Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
SteelSandwich

Alliances - Feedback topic

Recommended Posts

Nyurtle    57

aLTHough I don't agree with how people are voting I think the system is strong and simple which is good. I spent some time and energy campaigning for people to vote the way i thought would be best and even though I didn't get what I want I still think the system did a good job. Ideally I would like the vote amounts to depend on something that might limit alt accounts being used giving some people 4 times the votes as others. Maybe have a decaying amount of votes per player that gets boosted by some type of measurement of activity. Maybe a 1 vote for getting atleast 1 kill this week 1 vote for sailing atleast 1 hour maybe another vote depending on how much experience you generated that week. Makes it a lot harder on the devs but might please some of the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Red Duke    6,298

So what's the point of a coded voting system when the 'big clans' can just agree to not attack a certain faction?

 

That faction will still show up red ( not ally means at war right ? ) meaning everyone else can attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to use negative votes to gain positive votes. 

Player has good number of votes to figure it out.. Bicycle was confusing a bit in the first drive too. Once you figured it out it works. 

 

votes are registered and updated every couple of mins - (counted) 

 

You're absolutely right, just wanted to provide feedback from my perspective.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,019

So what's the point of a coded voting system when the 'big clans' can just agree to not attack a certain faction?

The question is then do the 'big clans' truly represent political power? If they did, then they would have controlled the ballot.

This system correctly portrays what is the stance as dictated by political power. So in reality the system portrays what truly 'big clans' want, just as before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of alliances have been signed

a lot of wars were created. 

 

Are you sure it does not do its job?

 

Negative vote is an elegant design. It makes sure you cant ally with everyone. And the more allies you want the more enemies you need. Solves the problem before creating it.

Sorry but 2 allies is just one to many.

 

It was pretty hard to find some good fun pvp fights that wasent a PB before the change, now you have taken 2/7 of the enemys away from us, so we get 2/7 less fights. That in mind and the fact that you want us to join missions to get BP just gives me the feeling that you wanna make this in to a PVE server. :( you sure hell dosent make it easyer to get pvp.

 

I get the idear with the allies, its good but one wold do it. maby make nr 2. abit less committed so maby you cant attack there port but players can still hit each other.

 

If you do want 2 allies for each country, please make it all in one vote, now the big clans control it all, first they pick one friend then in the next round they pick another, if its all in one

vote, the outcome of nr 2 allies might not become as clear.

 

Changes is good, just looking forward to see some changes that will give more pvp, witch would be good on a pvp server.  Like the social Perk :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fastidius    303

Standard UI design for a vote like this would be sliders you can move up and down to record your vote -- with your vote totals shown immediately. Very confusing as is.

No sliders.  counter wheels please.  far better to work with wheels than sliders......sliders are prone to bad incrementing and unable to handle formulae. this you have no ability to put in exact numbers in every screen you have sliders on currently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrapeShot    534

Counter wheels would work as well. The main point being to abide by one of the fundamental rules of GUI design -- do not invent controls when controls to do the task already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Red Duke    6,298

I would like a simple ALLIANCE - WAR per nation button.

 

When I click ALLIANCE the entire number of alliance votes are used.

 

When I click WAR the entire number of war votes are used.

 

I sort of dislike the "tokens" idea,1 here, 2 there, 3 over there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
victor    690

the system has one (big) flaw: until the two bigger nations are de facto allied, they have the power to dictate war and alliance to every other nation.

 

It may be realistic but it simply makes much less interesting the whole alliance system.

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,019

the system has one (big) flaw: until the two bigger nations are de facto allied, they have the power to dictate war and alliance to every other nation.

 

It may be realistic but it simply makes much less interesting the whole alliance system.

How do you see this happening? An alliance must come from two ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson09    282

I would like a simple ALLIANCE - WAR per nation button.

When I click ALLIANCE the entire number of alliance votes are used.

When I click WAR the entire number of war votes are used.

I sort of dislike the "tokens" idea,1 here, 2 there, 3 over there...

 

Fully agree.

No reason to make it complicated. With so many voters, the individual vote is irrelevant.

If I vote or not, will not make a difference in most cases. If so, then I am very likey to need

all votes...

 

And as my vote is anonomyous, no reason to hand in a full preference profile.

You win academic merits with this approach, but not players (eh...Hethwills and mine...) hearts...

 

Keep this one simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quarios    31

The voting is just painfull, especially with the "Are you sure"-window. So i have to click a total of 40 times with server delays inbetween ... Just give me a button where i can give all my 10 votes at once please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bramborough    152

So, apparently there is a forced 3-day break in between 9-day alliance periods?  Can't go back and look now, but am 99.9% sure that VP-UK (PvP1) voted each other to renew alliance on the last round; which made perfect sense as we could all see the then-current alliance period coming close to expiration.  Yet now we are not allied during the current 3-day voting round.  I notice that the same thing occurred with the other initial PvP1 alliance (France/Danmark-Norge).

 

Is this an intended feature?  Or are the alliance mechanics not working quite right?

 

If intended, ok fine, I'm sure players will adjust now that we know.  Just annoying that this wrinkle wasn't explained in advance (if it was, could someone please link source?  I read the initial alliance announcement and patchnotes pretty carefully, and remember nothing about it).  Personally, I think it makes little sense that a firm long-standing alliance would "take breaks" every fourth cycle, and essentially only be allied 75% of the time.  'Tis a bit silly.

 

If not intended, devs, please consider priority action to correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,019

Swedens are not in  " War " status with Hollands . then why they can attack  Holland PORTS ? Open sea pvp is ok, but Port Battle... ?

You might have found the perfect definition for a Neutral stance. Can attack on OW, but can't raise hostility (nor enter the PB that would ensue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 x alliance now ? 1 is more then enough 2 is to much 3 ? is fucked.

 

why bother play this game, we are friends with the whole world.. 

 

Please rename this game to naval boredom because it sure hell isent action.

 

I will come back to the game when you bring back the action.

 

THIS is just waste of my good time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. There are still enough places for action. Check the map m8.

not only a matter of that you have to sail acros the map to get a fight, its pure mat.   before we could fight 7 nations now we can fight 4 so we have 3/7 less players (i know nations are not same size but still) to attack it just gives less pvp action so lets atleast be fair and call it what it is.. Borring

Edited by Danishviking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
admin    28,086

not only a matter of that you have to sail acros the map to get a fight, its pure mat.   before we could fight 7 nations now we can fight 4 so we have 3/7 less players (i know nations are not same size but still) to attack it just gives less pvp action so lets atleast be fair and call it what it is.. Borring

 

perhaps you should have voted against alliances and insisted that its a wrong choice, when player driven politics was asked by players to be added to game and was voted to be a first priority :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps you should have voted against alliances and insisted that its a wrong choice, when player driven politics was asked by players to be added to game and was voted to be a first priority :)

 

well as i wrote i think one alliance would be in fine, but as in so many other aspects a good idear has to be raped so much it turns bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,019

perhaps you should have voted against alliances and insisted that its a wrong choice, when player driven politics was asked by players to be added to game and was voted to be a first priority :)

The problem lies in the number of friends and enemies you can choose from.

I know you want balance, but these 18th century Captains are all evil by design. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
admin    28,086

well as i wrote i think one alliance would be in fine, but as in so many other aspects a good idear has to be raped so much it turns bad.

 

 

8 nations were too much 

alliances bring this to 2-3 

there are a lot of fights they are just in a different place 

+ you can always find action around Mortimer town

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squedage    89

People are switching to Pirate just to get pvp on our server. Working as intended?

 

you forget that pvp 2 doesnt matter much its all about pvp 1 and we just have to make it work from there

 

the few people that were trying to make pvp2 into 2-3 large nation got steam rolled by all the people that wanted just 1 large nation to steam roll all the small almost non exsitant ones

Edited by squedage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×