Alliances discussion + Poll

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

Now that I read this out more, this is a poor idea. Fixed alliances is what the old US 2 server had. Nations never broke from their alliances for months and one alliance trashed the rest, especially when the Pirate clans went on hiatus. Population took a huge drop. Granted there were other factors for the population drop but the alliance system was a factor as well. Then there is another factor of forged papers. That will easily change the population to the point where one alliance is superior and will dominate the server. A rigged alliance system is a server killer. Either keep it player based or create a flexible system or an alternating one. Nothing should be accepted as permanent when it comes to diplomacy. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Davos Seasworth

[znôrt]

imo nations should be historical (spain/portugal/brits/dutch and french) and pirates should be no nation at all, free to pursue their own interest but without territory control. alliances should be historical too, but then again let's consider that most of the caribbean was spain for the most part of the age of sail and be prepared for a pretty monocolor map for a good while 😅 ... i wouldn't mind, the game could actually be a reenaction of spain's loss of control in the caribbean, possibly with alternative endings or eventual resets

that said, and returning to reality, i don't see the point of fixing alliances based on current player population and distribution since this can easily change and i doubt there is really enough data to make a good decision. if it is done for narrative or historicity reasons, then i'm fine.

[GVT]

If the game was voluntary oriented to happen in a long indefinite period (1700-1820), that makes no sense to make coalitions of Napoleonic wars now. Let's try a clans alliance system instead, with a possibility to banish a clan within a nation by majority vote, if this clan is a spy clan, or if this clan has conspired with a nation considered as enemy. And let the alliances between nations be created and separate freely, not officialy.

Edited May 4, 2019 by GVT

[van der Clam]

1 minute ago, Louis Garneray said:

If you force alliance you must give a free pass to change nation to players who don't want to be stuck in one alliance

There's a DLC for that.

[znôrt]

4 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

If you force alliance you must give a free pass to change nation to players who don't want to be stuck in one alliance

well, he could, it would be nice, and he probably would.

but by no means he must. we are testing the game. you'll have to wait until release to actually play it in that context and be enabled to make such demands, in the improbable case such a change happened after release.

Edited May 4, 2019 by znôrt

[Proph]

Do not let the game enforce anything that devs control through game rules, let the community build there own alliances and make it possible for this to be done

 

[FKL 1982]

Two questions:

1. Would removing the impossible nations and going back to the 8 nations not solve the problem?

2. Will this only affect RvR or does it extend to open world PvP also? The last thing we need is less targets on the horizon.

 

Side note: You shouldn't rely on numbers alone, GB may have the highest population according to your figure but I'm certain they also have the lowest number of participants in RvR relative to population size for example (not to mention alt account screwing with your figures in all nations)

[Georg Fromm]

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....

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Georg Fromm

[--Privateer--]

I'd like alliances, but I want Pirates to be able to play too. If we're going to be just like any other nation, we might as well have alliances too. If we get some other special mechanic like outlaw battles, then I can see why we wouldn't get an alliance.

[King of Crowns]

this only limits targets on an already limited field. 

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

31 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

this only limits targets on an already limited field. 

Not to mention the new frontline system when functioning properly would make it even more limited. 

If a forced alliance system that does not change is implemented this games population with fall into a digressive state. Might as well make it a PvE server. I know I might not quit the game but I do know my time playing will significantly drop. Less targets to go after because of population decrease and less nations to go after I wont be bothered to spend time doing long hunts. Creating less to do in the game is not a strong factor for progress. Only regression.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Davos Seasworth

[Kopelent]

18 hours ago, Captain Woodpecker said:

No forced coalitions but add Portugal. Remove Poland, Russia and Prussia - their presence in the game is comical.

Really true, comical

Add portugal

[Lucky Jack]

Alliances managed by the nations themselves, but an in-game mechanic and UI to help nations know who is friend or who is foe. Alliances could be started/ended and managed within the in-game tool.

[z4ys]

when we really need to have alliances Ivrather want forced by gamelabs rather than playermade.

playermade alliances lead only to rvr ganking like we had back with the alliance voting system.

[Marques]

20 hours ago, admin said:

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.

I agree. To do the game more historical at the same time easier to play.
Only 4 big nations. And many others minors, Include as well Portugal.
European situation at Napoleon Wars is not a valid reference, because 1700 to 1815 (
time-ships, for this game) was not 100 years of Napolleonic time. Instead Caribbean history must be the reference.
I know the game is not historical, but will help to new players only 4 main NATIONS, that 
should be in % , Spain 35 % players, France 20 %, UK 20 % , and the 25 % rest goes to Holland Republic 
whit the others small nations. That is History in caribbean , not in 15 years of Napoleon Era.
If the game is not improved in these important historical aspects and it does 
not benefit new players with more secure 
zones, fewer enemies and pirates everywhere, 
the game will never have the necessary appeal to be a best-seller.
Game must be easy to understand and play. So only 4 nations , with Spain main enemie
will be historicall and easier to play.
If a player wants to do battles continuously he needs 
first the security of having a clan that supports him, cities with spare 
ships and the ease of traveling on the map without being continuously ganked. 
That for would be perfect to be less clans, less Nations, and more beginners players. 

And yes,  Portugal,  has many potencial players in Brasil.  Should be include as minor nation.

[Marques]

36 minutes ago, Routan said:

But should we even have it? Do we think a alliance system will solve the problem with why ppl dont do RvR. 

- How are they going to solve issues with nation change? Only let it be possible once every 3 month, and then make new Alliances?

-How are they going to make a static system thats take in to account skill level, friendships?

The solutions  for 4 Big Nations  is to  have a box of flags. If you can change your flag of your allied nations, and you can navigate with the possibility of hoist the flag on the minor nations  on high seas, at any time. So you will be a  box-flags,  with  5 or 7  differents minors nations with the chance to choose and navigate safe in all the seas of your allies. The risk may would be the moment or time to do this flag exchange.

For example,  one player would be able to navigate  more relaxing way from  Veracruz  to  San Juan de Puerto Rico by changing  3 times the flag. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Marques

[Marques]

4 hours ago, Routan said:

I knew even in a small nation I would fight on even turns. No super buffs. I had acces to all I needed to craft competetive ships. I could replace my loses, and fight. Now with expensive ships, superbuffed ships. Port development and the concequence, it is a exstremly hard war server. If you are in a small nation, just prey you have no enemies, that are going to take all away. 

I agree.  The game was perfect when you have 3 lifes for your Ships.  You could lose a boat and go back out

and find a new fight. As you say, now the game is very difficult, all the goods are very expensive to buy.

It is almost impossible to play without resources or boats. I am in the game since 2015 and I sincerely believe that it should be more arcade

in the aspect of being able to enter and know who is your enemy and where to find it. If a new player knows

 clear that he will be supported by a large clan and knows that he has enough ships and resources, he will not be afraid to go looking for

enemies and have fun fighting. For that  a  4-nation system alliances can improve a lot in this regard.

Game should be easy to play with only 4 main actors. Allways at war. And ships should be more lifes to aware fear to lost it.

One place will be allways visible for beginners, in order to know who is your country allie and who is your enemie.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Marques

[Marques]

13 minutes ago, Routan said:

But will it increase the RvR?

Yes, off course !  It´s clear... I belive  PvP  would be increase if you have  4-Nations  allways at war.

Why ?...Because you open  the game to more players. And Because you increase the number of resources. You increase the possibility of traveling to areas of your allies. You increase the number of flags you can play with. You increase the size of the clans. And besides all that is easier to understand is a plus more realistic system. DEVS just have

to lower prices and put more lives on your ships. And then players  will have resources and would feel ready to lost their ships at anytime.

[LeBoiteux]

In case of napoleonic coalitions, the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy or the Napoleonic Italian Republic could be added to the Western coalition to have an added nation/flag.

1 hour ago, Marques said:

European situation at Napoleon Wars is not a valid reference, because 1700 to 1815 (
time-ships, for this game) was not 100 years of Napolleonic time. Instead Caribbean history must be the reference. (...) That is History in caribbean , not in 15 years of Napoleon Era.

You won't change that odd fact that NA devs (and quite a few players) cherish the Napoleonic area. 🙂

btw the in-game napoleonic Western coalition (USA, FR, SP) could also be seen as the alliance during the American War of Independence.

5 hours ago, Georg Fromm said:

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

What do our Quebec Canadian friends play as ? UK ?

Edited May 4, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[Hawkwood]

15 hours ago, Wilhelm von Seydlitz said:

We already have alliances and these are made by the players and result from the current situation

I think that's good (my opinion)

So, you don´t want to be allied with some foreign clan, or being able to use their port facilities?

[Marques]

I agree.  But also the game could be have a timer...a wacht-time. I agree with you. France Spain and Usa were allies, but not always from 1725 to 1815 there were many changes. The important thing is that a beginning player in NA should knows that he has a place to see alliances and wars. A system of only 4 nations is better than the current one of 11, which is very ridiculous. It would also be possible a calendar system that began in 1715 until 1815 and that developers were implemented alliances and treaties in order to balance the game as the years went by ... One year for example is 3 months and then every 3 months the Devs could balance that 4-nation war system.

Also one player should be able to play one main nations or a smallest one that shoul be included Portugal.

[Wilhelm von Seydlitz]

23 minutes ago, Hawkwood said:

So, you don´t want to be allied with some foreign clan, or being able to use their port facilities?

good question 🙂

yes, but that's what you should choose for yourself and not the game mechanics

[Marques]

28 minutes ago, Hawkwood said:

So, you don´t want to be allied with some foreign clan, or being able to use their port facilities?

The problem is many Nations, few wars, few PvP....  The ruler should be the DEVS...according to rates of players.

A 4 Nations system would be easier to ruler.. Also A historical time wacht would be implemented. If the game release on 2020…. Every two months  DEVS  could be

modify the alliances.  In a 4 Nations system with  10 minor nations.

 

1715- 1716 ….. would be   January- Feb , 2020.

1716-1717……  would be    Mars-April , 2020

1718…. would be    May-June, 2020

1719….. would be    July- August, 2020

1720....  etc

 

So  every current year has corresponde  to 6 years in old historical time, and Devs

could change politics-alliances mainly in order to number of players. ( Is not Historical system)

In this case could be possible in one moment that 3 main nations

with several of minor Nations fight againsts only one (  f.e:: UK  when this

nation have more population with a a risk to break the game) .

O maybe two againts all, or maybe Spain againts all ….it would be

change every 2 monts according the historical times or players population rates .

Because the game become break when only one Nation is the Boss, and the balance between Nations is lost.

Current system of 11 Nations is a kaos.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Marques

[Hawkwood]

21 minutes ago, Wilhelm von Seydlitz said:

good question 🙂

yes, but that's what you should choose for yourself and not the game mechanics

Eh? That is the whole point of this suggestion in this thread....Who else determines the rules if not the game mechanics?

[Wilhelm von Seydlitz]

20 minutes ago, Hawkwood said:

Eh? That is the whole point of this suggestion in this thread....Who else determines the rules if not the game mechanics?

and the game mechanics with 11 nations at war is fine, we already have agreements and alliances (player created) with other nations....