Alliances discussion + Poll

[Liq]

Bad idea imho because:

Forced alliances doesnt mean non allied nations cant hold together.

If your nation is stuck with another one allied, but actually wants to fight it, that could lead to some awkward situation.

 

[John Hill Regard]

On 5/17/2019 at 10:13 AM, Intrepido said:

The BR of ports must be lowered no matter if we have coalitions or not.

Current BRs are gamebreaking.

Definitly...

You have port with 25000 BR limit that mean 25 Big 1Rate , it's what we had a few month ago and again and again what we didn't want to see anymore come back and what we would like to keep disappear !!!

Those BR unbalanced the game like your silly port bonus...let's see how long polish will resist to 1 or 2 PB at 20000 BR with half developped Ship ???

You designed your game for minimum  30 or 40 active member's clan. Wich nation have such clan today.

You definitly forget casual and solo and that will be the mistake that is gonna kill your realease. 

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

6 hours ago, Liq said:

Bad idea imho because:

Forced alliances doesnt mean non allied nations cant hold together.

If your nation is stuck with another one allied, but actually wants to fight it, that could lead to some awkward situation.

 

If your in Clan A and I'm in clan B, but we are both in the same nation we can't fight each other.  All it's doing is making 5 Faction like we had early one instead of 11.  The only differences to allow us to fly different flags we have sub factions within each major factions.  IF you want to kill France and your US.  Than go join one of the other nations that isn't in that faction.  

Yes you will still have some die hard playes that only want to play the faction of there heritage RL but they really aren't the majority of the players.  I have played every nation except Poland and Dutch, if you don't like the one your in just change factions that's what we have forge papers for after all.

[Vizzini]

More choice is more options IMHO

 

I wanted full on clan wars and appreciated at the time that players want their historical accuracy ( or as close as we can within the games restrictions)

 

what could have worked though, is slightly fewer nations and Pirate clans who could fight amongst themselves or against the Crowns / Nations

 

What would worry me more than anything else is a position where players feel forced to spend money to move nations or game mechanics that funnel the game towards stalemates and future wipes. This would I feel be the death knell for the game. Players are sitting right now, not playing because they cannot see the point with a wipe coming. No need for this to be a regular happening

 

If players want to play for a nation, that's great but forcing everybody to ally up with another who they despise ? Nah not for me. The same reason i wouldn't want to end up in a 1v1 type server with egotistical troublemakers on both sides.

I'd want more Nations or at least the possibility to create my own ( within set parameters .. a Pirate clan  so to speak ) who have options as to whom to ally with.

 

If everybody other than my own clan is a possible enemy, then I have more targets. In a possible 2v2 scenario ...I might have to cross the map in search of enemies, rather than venture out of my own port.

 

Nothing we decide will be perfect for all, we all need to look at what would be best for the game.

[LIONOFWALES]

Perhaps make it so that the coalitions change once in a while... or can be effected by players actions... to force coalition changes through commerce and political stunts.

Three cheers for the frigates and their gallant Captains.

This could be used to make great importance to open world trade/commerce in effort to gain the respect of a crown. The more the trade flowing into specific ports from enemies can contribute to turning an NPC faction in favor of another NPC faction, but its up to the players of course... the goods involved could be anything from jewels and gold... to breads and gunpowder... I could see entire clans focusing on this type of commerce to conduct global dominion efforts to their benefit.

P.S. This would also insure that more traders would be out on the open seas for pirates to hunt in the open world. This would be worth the risk though because the rewards would be global influence and elite rewards.

Edited May 23, 2019 by LIONOFWALES

[LIONOFWALES]

On 5/21/2019 at 3:15 AM, John Hill Regard said:

Definitly...

You have port with 25000 BR limit that mean 25 Big 1Rate , it's what we had a few month ago and again and again what we didn't want to see anymore come back and what we would like to keep disappear !!!

Those BR unbalanced the game like your silly port bonus...let's see how long polish will resist to 1 or 2 PB at 20000 BR with half developped Ship ???

You designed your game for minimum  30 or 40 active member's clan. Wich nation have such clan today.

You definitly forget casual and solo and that will be the mistake that is gonna kill your realease. 

I understand you are only speaking out of concern, but how you worded this comes across as a threat, please be careful how you word your script in the forums. The first few lines are informative... the last line is not needed to prove your point. I am only speaking to you as in concern, because players have been banned for less in the past. Lets keep our discussions as contructable as possible, and allow the devs to build the game they dreamed of. Once the game is released, some will play and some will not, in the end it will be designed in accordance to how the game labs team wants it.

Happy gaming, and keep bringing in the info.

[Norfolk nChance]

The problem is in @Admin’s question first and foremost. Either path chosen won’t results in any long-term lasting solution. I’m talking POST launch. Forced alliances will results in stagnation. All nation enemies but clan alliances will result in super clans. Look at EvE’s Fountain War of TEST v CFC. We don’t want this either…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZQ4ejFq7BY

Option3

Enforced game rule coalitions that dynamically change every quarter?

 

A limited Civil War inclusion with time, cool-down and Privateer DLC involvement. RvR Campaigns that need mixed alliance fleets to complete. These drop the bling books etc.

Clan coalitions outside allied nations offered but controlled and time limiter with post cooldown. Each clan excluded from the Campaigns if they're allied with opposing Nation alliances. They can’t share in the bling rewards.

This regular quarterly/half year reset is how to solve the problem. The downside is it will require more management input from the Dev’s POST launch. This with RvR mission arcs and alliance balances a new every restart. This is NOT a wipe just a restart…

 

Norfolk

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Norfolk nChance

[Agey]

On 5/4/2019 at 5:41 AM, Georg Fromm said:

Still I can not understand how, for example, the extinction of Poland will solve the problems of the game? If 0.97% of the players really spread to the fading nations, will everything be okay? Why destroy Russia?  Russia as well as Prussia has a high identification potential for Russian players. The same applies to Prussia. You want to take the powerful Russia out of the game, but leave the weak Netherlands in it. Why? Historical reasons in an ahistorical game?

Has anyone ever wondered why Spaniards play first and foremost in Spain and French (not Quebec Canadians) prefer to fight as Republicans or Royalists for France?

Now you want to take the identification of the two largest European player groups? And that should increase the number of players? Ever thought of when Russians and Prussia  go together in one of the remaining nations? Then your plan of balance has failed completely.

What's next? Are we getting rules that nations that are overpopulated should not get new people? Do Spaniards have to fight for GB then? That brings new players?

The solution, in my opinion, is not less but more nations. At the moment some people seem to be very strong for Portugal? Why then? Again historical reasons in an ahistorical game? By the way, Portugal played absolutely no role in the Caribbean. I guess just a few Portuguese behind, who even if the chances are not so good, just want to fight for their home country.

Yes indeed, why not Arab or Turkish players give their identification nation (Osmanic Empire or Barbaresken States as second pirate nation)? And if Chinese appear here, why should not the Chinese emperor send a fleet to the Caribbean?

This is rejected for historical reasons in an ahistorical game? Really?

Or do you reject it because you're afraid the player base could spread even more? Where is the problem? Should Poland be swept off the map after the release due to their lower number of players, then some Poles will join the larger and stronger nations and a few will remain loyal to Poland for identification, even if there is little chance for them.

A new player living in Istanbul is currently reading the description for NA on Steam. There he reads, he can fight in the Caribbean for the Ottoman Empire or he reads he can fight for Spain, France, GB, the USA or the pirates. What do you think, which NA will the player prefer?

These whole nations, like Prussia, Poland or Russia, could come into play as impossible nations. You give them other starting points than Shroud Cay and if they do not succeed in conquering anything, no problem, it's a "hard-to-play nation". But maybe this player from Istanbul, who has come into the game because of the Ottoman Empire, has found joy in the actual game and now chooses another nation.

Would not we and the DEVS have won all?

Again, we do not solve the problems by making everything fit for 400 players here. The solution must be to have a good game that attracts 2000+ players as in the early days.
The different nations offer a good identification to interest players of different nations for this game.

By the way, I wrote this post because I fanatically attached to the nation of Prussia. Think about this....

 

This is a really good point imo. Why stick so hard to the historical context? Right now Prussia owns half of Mexico.. Where is the history on that?

 

Besides that, as other people have pointed out, making alliances based on the population alone might be a bad idea. It could be a combination of factors, such as owned ports, combined total ship strength (in essence, all ships in ports), PVP points. Based on the total nation ranking, it could be possible to allow nations to join or create an alliance which does not exceed a threshold. No matter how many nations there are, 25 nations with a combined strength could band together to have the same strength as of Britain.

[Fester]

On 5/3/2019 at 11:46 PM, admin said:

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.

 

Admin, so a good number of votes are in. Any update? Will Alliances be part of the future Road Map?

[Sir Texas Sir]

On 5/21/2019 at 5:15 AM, John Hill Regard said:

You designed your game for minimum  30 or 40 active member's clan. Wich nation have such clan today.

I see this said a lot.  You do know most of the best nations are not one clan,, it's mulit clans that work together to get a goal done.  If you have 3 10 member clans they can get the same done as a 30 man clan.  They might even be able to get more done if they are organized and the 30 man clan isn't.   Nations like GB that have a very large player base issue is this, you have to many clans trying to do there own thing instead of working together which makes there numbers effectively useless in the long run of things.  This is a Multiplayer game so it's not based around the solo players.  They can still do the same things just take them longer or they might have to buy things off the bigger clans instead of doing it them selves.

[Sven Silberbart]

@admin

What about alliances?

As you can read everywhere, there is one strong nation nobody wants (and can) to fight again. RvR ended nearly completly, cause the strongest nation dont want to overrun the smaller ones last crafting bases, the smaller ones cant fight the strongest. There is the will (i think) to unite against the big one (and i think reverse could need content for his stream) but without an ally system .. nearly impossible to unite. Ofc not such a static System like this thread supposed, something dynamic to keep the balance is needed and make rvr alive again.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Sven Silberbart said:

@admin

What about alliances?

As you can read everywhere, there is one strong nation nobody wants (and can) to fight again. RvR ended nearly completly, cause the strongest nation dont want to overrun the smaller ones last crafting bases, the smaller ones cant fight the strongest. There is the will (i think) to unite against the big one (and i think reverse could need content for his stream) but without an ally system .. nearly impossible to unite. Ofc not such a static System like this thread supposed, something dynamic to keep the balance is needed and make rvr alive again.

No one is ready for a real war yet. I would be shocked if anyone can field a 25 man 1st rate PB fleet.

 

But russia is the same size as dutch and pirates. Gb is still the largest. 

 

Just because russia did the most effective land grab doesnt mean they are dominating.

[Sven Silberbart]

Doesnt matter if russians or any other nations is the zerg..there is always a zerg. Because of that we need the ability to group up the smaller nations. Only effectivly possible with an ally system.

[Don Alvarez]

Why not dynamic alliances that change every so often?

[Sven Silberbart]

Like the Port System all nations should have a base set of Points, letz say 50. 20 Points a nations Needs to ally up with another one. So every Nation can have two alliances. As smaller and weaker a nation is, as more points it gains and as more alliances it could have. As bigger and stronger as less points. The Question is: How to indicate a strong or a weak nation. There must be several combined values wich have an influence on this indicator. I could imagine a mix of population, port counts, won and lost pbs, strength of clans (we have leaderships), and maybe more. Because of the first two values are most important, from my opinion, they must have more weight than others. All there results in the "Indicator of the strength of a Nation" and increase or lowers the free ally Points.

That is neither static nor random, that is dynamic in dependant of the game Situation.

@admin maybe you had thoughts about such a system in the past?

 

Edited July 13, 2019 by Sven Silberbart

[Beeekonda]

10 hours ago, Don Alvarez said:

Why not dynamic alliances that change every so often?

I wonder why this sounds familiar....

oh wait