Removing Difficulty on Nation Selection

[Axel]

Looking at how the main nations people choose in the game seem to be the United States and Great Britain (with Pirates coming next probably) people have been looking for a way to encourage people to play the "smaller nations" such as Sweden. While I believe we still should keep thinking of ways for people to be encouraged to choose the smaller nations I think there is one simple thing that could be done as a start.

When I first joined the game I looked at all the nation descriptions to see which I liked the best. I of course saw the US was labeled as Easy and when I was just starting I didn't want to learn this new game by being thrown into the deep end so I joined the US. After about 2 weeks I felt I had learned enough to go to a harder nation and went with Sweden. I expected some sort of difficulty change but I found none. The only difficulty we had was a smaller population. I feel this part of the description is misleading and should be changed. 

While not top priority it seems like an easy fix and could be a good step towards keeping nations somewhat balanced. I will also attach the current  nation descriptions for the US and Sweden and a possible idea for how to change them.

[Powderhorn]

Agreed.  Difficulties should be replaced with population estimates.

[Tiedemann]

1 minute ago, Powderhorn said:

Agreed.  Difficulties should be replaced with population estimates.

That sounds like a good idea

[Aventador]

This needs to happen! Another thing that would be good to add though is a map showing where these places are

[Axel]

12 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

Agreed.  Difficulties should be replaced with population estimates.

This could work but it could also have the same affect when seeing US: High Population GB: Very High Population Sweden: Very Low Population. However if they maybe add in the map before you choose a nation like Aventador said so you dont choose Spain when it has no ports because the nation has no players. Im not sure what the best way to do it is but maybe adding the map, putting hints in the description like "Sweden has many enemies around her", and possibly a disclaimer that descriptions are based on starting positions on a clean map and nations will change as the players start to play.

[Fenris]

Wouldnt change a thing....And wouldnt animate players to join "small nations"..Why?

Imagine there would be no USA, instead of it Portugal.....How many would play that nation? or, idk...13 Colonies????

If you are able to see how many players a nation has, thats the same thing like current description(HARD/EASY etc..)

A new player joins instantly a nation which is easier to play,since there is no manual, OR goes to his NATION, if he has one,represented in the game, or feels kinda connected to one of those.

Describing nations positions differently as they are NOW, would almost be a "fraud" to new players,because the description in the beginning is giving pretty precisely their(nations) current situation.

 

[Axel]

17 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Wouldnt change a thing....And wouldnt animate players to join "small nations"..Why?

Imagine there would be no USA, instead of it Portugal.....How many would play that nation? or, idk...13 Colonies????

If you are able to see how many players a nation has, thats the same thing like current description(HARD/EASY etc..)

A new player joins instantly a nation which is easier to play,since there is no manual, OR goes to his NATION, if he has one,represented in the game, or feels kinda connected to one of those.

Describing nations positions differently as they are NOW, would almost be a "fraud" to new players,because the description in the beginning is giving pretty precisely their(nations) current situation.

 

How would the original idea not change a thing? All you mentioned here was the population part which I too said the same thing.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

It might be useful to do some A/B testing to see whether population vs difficulty influences nation choice, and then use the one that encourages choosing the minors, if there is any difference whatsoever in the test results.

[PIerrick de Badas]

Why not redeemable for low pop nation?

"as a captain of lowpop nation, the admiralty has to count on all this captain. It.s why the admiralty provide you 4 ships in redeemable to count on you in few days"

and give player xp ships : privateer, brig, snow, mercury

it's nothing that may disbalance the game or eco. It it may help people to choose them 

[Guest]

Wouldn't the same player who opted for 'easier' also opt for high pop nations, and vice versa for 'very hard' and 'very low population'? It's a tall order to expect new players to have an interest in balancing.

I for one didn't mind the 'very hard' description at all, since those who did join were good caliber players and knew what to expect.

Low pop bonuses are a better way to go if they're viewable at the character selection screen in order to influence people when they're choosing their nation. Use people's selfishness to achieve balance.

[Havelock]

Im against bonuses for low pop joiners. We dont have to even out nation populations, asymmetrical gameplay is far more interesting imo (asymmetrical, not unfair!). As long as there are mechanics to ensure small nations dont get wiped out its fine (the alliance feature only working for low pop nations could achieve this).

I joined a low pop nation myself because i enjoy the underdog gameplay and enjoy to play with people who think likewise. Always living on the edge, a contstant struggle to survive is a thrilling gameplay element for me. Some like a calmer and more reliable environment, these players will always search for a larger pop nation (giving them redeemables on nation selection will just hurt their natural gameplay behaviour).

[monk33y]

Once we receive the wipe, the historical smaller nations players could start with for example Belle pull (ship) This would give them an advantage! 

[Anolytic]

15 minutes ago, monk33y said:

Once we receive the wipe, the historical smaller nations players could start with for example Belle pull (ship) This would give them an advantage! 

A midshipman on a belle poule doesn't give much of an advantage.

-----------------

Redeemables for small nations are not really the solution as far as I can see. I remember when we first got the Bucentaure redeemable and every noob was doing ensign missions around their capital with 120 crew on their bucentaure, taking half an hour to reload their guns (especially back before the new crew management system).

Bonuses for small playing nations might work, but they should not be in the form of ship redeemables or XP. 

Ship bonuses will only be a gift to seal clubbers and drive people away from the game after they get ganked in their shiny big ship that they can't sail or crew.

XP bonuses will only mean artificially inflating the player numbers with max rank noobs who haven't had time to learn to sail before they get into the biggest ships.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Anolytic