Rework of Alliances

[Aventador]

With the changes coming to trading etc and this suggestion from @admin

I think alliances should remain as they were but remove the ability to enter port battles. With this type of alliance, smaller nations would be able to have an effective economy and a happier player base but won't be able to expand as much because they wouldn't be able to have their allies help them or fight a battle for them. 

 

[Chetamista Noud]

I think if you allowed clans to control regions, then allowed those clans to set who has access to the regions, that may be one possible idea.  I feel that the existing alliance system is flawed at its core and should be reworked.

[PIerrick de Badas]

Alliance make rvr less fresh because map isn't big and you always find a port with ressources or bonus. Without alliance, all have to fight to supply their own nation. (Easy to say when no one want us as Allie)

[Aventador]

I mean we have to think realistically. If we want an alliance overhaul with something completely different we'd be lucky to see it by Christmas. If someone has a better realistic idea feel free to post it or make another suggestion.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Aventador

[Corona Lisa]

2 hours ago, Aventador said:

I think alliances should remain as they were but remove the ability to enter port battles.

So everyone would have access to every resource again, without fighting. Thats boring and stale and means no dynamic economy is possible.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Jon Snow lets go

[Powderhorn]

The best way to do it, I think, would be to allow the smallest factions, port-wise, to ally.  Perhaps even just make it mandatory.  "Parliament / Congress has decreed an alliance between..."

[Cmdr RideZ]

Or it could be just that devs will check that which nations are small and make those allies.  Then update that once per week.

Size should be measured by playerbase or if some nation is hammered hard, that could also affect to this.  Devs do have the numbers, they know how many active players there are.

[PIerrick de Badas]

i love the idea of devs controll, they have acces t data and can balance their game.

[Cmdr RideZ]

16 minutes ago, Borch said:

When they came up with the idea of alliances I said that it wont work this way unless its artificially controlled by devs. What that would do tough, is some players would certainly accuse them of sides picking.

They can specify rules for this, so players can see how they define the allies.

A, B, C and D are the smallest nations.

They can join A+D and then B+C.

Or A+B+C and D+E

Or just A+B+C

Or by location, D&N+SVE until their numbers get high enough.

 

And if someone complains, fine, is nothing new here, so we can just ignore them.

[Hethwill]

Anything NOT to make a return to the stale status we suffered for months due to misuse of alliance mechanic.

[Bach]

This is going to sound cruel but the best solution to solving a small nations problem is not to help them through an in game computer moderated alliance system.  As good as it sounds it just ends up being a content killing change.  It would take us back to players being able to do everything solo. Which in turn reducing player interactions and eventuall leads to everything becoming uniform and less dynamic.

The challenges to a small nation are resources, port battle participation and to some degree coastal security.  Everyone of these can be over come without changing any rules.  

For resources the small nation can simply over come this with player to player trade agreements. Player will have to get out and meet other players, use the trade channel, make friends or otherwise create content for each other.

If player meet and make trade friends and relationships with other nations players they end up generating their own alliances. This will lead to screening friends for port battles. Possibly to benevolent foreign clans that might take ports and then give then to the small nation to help build up or secure trade deals.  This is much much more involved player interaction than the computer simply letting others that may never talk to you enter your port battles for their own enjoyment.

As above, once you get trade deals set up and real in game friends made the coastal security option also can be solved.  Perhaps a benevolent foreign clan agrees to let your new players level in a region they own and provide protection. 

All things in a sand box can be solved through player interactions. These interactions create teams, rivalries and most of all player made content.  Computer enforced alliances and boundaries remove the necessity for player interactions and thereby stifle or stale the content if not constantly infused by the developers to make up for semi-isolated players not doing so.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Bach

[Kpt Lautenschlaeger]

I'm inclined to agree with Bach. Particularly with the low player numbers likely to be present on the two new servers initially after the wipe, I think mechanised (as opposed to player-negotiated and player-enforced) alliances are too rigid.

Would it make sense to introduce a 'notoriety' counter per player? Something that either states explicitly, or is tracked on, how many BR of each nation a player has attacked in the past, say, four weeks. So if I (Spaniard) encounter a Dutchman in the OW, his ship info would state 'has 42 notoriety with Spain'.

Then each nation and its clans could formulate non-mechanised policies based on nation and notoriety.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Kpt Lautenschlaeger

[Bach]

1 hour ago, Kpt Lautenschlaeger said:

I'm inclined to agree with Bach. Particularly with the low player numbers likely to be present on the two new servers initially after the wipe, I think mechalised (as opposed to player-negotiated and player-enforced) alliances are too rigid.

Would it make sense to introduce a 'notoriety' counter per player? Something that either states explicitly, or is tracked on, how many BR of each nation a player has attacked in the past, say, four weeks. So if I (Spaniard) encounter a Dutchman in the OW, his ship info would state 'has 42 notoriety with Spain'.

Then each nation and its clans could formulate non-mechanised policies based on nation and notoriety.

I like this concept. It puts the control and the decision into a semi-informed players hands to shape the game.  It also reflects the genre as word of mouth notoriety of  particular ship or captain would have been passed from port authority and taverns across the Caribbean.  I like it. You should put it into the suggestions.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Bach