Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sad news from Europe: Sixth coalition is kaput


Recommended Posts

@admin

I think the new nations should have a safe zone too, or something other making them desirable to play? Maybe allow only the small nations to be mercenaries for other nations clans? Britain, Spain and France should have big safe zones ( but still a bit smaller than the current ones - they're pretty absurd ) and 2 capitals / safe zones each,  while the other nations ( including the new ones ) should have only one capital with very small safezone ( enough to do missions but not more ). And to make up for it they can join other nations and the historically accurate big players ( britian/spain/france ) in their PBs. Pirates maybe shouldn't have a safezone at all ( it doesnt make sense historically and it doesnt help with outlaw )? It currently doesn't help them much anyways, since there are always the few outlaw losers who sealclub and gank at mortimer, driving off new players anyways... This would make pirates the hardest faction to play. 

Prussia for example had colonies in the caribbean for a short time, one of them being at Vieques...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, admin said:

3 new nations not only will not have reinforcement zones but also they won't have capital protected waters (extremely hard difficulty level). In addition to that their capital will be capturable (because they start with no capital at all)>

This will provide the option for captains who dislike reinforcement zones to re-roll to the nation that does not have any protection and defend their main capitals, rookies, bases themselves. 

This will bring the balance to the universe, captains who love reinforcement zones can send the captains who don't like them to join Prussia, Russia, or Commonwealth colonial navy. 

current reinforcement zones size is indeed too big though. It could be adjusted a bit.

So combined with the new port battle changes we could have clans that could behave as their own nation. Adding many more factions could be beneficial to PvP and appeal to more players and potentional players. Could you share your thoughs on that please?

Btw Commonwealth colonial navy? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or British Commonwealth? Because the second one doesn't really makes sense. Having GB two times.

Edited by Sella22
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Landsman said:

@admin

I think the new nations should have a safe zone too, or something other making them desirable to play? Maybe allow only the small nations to be mercenaries for other nations clans? Britain, Spain and France should have big safe zones ( but still a bit smaller than the current ones - they're pretty absurd ) and 2 capitals / safe zones each,  while the other nations ( including the new ones ) should have only one capital with very small safezone ( enough to do missions but not more ). And to make up for it they can join other nations and the historically accurate big players ( britian/spain/france ) in their PBs. Pirates maybe shouldn't have a safezone at all ( it doesnt make sense historically and it doesnt help with outlaw )? It currently doesn't help them much anyways, since there are always the few outlaw losers who sealclub and gank at mortimer, driving off new players anyways... This would make pirates the hardest faction to play. 

Prussia for example had colonies in the caribbean for a short time, one of them being at Vieques...

 

These nations should never ever appeal to the normal player. That are nations for hardcore players. We shouldnt ask to turn them into normal just because  they dont suit the normal player who just want to play these nations just for the flag.

We would just create a new US/ GB nation.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 1:57 PM, admin said:

Navy printers have already supplied the fleets with canvas battle ensigns.

euFwrxv.jpg

Great  , this flag always makes me think of the following image  from a favourite film  Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines

6144-19438.gif

Edited by Vizzini
clarity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we implement ahistorical nations.. Why not move the map to Europe then? Or someplace similar that has a better layout for PvP and RvR..

 

EDIT: And then we can perhaps get the real rattlesnake in game instead of the cartoon one we've got atm..

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, z4ys said:

These nations should never ever appeal to the normal player. That are nations for hardcore players. We shouldnt ask to turn them into normal just because  they dont suit the normal player who just want to play these nations just for the flag.

How do they appeal to the average / normal player when GB/Spain/France are the easymode ones? What hardcore players will choose those new nations only to be at a disadvantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Landsman said:

How do they appeal to the average / normal player when GB/Spain/France are the easymode ones? What hardcore players will choose those new nations only to be at a disadvantage?

GOpltqO.jpg

Have yet to hear of anyone switching for any reason other than playing with their own flag. Self-sabotage with nothing different being offered isn't appealing in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBeiner said:

To find more PVP.

If anything you will get less PvP, because they will have no / much less nation ports that you can teleport to for pvp access and also it will be harder to replace your ships with less nation ports so you can't go as much balls deep as a pvp player in a big nation clan....

3 minutes ago, JBeiner said:

For me it is also exciting to know I am outnumbered and fighting against the odds

Yeah,  pretty much the only reason ill play them but it's stupid / irrational to put yourself purposefully at a disadvantage only to feel good about pulling through regardless. I wish those new nations had at least something very minor making them unique... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JBeiner said:

For me it is also exciting to know I am outnumbered and fighting against the odds

What Aegir said...

14 hours ago, Aegir said:

Have yet to hear of anyone switching for any reason other than playing with their own flag. Self-sabotage with nothing different being offered isn't appealing in the slightest.

 I wish i could upvote this multiple times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2017 at 12:42 PM, Landsman said:

in the caribbean for a short time, one of them being at Vieques...

The island also received considerable attention as a possible colony from Scotland, and after numerous attempts to buy the island proved unsuccessful, the Scottish fleet, en route to Darien in 1698, made landfall and took possession of the island in the name of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and The Indies. Scottish sovereignty of the island proved short-lived however, as a Danish ship arrived shortly afterwards and claimed the island. From 1689-1693, the island was controlled by Brandenburg-Prussia as the "Isle of Crabs" 

So should we add Scottish nation too?  Hell the Pirates held Nassau for 12 years, Prussia only controlled that island for  years.   Though wasn't that more as a trade hub not really anything else?   

 

Though I do think Pirates should been the ones to test this new country with no capital thing that leads into maybe more pirate mechanics and have them work as Privateers for other nations if they want to get into RvR stuff or they just remain OUTLAWS/Pirates.   Than gain just think of all the butt hurt pirates that would not have a capital (we would just pull back to Kidd's and keep that one is all.)  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2017 at 8:02 PM, Sir Texas Sir said:

The island also received considerable attention as a possible colony from Scotland, and after numerous attempts to buy the island proved unsuccessful, the Scottish fleet, en route to Darien in 1698, made landfall and took possession of the island in the name of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and The Indies. Scottish sovereignty of the island proved short-lived however, as a Danish ship arrived shortly afterwards and claimed the island. From 1689-1693, the island was controlled by Brandenburg-Prussia as the "Isle of Crabs" 

So should we add Scottish nation too?  Hell the Pirates held Nassau for 12 years, Prussia only controlled that island for  years.   Though wasn't that more as a trade hub not really anything else?   

 

Though I do think Pirates should been the ones to test this new country with no capital thing that leads into maybe more pirate mechanics and have them work as Privateers for other nations if they want to get into RvR stuff or they just remain OUTLAWS/Pirates.   Than gain just think of all the butt hurt pirates that would not have a capital (we would just pull back to Kidd's and keep that one is all.)  

While we are at it can we get different pirates, can we get Barbary Coast Pirates?   I mean they flew the red flag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO this change is incredibly stupid.  If the problem was about individual Nations getting beat up and run out of town the solution could have been to make the consequences of a lost port battle plunder instead of occupation: Some percentage of home-port player inventory could be offered up to be stolen. Some percentage of buildings could be destroyed by fire and many (limited to available crews) of the ships at dock could be cut out and taken away.  But after a couple of days (at most) the invaders have to leave and cannot come back for some period of time.  Anybody who lingers could either be teleported home or "destroyed" by rioting locals.

True invasions require a lot of troops... that's VERY expensive, which is why it didn't happen all that often.  So maybe a permanent occupation can be obtained for, oh, I dunno, 10 million gold.

Changes of this sort would greatly slow down the rate at which one country is diminished or enlarged and this nonsense about everything is a neutral port could have been avoided.

Edited by Genma Saotome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Genma Saotome said:

IMO this change is incredibly stupid.  If the problem was about individual Nations getting beat up and run out of town the solution could have been to make the consequences of a lost port battle plunder instead of occupation: Some percentage of home-port player inventory could be offered up to be stolen. Some percentage of buildings could be destroyed by fire and many (limited to available crews) of the ships at dock could be cut out and taken away. 

People seem to be having fun with the new nations, so seems not to be "stupid" at all.  IMO it WOULD be really terrible decision to allow player warehouses and ships to be looted when they're offline like you're proposing.   

1 hour ago, Genma Saotome said:

 

Changes of this sort would greatly slow down the rate at which one country is diminished or enlarged and this nonsense about everything is a neutral port could have been avoided.

What's the problem with neutral ports?  It gives people more places to sail to and dock, which is a good thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2017 at 2:03 PM, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

People seem to be having fun with the new nations, so seems not to be "stupid" at all.  IMO it WOULD be really terrible decision to allow player warehouses and ships to be looted when they're offline like you're proposing.   

What's the problem with neutral ports?  It gives people more places to sail to and dock, which is a good thing. 

 

I didn't propose looting warehouses when people were off line, I said some percentage of home port warehouses.  If the warehouses of people who were not playing are protected then by definition the remainder are "some percentage".  That percentage could be anything... arbitrary... some ratio of losses/damage in the port battle, whatever -- I'm not welded to any any specific answer there.   And if setting aside the warehouses of people who are offline  is what makes for both fair play and common sense, fine by me. 

The key point I was trying to make was to greatly reduce permanent conquest of ports.  Give the winners a reward of some kind (e.g., looting) but kick them out PDQ.  Give the losers reasonable protection so not everything is lost.  What's wrong with that?  What the Dev's have done is take away most national ports. I liked national ports.

As for what to do with neutral ports, around 9-12 months ago there were national wars and national alliances.  Seems to me any-ship access to ports could be given within alliances and trade ship access to anyone you are not at war with.  That would be pretty broad access while retaining the national character.

WRT all those new countries... there are reasons why they were not there in the first place (along with why there wasn't Ukranian Grain and Russian Vodka): Too far away, too poor, no navy to begin with, and late to the great game.   Let's not forget the overlooking of Portugal who happened to have a huge colony in the new World -- Brazil.  Perhaps it's too far from Kyiv to warrant mention in public schools.

IOW it's beyond nuts. The way things are now the DEV's have an equal justification for adding Japan, China and the Maori.  They'd be fun too. Can you imagine boarding parties of Maori?  37 killed by gunfire, 225 captured, 225 livers eaten.

Edited by Genma Saotome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...