to penetrate.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

I can see french submerged by the northern alliance  + aves freetown threat, french clans setting outposts in florida or cuba on allied ports, then building & spreading in conquered ports around with mutual support from us & spanish, all of that could work, then clan diplomacy will still be an option to rally another  coalition or britain to fight another enemy..

At first i was more than sceptical, but i more and more think that could work and enhance rvr, but i understand how so many people could fear from such a reduction in potential ow targets.. But we should not think with the current population number in mind, but more how you make them come back, grow & stay. 

 

I've never seen such a close vote.

[Sir Texas Sir]

20 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

I can see french submerged by the northern alliance  + aves freetown threat, french clans setting outposts in florida or cuba on allied ports, then building & spreading in conquered ports around with mutual support from us & spanish, all of that could work, then clan diplomacy will still be an option to rally another  coalition or britain to fight another enemy..

At first i was more than sceptical, but i more and more think that could work and enhance rvr, but i understand how so many people could fear from such a reduction in potential ow targets.. But we should not think with the current population number in mind, but more how you make them come back, grow & stay. 

 

I've never seen such a close vote.

It also will be interesting cause you will have to big EU based Nations and than US has a very big US prime time.  Cause i'll be honest WO/BLANC prob won't stay if they can't farm US players.  They prob will go GB or Pirates.   Which will still keep 2-3 US Prime time nations and the rest are all EU mix.  Would allow for some more balance play for certain nations/coalition around the clock.

Nothern might still be a little weak on the US prime time, but both Swedes and Dutch has players in that window, by helping each other they could fill more port battles.  

Even the Holy Alliance has players in all time zone and having them help each other means they can field bigger fleets.

For guys like me that have mulit alts.  While I keep most of them in one nation (3 out of 5) I would prob put the extra guys in the coalition nations to have some one close that can fight and not have travel across the map all the time.

[Farrago]

4 hours ago, PG Monkey said:

Enforced coalitions are the only ones that have a chance of working.player made ones were tried and failed.

Actually player coalitions have succeeded for periods of time, haven’t they? They just don’t last forever like they did with the voted alliances which tended to be stagnant.

Shouldn't alliances be made when mutually beneficial and fall apart when they don’t work for one side or the other?

[Liq]

im amazed by how even the poll is

[Barbarosa]

13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

It is easy to understand why.

Around 1/3 of the nations are dead in RvR due to the lack of players.

Another big % cant do anything to counter the top RvR nations.

This is more related with BR increase. Only Russia can fill 20k-25k BR with ease. For the rest is huge effort or impossible.

 

21 minutes ago, Liq said:

m amazed by how even the poll is

Forum is full with people who can't spend much time playing since their opinions are needed here. They need less enemy for their peace of mind to  better serve the game.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by Barbarosa

[Gregory Rainsborough]

[Gregory Rainsborough]

18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

It is easy to understand why.

Around 1/3 of the nations are dead in RvR due to the lack of players.

Another big % cant do anything to counter the top RvR nations.

 

Also, the new BR for port battles makes things way worse except for the guys with nostalgia.

High BR PB's for every port just means that zergs gets even more of an advantage.

[Liq]

12 minutes ago, Barbarosa said:

They need less enemy for their peace of mind to  better serve the game.

That chinese wisdom is above my capabilities of understanding

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

In my experience, player made alliances can be as stagnant as the forced ones.

When was the last time you saw a contested PB between france-spain-US-russia?

[shrug] I don’t know. I assume the last time one of those nation’s clans found it advantageous to fight another one. I’m just saying that locked in by voting they never change and are highly susceptible to manipulation by Alts. And if a King (the Devs) are deciding on alliances, we’d either have pissed off folks when the alliances are arbitrarily changed or if they don’t changed, captains will flock to the winning side. (In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)

Anyway, speaking of Alts, although I have no knowledge of it, I highly suspect that some RVR clans have equally powerful Alt RVR clans in other nations. That may contribute to the stagnation.

[Papillon]

35 minutes ago, Farrago said:

...(In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)...

I couldn't agree more.

IMHO the best option would be to not have that particular DLC, and reset the map every 3 to 6 months, and give the option only then to change nations.  It wouldn't stop alts, but would at least hamper the mass clan moves to more advantageous nation locations on a whim.

But I guess we are too far down the road for such actions.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Papillon

[Barbancourt]

46 minutes ago, Farrago said:

. (In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)

Awwww, some of us like a change of scenery now and then.  🕴️

[Gregory Rainsborough]

2 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Im fully aware of that.

I'm just pointing it out again in the hope that admin understands how obvious it is to everyone.

[LeBoiteux]

NA map is the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.

There should only be the historical nations, those that actually showed they were able to be there.

Adding any other nations, especially future 20-21st century world powers, is a lie.

[Gijon de Ruz y Molina]

I think that the Rulers of the clans make alliances and the power of negotiation is on the clans not in the predefinition of the game. It is a mistake to force by game mechanics to play with "natural" enemies or aganist "friends or mates".

 

Talking about the nations... honestly in the caribbean on the 18th Century were a few powerful nations. Now in game there are nations that in that time are not, and to keep adding "fake nations" in order to catch new players "new customers" is a lie an a dishonour to the history.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Gijon de Ruz y Molina

[Madjohn]

one man one vote

[Atreides]

As much as I would hope is not the case, based on past issues the deciding factor may well rest with what the "trusted friends" think.

Just waiting to see.

[PaladinFX]

If we're going to have enforced coalitions then Portugal should be added to the game as a Nation.

They should be allied with GB as per Napoleonic War alignment.

They could have their Capital base at Santo Tome de Guayana in the southeast corner of the map that would be nearest to northern Brazil.

[Sir Loorkon]

Lower the BR for PB. No game set coalitions.

[Georg Fromm]

What a blah about 14 pages long. ...

Considerations as to whether alliances work or not. Also in the future, the decisions will be made by the leaders of the big clans. The only thing that changes is the fact that a few enemies of war and potential goals in the Open World are eliminated. Poland e.g. In the future, there is no need to worry anymore about whether Swedes, Dutchmen or Danes take away their cities. However, whether the Poles will help defend their cities is not determined by the fact that you have three allied nations, but the decision is made by the big clan leaders, whether they belong to their own, an allied or a foreign nation ,

Already with the old system there was little loyalty to the own nation, that should change now, because the DEVS declare certain nations to allies?

I'm looking forward to the first Shit post, where people complain that they were not helped by allied warships or where allied ships do not fire a shot at their opponent because he's a former friend. Things get really good when places in Portbattles are occupied by Allied ships and then deliberately do not shoot at the opponent or fight energetically enough.
I do not think it will be calmer in the tribunal thread in the future.

People in the alliances will really only work together if the Alliance as a whole can win or lose.

[Norfolk nChance]

Admin asked deliberately for your opinions and view, even with a Game start advert.

Without any STEAM contributions a 15page thread currently exist. The views and opinions are all fair and make good points from either side. Anything new or radical in thinking? And no offense to you my peers, but no. You and I have read every single post suggestion before whether we like them or not. Tell me if I’m wrong?

My poorly worded script appears on page 13 and would be surprised if he will ever read it.

The thread itself starts to drift at page14 regarding BR Port ratings and a clan’s powerbase. The problem raised also just recently. I provided a solution, but failed to get an answer to my first question, as to the reason why it’s (PORT BR) so large a number.

https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/29306-the-consequences-of-newest-brs-for-port-battles/

My follow up on page2 again fell on deaf ears...

Just because you don’t like the answer to your question doesn’t mean it’s a bad answer. Just ask Mrs. nChance when she asked me to tell her something, she was good at...

The problem here with NPC overlays and forced alliances. This restricting the freedom of the individual clan (not player, he doesn’t really count) within this Lite Sandbox.

Admin is asking the wrong question...

Is GameLabs prepared to put added value dynamic content into the game POST launch?

My post on page13 would require a higher level of input from GameLabs, and would solve the issues every quarter.

 

Norfolk nChance.

 

[Ruuster_IV]

I think those alliances would be great, after all the kingdoms decide alliances and not us so it would be good to have game alliances.

[Gargamel]

Every little boy wants to be like Lord Nelson and therefore joins the English.
It is high time to limit the size of a Nation.

[LeBoiteux]

49 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Every little boy wants to be like Lord Nelson (and therefore joins the English.)

definitely not all 

73% are in another nation than GB...

Edited May 21, 2019 by LeBoiteux