Alliances discussion + Poll

[TiGGerDave]

......... what ye all said; sincerely: many outstanding points, concerns and ....and you over there...... you and you....stand up ...yes you as well... 🏳️🏳️🏳️

I enjoy this game, note keyword GAME.... and yep I have spent monies as you all have and will likely spend a few dollars more if the DLC is something I want; I play this game solo when the "Chief" is off sciving somewhere with RW stuff....not online.... when the Chief is online.... tactics..... and relaxing fun.... we team up.... hunt and always try to make the PVP encounters as unfair as possible... 

My 2 cents Canuck: add Portugal, maintain Frontline concept; ..... to many half measures have been implemented over the ...years.

The N.A. concept has been outstanding from the start.....(I have never seen the Server(s) go over 600 consistently; 450 ish + / - seems average ??....I did this Population Count as scientifically as the Test Servers have been active for feedback. Devs pls shite or get off the ship's head.... if you set up a TEST Server again; Please conduct / run and ensure the server is  properly utilized or this may go on like STAR CITIZEN..... and you will lose monies and me as a participant ....simple economics;

Now........... I am going to blow up shite; hunt vsls that I am fairly certain I can sink;  trader or not; take their parrots and politely salute the sailor I had just "sunk" as I ignore their rants..... and of course run like Stumpy 2 balls the 7 legged Kat when I miscalculate and salute the enemy when he sends me to the ocean deep.

...did they have Flak Jackets back in the day ??

Vr

TiGGs

🤦‍♂️

Edited May 3, 2019 by TiGGerDave

[Gregory Rainsborough]

1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I'm liking this concept less and less as I think about it.  With Prussia and Russia as permanent allies, and not giving them capitols as a start point, it makes a complete mockery of any Front Lines system.  They can spread over the map with no controls.

Front lines has become pointless and a mockery by dev's stance since the exploits were discovered. Absolutely hello kittying pointless now.

[Vinnie]

1 hour ago, Salty Sails said:

Because its hard enough to find enemies in open world, if you are in an alliance, its much more harder to find them, because you cant attack allies?!

Another example: you are playing in french nation, you a sourrounded by enemies, dutch, sverige and denmark, and your allies usa and spain are too lazy to come and help. thats a fact.

I agree with the suggestion for alliances impacting RvR only.  OW = fair game.

One of the major issues preventing real alliances currently is the lack of identification of enemy players in the OW.  Used to be we could tell Player Name and Clan in the open world.  So we had a shot at knowing if it was a  clan we had an agreement with.  Would be nice to have this again and access to a list of friendly enemy clans.  Only then could alliances work under the current system.

[Barcucu]

If you  guys think that there are too many nations for the current population the solution is much more simple than this, you just need to eliminate some of them. You can join some  nations, like Sverige and Denmark  to the Dutch, and join others in a different nation. Portugal, for example, has way more rights to be in the game than Russia.

Actually i never truly understood what the hell are doing nations like Prussia, Russia or Poland in a realistic Caribbean game. 

 

[p i t]

Why are devs worrying about alliance mechanics and not spending that time to fix the major holes in the game already

[Barbarosa]

Remove Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Prussia and Poland. Add Portuguese instead. Remove nation features from pirates. If you do that either choices might work.

Immersion > Rest

If not, I vote for keep everyone at war with each other. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Barbarosa

[Tiedemann]

What about having the suggested game forced coalitions, but only activated for when one of the nations in the coalition gets an unhealthy low population?

We need alliances forced by game to make small nations viable during ruff times, but I do not like the idea of having them all the time when it is not needed.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Are you could actually fight the pirates the other main strong US prime time RvR force ya'll avoid to fighting all the time.  Some of your guys are former US and GB players....could go GB and fight both US and Pirates?

Or we could fight whoever we want and not have more artificial mechanics put in place to kill content. Just reduce the total number of nations, don't group them into forced alliances. 

[stevieshae]

Will this resualt in a wipe on PVE Server?

[RyebreadMike]

In the 1700's the main players in the Caribbean were Spain, England, Netherlands, France and Denmark with Sweden entering sometime in the 1780's I believe and the US presence along the east coast and some of the Gulf of Mexico.  I don't see why we need so many nations to begin with.  So primarily I would vote for fewer nations.  This doesn't seem to be something with a snowball's chance in hell of happening though.

As for a static, hard-coded set of coalitions .. well, it could work; and I'm honestly torn between player-driven alliances and what you propose.  With the static coalitions players will be forced to 'make it work' and would still have the ability to have other alliances (without the benefits).

Edited May 3, 2019 by RyebreadMike

[Tiedemann]

5 hours ago, Thorka said:

Less nations more density of player in each remaining nation. Then there will be no reason for coalitions.

Forced coalitions or less nation is basically the same. Only difference is that players get to chose their preferred flag. Why deny anyone that choice?

[DeWoudt]

I think the larger alliance politics should stay in players hands. Even if we force nations to be allies there's no guarantee they will help eachother, maybe USA is to far away from the French. We have seen this before in the previous alliance system and even before and after that with clan diplomacy alliances, where people will try to help eachother but cant due to distaces or timezones.

 

If we could have a system where clans can make alliances with other clans, leave nations out of this, that would be I think the best solution. Give power to the players

[PIerrick de Badas]

i think we need alliance

[AeRoTR]

38 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

Forced coalitions or less nation is basically the same. Only difference is that players get to chose their preferred flag. Why deny anyone that choice?

You can still have your nation flag with privateer mechanics

[o Barão]

10 hours ago, Hethwill said:

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.

 

So true. As a portuguese i still can't understand why we have Russia, Denmark, Poles and Prussia in game but we can't have the 4 biggest naval power from that time period in game.

If the reason is low player numbers well if they are in a alliance with the biggest nation in game then there is no problem. The devs could use the south east corner ( Santo tomé de Guayana ) of the map to put the portuguese capita there. That corner is always a dead place inside NA and the ports are close to Brazil. Is not Brazil but it is close so yes please do this.

[Takehitsu]

Is there an official vote or is this just the place we all go to throw down ans say that this is an absolutely abhorred idea. Clans should be able to ally any other clans and make their own trade empires or war empires. The nations should by all means stay the way they are because it gives a person Depth and from the instance of joining the game you have a place to belong and it gives everyone freedom of choice between many groups they can fit in wherever they want.

I do not like the proposed plan to force players into something. Look at alll the examples of games where developers force players around. (because there are thousands of them) all of those games are dead completely horrible their negative reviews outnumber their positive reviews by several hundred, per single positive. While the alliance issue is nice and all honestly the problem of 1 or 2 nations having 40% of the population should be something the nations come together and fix on their own.

 

What the devs SHOULD do is restrict nations when they get to a massive percentage of the population. If you have Russia or Great Britain becoming 50% of the games population it needs to be stopped the dis-balance will break the game you have 11-12 nations limit them by percent at like 30% at the absolute most. So new players cannot choose them because oh they are overpopulated. (This is only the successful method many many mmo's have used to solve this issue) This way your giving your sandbox game the options you want the players the freedom they want and restricting the game from becoming highly unbalanced  in any direction. The next thing that is done is give incentives to join the lowest population countries. (The only fundamental flaw with this is people making new accounts to try and shift the population but in the very end of the day that actually doesnt hurt anyone as they pay money to do this and that supports the game all in all, and it becomes a significant time investment of the players making 20+ accounts.)

[Esprit]

Interesting idea, but right now I would prefer players to organize themselves as they wish. In addition:

• French and US players may play at different times, France is squeezed between 3 countries of the same coalition, Spain is far away
• numbers of players per nation may strongly differ at release (e.g. there might be a significant new wave of US players)
• at least one nation can be removed (Poland)

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

how replacing a nation name by another help the game in any way ? polish, portugal, who care, at least polish have the best flags ^^

  War is one side vs another, not 4 sides fighing each others in a free for all.

[o Barão]

About the Alliances.

Alliances made by players always bring problems to the game. That is a fact. However i would prefer to see a dynamic alliance system where would be the faction king ( AI ) to determine who is allied or who is the enemy. This could make the game much more interesting. As an example: If one nation become to powerful in game the other nations kings could make an alliance and declare war to that nation. This would also promote an dynamic RvR.

[o Barão]

6 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

how replacing a nation name by another help the game in any way ? polish, portugal, who care, at least polish have the best flags ^^

  War is one side vs another, not 4 sides fighing each others in a free for all.

Beauty is very personal. IMO the most beautiful flags are the ones from the French Empire period. ( before Napoleon )

However if i could play with portugal and pick one old flag ( not from this time period )this one is to me the most beautiful flag Portugal ever had.

Edited May 3, 2019 by no one

[Botq]

57 minutes ago, no one said:

So true. As a portuguese i still can't understand why we have Russia, Denmark, Poles and Prussia in game but we can't have the 4 biggest naval power from that time period in game.

If the reason is low player numbers well if they are in a alliance with the biggest nation in game then there is no problem. The devs could use the south east corner ( Santo tomé de Guayana ) of the map to put the portuguese capita there. That corner is always a dead place inside NA and the ports are close to Brazil. Is not Brazil but it is close so yes please do this.

++

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

(french whiteflag  with fleur de lys one is one of my fav too)

 

Back on topic :

    Make the conquest leaderboard usefull,

-bring back weekly votes,

-all the nations except the 1st & 2nd place vote each week to ally with either the 1st or the 2nd.

-If the 2nd place alliance gain the 1st place, they get a reward, (like a free investment slot in their ports, or a gift from admiralty).

-If the 1st place keep is rank at the end of the week, it loose an ally slot next round.

-> top nation then must offer something and convice other nation to help him keeping his ports so maintaining 1st rank have a cost.

-> alliances are more dynamic and changes often, adjusting to the flavor of the moment and is flexible to players migration.

-> There is a goal to not join the leader and motivation to not team up with the leader, and if a leader is unbeatable, it will have to fight alone vs all.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[Chilly Willy]

11 hours ago, Cap Trujis said:

You could try for a month before the launch to see how the mechanics are going

would be interesting to see if it works well ....before commitment

[van der Clam]

3 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

Forced coalitions or less nation is basically the same. Only difference is that players get to chose their preferred flag. Why deny anyone that choice?

Well, here is where nation consolidation could work. Nations that historically we allied with each other would be part of the major nation that had Caribbean presence. Each ship would have two flags. The main national flag could be flying on the stern post as is currently. Then the player's chosen national flag (DLC or 50k dbl admiralty flag) would fly on the fore mast. Same for a 2 masted ship. Same with single masted. The main nation flag just always flies on stern pole and the player flag flies on fore or main masts.

So say Dutch was historically "allied" with Poland and Russia. Dutch had major presence in Caribbean, more so than Poland and Russia. So Dutch flag flies as is and the player's chosen Polish or Russian flag would fly fore or main mast.

Edited May 4, 2019 by van der Decken

[Cetme]

France in western coalition???

USA (english of the other side of the ocean) allied with Spain?? Omg

So much vodka drunk...