Alliances - final design

[Mrdoomed]

I regret that pirates were implemented as they currently exist. IMO, there should never have been a pirate 'faction' but instead privateers, which could change sides at will, perhaps with a cool down. Too many problems with spying I suppose, but I wonder if there is some way to make it work.

Of course, you could go completely pirate if you really wanted to, but you'd have to operate out of free towns and would truly be on your own, essentially. True pirate, hated by all, few reliable friends, etc.

You just described my clan

[Mrdoomed]

Will pirates have the option to re-roll if this puts pirates in an unfavorable position? Switch nations?

Imho i think once pirates aredone being transformed that most of the large warrior type clans will swap to nationals. At least it seems like it so im sure at the eventual server wipe is whem all tje swapping will happen.

Just a guess.

[admin]

A doubt devs, Which is going to be the initial political situation between nations? Neutrality?

 

if you are not allied you are at war

enemy choice is needed for blocking purposes - but i am sure your nation hate one of the nations more than others

[Cmdr RideZ]

Maybe to limit the amount of allies one nation can have.  Maybe max 2 allies.  Alliance of 3 is already actually a big, maybe too big already.

 

Right now for example; UK, VP, SE, US are allied. This is way too big alliance in the game, and should have never existed.  So maybe you should only be allowed to be allied with 1.  Or bigger you are, less alliances you can have.  The size measured in active players.

[Vernon Merrill]

Its funny that port timers are going away the same time the mechanic that would have neutralized them is being implemented.  Allies in PB's would have prevented soo much whinging, IMO.  

 

The having to increase hostility is till a better solution, however.

[Anolytic]

^{Thank you for designing alliances! This should be fun to test.  Any reason why instead of rounds of voting directly on alliances, you didn't go the "elect a leader who quickly decides alliances and enemies" route?  Seems like a leader and/or his foreign minister could negotiate alliances quickly, and in interesting ways that voting could never do...  that said, I'm very grateful for the new content, and looking forward to testing it!}

Would be a good system - if the developers could pay whoever was elected as leader of a faction full time pay for working as a diplomat rather than playing the game.

 

I think the system here looks promising. I see some areas where it might need some tweaking to improve implementation, but probably half of my objections have already been thought of and addressed by the developers, so I'm going to test the current system first .

[dumpert]

Right now for example; UK, VP, SE, US are allied. 

 

this will not change. the patch actually just gives an opportunity to defend allied ports, thus gives an extra advantage to the zerg. ingame where still will be "unofficial" allies, nobody could (and shouldnt) make you attack "hostiles".

 

the best part is pirates are excluded from this

[Vernon Merrill]

Intrepido, I believe its more about who you are ALLIED with rather than who you are at war with.  The mechanics allow advantages for being allied.

[Cpt Blackthorne]

no

both nations must be a top choice for each other - but because the voting lasts for a week and you get multiple votes you will be able to put votes to make the second choice a first choice

 

basically - only 1 alliance per week.

I am still confused. Are you saying we can have only 1 ally at a time? I believe all this is creating are truce alliances rather than actual alliances. But willing to give it a test.

[arminpfano]

This makes for an interesting development opportunity: All nations minus one could ally and crush the remaining nation (lets call it the victim). This game repeats, every week a new victim is chosen and eliminated, until the remaining two powers fight it out amongst them. "There can only be one" (Highlander)...

[mikawa]

 

Hence I think Pirate clans should be able to ally themselves with Nations.

Hmm, pirates have no interest in making allies, as they attack each one they want. This is a big advantage, isn't it? Just sail out and look what poor target crosses your way ....

[Dragonfire]

Going to be some or a lot of players that are just not going to be happy with their nations choice of "Enemy or friendly" nation and since they  are now forced by this mechanic to leave them  alone one thing comes to mind.

 

 

One thing that maybe needs to be addressed is a Nation Flipping penalty.

 

 

Flipping nations back and forth need to have a stiffer penalty attached to it beyond what we have now. Either a loss of significant rank or some sort of,  is it worth it penalty.

 

Just a thought.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Dragonfire

[Ledinis]

This coupled with with the PB rework will mean not a single empty port battle ever. Rework crafting and and ships to have one dura and ill gift this game to at least 3 people regardless if they'll play it or not  

[Ned Loe]

How are you going to deal with multiple accounts placing votes for other Nations?

 

ex. if a clan has 100 members and they are all have 2 accounts on different nations. Can they switch and vote? I think yes. 100 cheat votes make a big difference and might just ruin the whole system.  

 

My suggestion - implement 'active hours'. Active Hours should be the minimum amount of hours you need to spend (in one nation) in order to place the vote for that same nation. Now in order to place double vote, players will need to spend x2 hours per week on both nations if they want to cheat. 

 

ex. if player is inactive and just came back to the game he will not be able to place a vote. 10 hours per week could be a reasonable start. Active hours reset every week. 

 

Also, place vote window in the end of each Week - Sunday. This will make sure players get 10 required hours.

 

 

P.S. I am looking what will happen in a long run and I know it takes time to level up a character, but trust me we are dealing with gamers who will do just anything in order to get an easy win. 

[admin]

Its funny that port timers are going away the same time the mechanic that would have neutralized them is being implemented.  Allies in PB's would have prevented soo much whinging, IMO.  

 

The having to increase hostility is till a better solution, however.

 

alliances are coming first

so you will have a chance to test pbs with the timers

[akd]

Is there a possibility for a nation to remain neutral, or return to a neutral status? Will nations that have not yet entered an alliance (because they were not top choice for another nation) and don't have a mutual enemy be considered neutral to all (other than pirates) or enemies to all? Is picking a mutual enemy but not an alliance an automatic alliance?

[Ledinis]

I didnt hear them scraping the Landlord thing, so i assume those that posses land will be able to vote ? 

[Aphilas]

Would be interesting to hear what is planned for Pirates, as this system (without other systems) puts them in great disadvantage and hugely benefits zergs - as was pointed out already in this thread this system doesn't change the fact that if certain nations have agreed an alliance they do not need to be in "in-game" alliance to assist each other with blockades and such. Only thing that the presented alliance system really changes is capability to enter PBs as allies.

So, technically if we look at PvP1 server the UK/US/Dutch/Swedes alliance will still work together, but they will be able to enter PBs together on top of that.

 

I hope that upcoming PB revamp will actually hinder alliances that are just agreements outside the game (being enemies in new system, but helping each other just as nations can help each other at the moment). I guess the easiest way to do that would be through threat system which is required to make port available for PB. If nation that is not in the in-game system alliance is performing actions near port it should damage threat levels of other nations. For example: Brits and Dutch are in the new system in game alliance, and they are working on increasing threat at port Baracoa. If US or Swedes are performing actions in Baracoa region, it should lower threat created by British and Dutch alliance, because US and Swedes are not in the in-game alliance with either Brits nor Dutch.

That way the game would push nations towards multiple political blocks fighting each other instead of 1 or max 2 megablobs like it is now. Which, imho, is far more fluid and interesting as well as less damaging the game population. Obviously, it would not resolve possibility of 2-3 political blocks focusing 1 political block from all sides.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Aphilas

[JamesMaize]

One ally per nation is really going to screw over some nations, ex: U.S. and Spain, while over powering others, Brits and Dutch. The Brit/Dutch mega alliance is just going going to result in 1 big zerg nation.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Week 1: smaller nations wiped, Largest playerbase nations form two or three blocks

Week 2: smaller nations are forced to ally with their gankers and declare war to potential allies for two weeks to survive and keep players^^

 

End of diplomacy for months.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[TheStarSlayer]

Will there be an option to vote "no alliance" and/or a minimum percentage of votes required to ratify one?  For example if the majority of a faction's players were not available for a voting cycle or perhaps were disinclined towards any alliance without either of the above foreign policy could be changed or created by a very small minority.

[Skully]

Will there be a maximum number of Nations you can ally too?

Yup, 1

no

both nations must be a top choice for each other - but because the voting lasts for a week and you get multiple votes you will be able to put votes to make the second choice a first choice

basically - only 1 alliance per week.

[Skully]

P.S. I am looking what will happen in a long run and I know it takes time to level up a character, but trust me we are dealing with gamers who will do just anything in order to get an easy win.

Don't take offense, but how do you think alts work?

The current challenge they are facing is ensuring being Rear Admiral with all alts on all servers.

[Ned Loe]

Don't take offense, but how do you think alts work?

The current challenge they are facing is ensuring being Rear Admiral with all alts on all servers.

I understand, but that challenge is not good enough. I want to see they spend required amount of hours per week if they want to be able to vote. They can spend 10 hours in Spain and then go and spend 10 hours in France. Such time investment will make sure they know why they are voting.

[Sven Silberbart]

How are you going to deal with multiple accounts placing votes for other Nations?

 

ex. if a clan has 100 members and they are all have 2 accounts on different nations. Can they switch and vote? I think yes. 100 cheat votes make a big difference and might just ruin the whole system.  

 

My suggestion - implement 'active hours'. Active Hours should be the minimum amount of hours you need to spend (in one nation) in order to place the vote for that same nation. Now in order to place double vote, players will need to spend x2 hours per week on both nations if they want to cheat. 

 

ex. if player is inactive and just came back to the game he will not be able to place a vote. 10 hours per week could be a reasonable start. Active hours reset every week. 

 

Also, place vote window in the end of each Week - Sunday. This will make sure players get 10 required hours.

 

 

P.S. I am looking what will happen in a long run and I know it takes time to level up a character, but trust me we are dealing with gamers who will do just anything in order to get an easy win. 

 

PLEASE Devs. Take a look at this suggestion.

This player did make a very very good suggestion to decrease the problem of multiaccounts and the voting system.

In addition such a system will protect a nation from votes by players who play just a very few hours a week. In my oppinion such players aren't be able to estimate

wich nation ist the best ally and wich are really need to be an enemy, because they don't know what happened the last week(s).

Edited August 2, 2016 by Sven Silberbart