Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
koiz

Weak nations need to group together and consider abandoning the one they are in now.

Recommended Posts

Texas, as for NPG it can be summed up with one of Lionshafts own comments, "This is not a democracy it is a dictatorship". This attitude is why several of his members left and formed IGG which turned into a fairly successful force but lacked the numbers to be effective and thus a few of them left to join the pirates.

As for Pirates being a nation, i actually never said they were a nation but in actuality had all the abilities of a nation and some extra. The pirate frigate (last time I used one) does seem to be more effective in boarding actions and the FFA aspect permits the pirates to eliminate "potential spies" who seem to show up near major ports. 

As for US and British operations, the biggest upsetting aspect is that Britain has aided the US and lost a LOT of ships in the process and I can not recall one time that the US sent warships to aid Britain. The last operation of Britain helping the US that I know of resulted in the screening force of British ships being nearly wiped out just so the US could enter the port battle, stay for 30 seconds and then leave. To the best of my knowledge the US made no attempts or offers to aid Britain in replacing the lost vessels. NPG and DD are a couple of US clans that needs to seriously lose the ego they have. It only makes other groups not want to work with them due to their constantly blaming others for the mistakes they make as well as DD members openly stating where friendly nation members are at in global so that the pirates could intercept them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

 

 A while back I saw a screen shot of something you said in Nation chat.  Wish I could find it but didn't save it from who ever posted it but goes something like this and it sums up the problems with US and GB.   Forgive me if I get it slightly wrong, "We tried to flip 2/3 ports tonight and end up loosing 2 other ports instead."   It was actually a very smart move to try that, but not at that time and not with the ports you picked.  Part of the problems is US tries the same ports over and over that we have defense set up.  Not really sure what happens with the GB flip group as it was very little points gained if I remember that eve.  So instead we went and flipped and took two regions that weekend our selves.  I think the problem with mainly US and we will add GB in this is they do things, but when they do them they try to big.  They need to take the baby steps in between.  Start with some off the way port that isn't heavily defended.  Do some test runs.  That is why I suggest US take some Gulf ports.  Does GB really need those extra regions right now?  It would give the US some safe zone to grow in and build, but the battles can still be contested to let both sides get some experience.  Than do like ya'll talk about and meet in the middle and fight over one region to get both sides trained up and with more experience.  Is this really that unreasable of a suggestion to help out two nations?

The double flip was a half-assed plan that came about because someone decided to just say, "lets hit these guys back!" and zero planning or thought was put into the targets and timings.  A large part of the PVP2 US/GB mindset that I've noticed is there isn't much prior planning as to what, when and were they should attack.  One of the main reasons we left the US other than the ones you detailed above was it seemed that the major clans that planning attacks and sticking to the plans was anathema to the guys.  BLACK does what they do very well most of that is attributed to preparation and prior thought, until the rest of the server can do the same.....we'll keep losing.

Also Daniel Silver quit after Savannah.  He knew it was over.  

And while I'm sure the US appreciates a safe zone in the gulf,  your words are a bit hypocritical when your clan and others roll out of Savannah, which is 2 ports away from the US capital and farm their people like clockwork every night.  As long as you hold Savannah the US is never going to be able to rebuild and recover fully.....and astonishingly the US hasn't.  You guys even managed to scare off a fairly decent sized clan of new players that bought the game, PARF.  After having talked to a couple of their members, they reason almost all of them quit is because with the pirates farming them constantly, they can't get anything done. 

In all honesty though, who cares.  You and your ilk can demonize the brits all you want for taking the gulf, but what really killed the US and continues to kill the us is BLACK clan and their insistence on holding Savannah.  I'm sure all the US players appreciate the kind and helpful words of encouragement players like yourself and Koiz bestow on the population, but everyone as tuned your hypocritical rhetoric out long ago.  

Acta non verba.  

PS - and with 140 people on during the evenings and about 80 on during the day, who really gives a shit.  The game is done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grow weary of putting blame on the Pirate mechanics, when clearly it show which mechanic we are missing:

On 9/11/2016 at 8:29 PM, Skully said:

I think the next new officer perk should be "Organize" or "Strategy", because "Social" wasn't enough.

I just haven't found the right means of implementation. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, koltes said:

Here is another idea. Quit talking to pirates. Play your game and try to win by getting batter. Without ANY dialog with pirates. Can you do that?

It's kind of hard not too... you guys post way more crap in every thread.  It was a counter suggestion for the OP.  I know you guys do not kill each other "all the time" because of combatnews.

Anyways, as FR, I've killed plenty of pirates including Black ones.  I don't mind being outnumbered 2v1.  Just ask the OP.  He just got my third ship I've lost since wipe.  So this get "batter" stuff doesn't apply.  You guys just make it logistically harder by running to corners of the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dharus said:

It's kind of hard not too... you guys post way more crap in every thread.  It was a counter suggestion for the OP.  I know you guys do not kill each other "all the time" because of combatnews.  Pirate on Pirate even Show up in news? 

Anyways, as FR, I've killed plenty of pirates including Black ones.  I don't mind being outnumbered 2v1.  Just ask the OP.  He just got my third ship I've lost since wipe.  So this get "batter" stuff doesn't apply.  You guys just make it logistically harder by running to corners of the map.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bach said:

I got it just fine. I simply don't think it will accomplish anything worth while beyond feeding you more targets for awhile. If you want competition then you need to figure a way to spread the sports talent into other teams. But I don't think competition is what you were ever really looking for anyway.

No one cares about Olympic basketball since the USA was allowed to field an entire team of pro players.  Its simply not worth watching.

For how many decades did the Soviet (Red Army i believe) hockey team dominate Olympic hockey (IIRC, they (Soviets or "Unified Team) won it 8 out of 10 consecutive Olympic hockey championships between 1960-1992)?  Those teams were essentially pro players, while other countries were forced to field amateur teams, yet people still watched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JobaSet said:

 

Yes Pirate on Pirate show up on the combat news.  

Koltes and Koiz both have been on there sinking pirates over the past month. 

 

Then as for your attempts at insults, you should honestly say nothing because you know nothing and it shows more and more every day.

 

Unlike other people on this forum I have never abused an alt to get ahead.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when it comes down to it, most people playing this game just don't care for 25v25 RvR the way this game presents it.

The bar is too high (25 of the most expensive slowboats using rarer woods -- ships that are useless for OW hunting) and, in the opinion of apparently a lot of people, it's not as much fun as OW hunting.

Everything the playerbase has done for the last year and a half is to find way to avoid fighting good RvR battles. Multiple battles at the same time. By your own admission using alts in multiple fights just to clean up the map quicker and make people go "oh no there's 50 of them we can't win". Screening fleets to stop people from getting into fights. Night flips.

RvR has been "play to crush" and not enough people really enjoy that, so it died.

There is nothing fun about it.

Edited by Slamz
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raekur said:

Texas, as for NPG it can be summed up with one of Lionshafts own comments, "This is not a democracy it is a dictatorship".

If we're talking about guilds then my experience is that those run like a democracy do not last long and do not grow well. Ultimately you need someone who says "we're doing this".

The only question is whether you run it as a hard dictatorship or a soft one.

Hard dictatorship: we're doing this. If you're not doing this then you're out of the guild.
Soft dictatorship: we're doing this. You can do your own thing but this is our designated activity for the day.

The round-table type setup is just way too cumbersome for a guild that's more than like 6 people. I have never seen it work (or work well, anyway).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slamz said:

If we're talking about guilds then my experience is that those run like a democracy do not last long and do not grow well. Ultimately you need someone who says "we're doing this".

The only question is whether you run it as a hard dictatorship or a soft one.

Hard dictatorship: we're doing this. If you're not doing this then you're out of the guild.
Soft dictatorship: we're doing this. You can do your own thing but this is our designated activity for the day.

The round-table type setup is just way too cumbersome for a guild that's more than like 6 people. I have never seen it work (or work well, anyway).

The only guild I have seen that worked like that is my multi-gaming guild Aegis Imperium.  

We have what we have come to call a confederated leadership policy.   We each do our own thing until we are needed to act as a unit, then there is ONE leader, and a defined chain of command.    We had a standing rule, everyone is responsible for their own equipment in game.  We dont have a centralized builder or crafter, it doesnt work when you have 40 different play styles.   So if you use it, you better be able to make it.

But we are also the only guild that I have ever known of that had no problems with letting members join other guilds or start other guilds.   We were another games Illuminati and took great pride in knowing everything and having influence over almost every one, including the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JobaSet said:

 

Yes, pirate on pirate will show up in combat news.  But it does seem kind of silly to have game of pirates running around killing pirates all the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Chijohnaok said:

For how many decades did the Soviet (Red Army i believe) hockey team dominate Olympic hockey (IIRC, they (Soviets or "Unified Team) won it 8 out of 10 consecutive Olympic hockey championships between 1960-1992)?  Those teams were essentially pro players, while other countries were forced to field amateur teams, yet people still watched. 

Some watched but until the "miracle on ice" no one really cared.   Interesting follow up though. Those same Russian players then joined the Detroit Red Wings and other NHL teams and hockey went from a Canadian past time to main stream USA sports.  There is more value in competitive sports over expected mis-matched events.

Edited by Bach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slamz said:

If we're talking about guilds then my experience is that those run like a democracy do not last long and do not grow well. Ultimately you need someone who says "we're doing this".

The only question is whether you run it as a hard dictatorship or a soft one.

Hard dictatorship: we're doing this. If you're not doing this then you're out of the guild.
Soft dictatorship: we're doing this. You can do your own thing but this is our designated activity for the day.

The round-table type setup is just way too cumbersome for a guild that's more than like 6 people. I have never seen it work (or work well, anyway).

In this thread we have talked a lot about players getting more organized. I think the comment above explains a lot of what I have observed in the game playing in various nations over the past two years.  Democratic leadership works extremely well in smaller numbers like 6-20 players. They don't have any trouble staying on the same page and sharing common goals. But for nations with guilds of 50-100 players this is so much harder social model to maintain. Democracy takes time. Players need weigh options, discuss and eventually come around to consensus. This time can be too long for effective real time RvR competitions.   Simply telling large pick up group nations like Brit or USA to "get more organized" is probably an excercise in futility under a democracy leadership model.  Though I think it's equally hard to get such large groups to be accepting of military top down leadership styles as well.  The size of the population and not being able to enforce leadership calls on other players present great challenges.  

If large clans at least had the potential threat of green on green it would firm up organization structures quicker.  I'm not saying big clans need to be jerks to all the others. I'm just saying it takes a lot longer to build an organization structure trying to talk everyone into the same spot. Green on green speeds the process up by resolving hard disagreements in shorter time spans resulting in an organization structure that can do what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bach said:

In this thread we have talked a lot about players getting more organized.

The French are very organized. They are organized to live out of Free ports and do OW pvp since they have to sail across the map to find PVP. The French are organized to do exactly what they want to do.

Most of the discussion about getting organized is about port battles which the French couldn't care less about. No matter how many times you tell the Pirates players something they just don't seem to get it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to harp on it (okay that's a lie, I totally want to harp on this) but if RvR was a side effect of OW PvP and we simply got rid of 25v25 port battles, this would be a much better game and we'd all be having fun still, even with low populations.

Killing a pirate should get me tokens (based on the total value of his ship) that I can use to turn a Pirate port into a French port. After we've killed enough pirates (regardless of where) then we get to claim a port.

We can come up with ways to make this exploit resistant. One way actually comes from Planetside 1: the value of a player is based on the actions of that player. You can't hand the same alt a ship over and over and kill him and farm marks. His value is based on what he accomplished since his last death. Seal clubbing scrubs is not worth much.

 

25v25 and all the dumb mechanics related to trying to make port battles work is what killed this game. Certainly it's what killed this server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bach said:

In this thread we have talked a lot about players getting more organized. I think the comment above explains a lot of what I have observed in the game playing in various nations over the past two years.  Democratic leadership works extremely well in smaller numbers like 6-20 players. They don't have any trouble staying on the same page and sharing common goals. But for nations with guilds of 50-100 players this is so much harder social model to maintain. Democracy takes time. Players need weigh options, discuss and eventually come around to consensus. This time can be too long for effective real time RvR competitions.   Simply telling large pick up group nations like Brit or USA to "get more organized" is probably an excercise in futility under a democracy leadership model.  Though I think it's equally hard to get such large groups to be accepting of military top down leadership styles as well.  The size of the population and not being able to enforce leadership calls on other players present great challenges.  

If large clans at least had the potential threat of green on green it would firm up organization structures quicker.  I'm not saying big clans need to be jerks to all the others. I'm just saying it takes a lot longer to build an organization structure trying to talk everyone into the same spot. Green on green speeds the process up by resolving hard disagreements in shorter time spans resulting in an organization structure that can do what it says.

Organization of large clans is not really that difficult depending on your management structure. If you have a large clan that is spread across the map in different areas then the easiest way is to designate area commanders (Officers), these are the first people that clan members in that area turn to for assistance and orders. These same area commanders also answer to the clan leader and assist with resources for larger operations that can take time to plan. With area commanders managing a small force they are more up to date on who is available and have the needed resources to aid in the larger operation and who is not equipped either ship wise or skill wise to assist. With a tree structure everyone has a voice and feels like they can contribute and as long as someone does not feel like they are being ignored or left to fend for themselves then the model works. Yes, I do understand that a true democracy will not function within the time needed for this game, but neither will a dictatorship. I have personally seen that lead to absolute ruin when the dictator lacks the skill to properly lead and the only reason they are the leader is to satisfy their own ego. I have seen clans implode due to the leader getting focused on a objective that was not worth pursuing and would cost more then there was to gain. 

One main thing that would help A LOT for people being able to gain skill is Arena battles that can be setup like the old Duel system but expanded to include more then just 1 of 1 battles. There was no experience or loot gained or lost but it was a perfect way to train people in sailing, tactics and gunnery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raekur said:

If you have a large clan that is spread across the map in different areas

This is one of the fundamental problems, again, especially with a low population:

OW PvPers spread out to look for action. It rarely stays in the same place for long and it's easy to overwhelm and area if everyone goes to the same place, resulting in no more action there. You can't really have a captain in charge of an area because there's no such stability.

This is why you don't see 25 French in one place very often: we run all the targets away and there's nothing to do after 1-2 days of this. So it's better to spread out for PvP and patrol around but this undermines whatever RvR effort there may have been and it takes forever to get back together (where there will, again, be no PvP).

Like someone wanted to grind Grand Terre last night and was asking for help. Nope. The other clans are spread all over (looking for PvP) and it's a 3 hour sail to get back there to help you. Not gonna happen.


We wanted to remove teleports to help support OW PvP but we still have this antiquated RvR system that requires teleportation to really work smoothly.

RvR and PvP are two incompatible systems as implemented today. (And NA Legends will likely take all the RvR players away.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Slamz said:

This is one of the fundamental problems, again, especially with a low population:

OW PvPers spread out to look for action. It rarely stays in the same place for long and it's easy to overwhelm and area if everyone goes to the same place, resulting in no more action there. You can't really have a captain in charge of an area because there's no such stability.

This is why you don't see 25 French in one place very often: we run all the targets away and there's nothing to do after 1-2 days of this. So it's better to spread out for PvP and patrol around but this undermines whatever RvR effort there may have been and it takes forever to get back together (where there will, again, be no PvP).

Like someone wanted to grind Grand Terre last night and was asking for help. Nope. The other clans are spread all over (looking for PvP) and it's a 3 hour sail to get back there to help you. Not gonna happen.


We wanted to remove teleports to help support OW PvP but we still have this antiquated RvR system that requires teleportation to really work smoothly.

RvR and PvP are two incompatible systems as implemented today. (And NA Legends will likely take all the RvR players away.)

While what you say is true it is such only for one particular play style. Players will spread out in order to support crafting and/or trading. Spreading out also aids in maintaining control of an area and having players available to contend with raiders. If you think that the management structure I suggested was for strictly for pvp then sorry but you are being a little short sighted because you only enjoy one style of play. My suggestion was something that could support any style of play. Area commanders work as sub clans per se until needed by the whole for a larger operation. These sub clan can operate in any fashion and as such do not need to be isolated to a single area. They can operate as trader/crafter groups that maintain a selected region(s) or act as a nomadic hunter group until recalled to assist in a larger operation. The problem with hunter groups is that they are isolated due to the teleport limitations. Granted I guess that is the cost involved in being a raider in a hostile area is that you need to commit to what you're doing and be unavailable to help in the defense of your nation. It means that players have a choice and need to pick which aspect they want and can not simply be part of both (in regards to being either a raider or a defender). Either way though, the management aspect of sub clans will work and would be a much better system than the one person trying to maintain control and make decisions for the entire map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Raekur said:

Organization of large clans is not really that difficult depending on your management structure.

You can divide out into operational arenas IF your nation has that kind of stability. France started with this style but then the council decided to gift a couple regions to an ally. This was not accepted by the clans that had built shipyards and such in those counties. The result is that their NO votes were overwhelmed and then resulted in conflict. Eventually this grew into a major nation wide rift with neither side willing to budge.  A green on green potential would have resolved this stalemate issue much quicker.

it doesn't matter if you break into sub groups and give each subgroup a say as long as there is a speedy way to reach a conclusion. But you still have to have a way of policing the collective conclusion that was reached.  Currently if just one clan of measure refuse then your not really the nation you thought you were.  Some try to remedy this by giving every clan VETO power on any issue.  Obviously, this tends to lead to more doing nothing than any doing somethings. 

So whatever your method is you need speedy issue resolutions and some form of enforcement of conclusions. Democracy in a real time combat game is seldom going to give either of those 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys don't need to worry about any of this. As soon as Legends comes out and to quote Slamz, all the rvr guys (people who like large balanced battles) will go over to that game and leave all of the traders, crafters, gankers and solo hunters to enjoy whatever is left of OW and none of these problems about taking ports or killing nations will exist. There will be no more port battles. Just give it time and don't stress out about it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bach said:

You can divide out into operational arenas IF your nation has that kind of stability. France started with this style but then the council decided to gift a couple regions to an ally. This was not accepted by the clans that had built shipyards and such in those counties. The result is that their NO votes were overwhelmed and then resulted in conflict. Eventually this grew into a major nation wide rift with neither side willing to budge.  A green on green potential would have resolved this stalemate issue much quicker.

it doesn't matter if you break into sub groups and give each subgroup a say as long as there is a speedy way to reach a conclusion. But you still have to have a way of policing the collective conclusion that was reached.  Currently if just one clan of measure refuse then your not really the nation you thought you were.  Some try to remedy this by giving every clan VETO power on any issue.  Obviously, this tends to lead to more doing nothing than any doing somethings. 

So whatever your method is you need speedy issue resolutions and some form of enforcement of conclusions. Democracy in a real time combat game is seldom going to give either of those 

I think you may have missed the structure I was referring to. My example is how a Single clan can manage a large area and still maintain control as a unified body. Management of a Nation as a whole with multiple clans currently is not possible as there is no centralized way for clan leaders to communicate (within the game) and there is no way to enforce a decision made by the majority upon smaller groups that are either unwilling to work with the larger clans or are groups that were formed for the single purpose of undermining a nation. The Arena concept I presented earlier would be a fantastic tool that would allow disputes to be resolved without the nation losing valuable resources or ships. Just because two hotheads can not reach an agreement is no reason for the nation as a whole to suffer. And as I stated before, Democracy in this game is not possible by definition due to the speed of things that need to be done. That does not mean that everyone can not have a voice, it just means that there needs to be a chain of command and those that are not willing to accept it need to relocate to another nation or resolve their differences through either discussion or arena combat. The pirates have proven that organization is possible, why the nations have not been able to adopt this concept I would attribute to personal ego's getting in the way. There are ways to resolve this, the question now is are the clan leaders wiling to put their ego's in check and work together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should anyone play a faction other than pirates when they enjoy significant advantages when it comes to game play mechanics? Everyone honestly should just pile into the pirate nation and have a free for all death match. It would be much more entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Souvlaki said:

Why should anyone play a faction other than pirates when they enjoy significant advantages when it comes to game play mechanics? Everyone honestly should just pile into the pirate nation and have a free for all death match. It would be much more entertaining.

Name one.  One advantage that is not made up. And one we didn't create for our selves.

  1. Ports next to Capitals.  We did that you can too.
  2. We actually understand how game works.  We Read forums and/or ask real questions and not bitch every day. We not that bad of a group. 

 

  1. WE don't have any real blue prints or Permits in our Admiralty, SO we have to travel to hostile ports and then back with them in hull from hostile ports IN Trader boats.
  2. We are a Island Nation, So we get attacked from every side. I mean no one likes us because we are bad asses.
  3. We have to deal with different nations refusing to fight each other sailing side by side, Just so they can out number us 9 to 1 in OW battles.
  4. We have to deal with Nation attacking each other so they can Hide in battle for star power that disappear in 3 min even when they out number the Pirates so they can run.  (Before you say we have Nation on Nation, ours stay open whole time).
  5. We have to deal with Nations that are full of Stupid people that follow even more stupid leaders, That inline to much kool aid.  Then get on the Forums and post Stupid Shit like this.
  6. I can keep going on this list,  Pirates have every disadvantage, you do not if you are a Nat.

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

×