Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Eliminate Nations


Recommended Posts

Steps to improve player base and make it more historically immerses.

Eliminate all nations except Great Britain , France, Spain and USA.    All others neutral.  Make everyone neutral .  Clans can decide to join a nation and thus do port battles.  All neutrals can go anywhere .  But if a neutral attacks another neutral or nation.. they can be flagged for piracy.  More piracy means bounty and a permanent pirate flag.   Pirates can only go to neutral ports and set up bases as well.  No more Mortimer.       USA may or may not be needed but they did have a small fleet.   Swedes , Dutch , Danes and all others should not be able to be a nation.  

This will make the map much more interesting. More dynamic.  More interaction with players as there are only 3 strong nations and the rest neutral.  Benefits of being neutral are good.  They can go anywhere , make contracts..set up shipyards etc.    But not wage war.    More for the trader type.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EL LOCO said:

Steps to improve player base and make it more historically immerses.

Eliminate all nations except Great Britain , France, Spain and USA.    All others neutral.  Make everyone neutral .  Clans can decide to join a nation and thus do port battles.  All neutrals can go anywhere .  But if a neutral attacks another neutral or nation.. they can be flagged for piracy.  More piracy means bounty and a permanent pirate flag.   Pirates can only go to neutral ports and set up bases as well.  No more Mortimer.       USA may or may not be needed but they did have a small fleet.   Swedes , Dutch , Danes and all others should not be able to be a nation.  

This will make the map much more interesting. More dynamic.  More interaction with players as there are only 3 strong nations and the rest neutral.  Benefits of being neutral are good.  They can go anywhere , make contracts..set up shipyards etc.    But not wage war.    More for the trader type.   

First off - US didn't become a nation untill 1783, after Denmark-Norway had it's colonies in the west indies for more than a hundred years. Same goes for Sweden. For historical accuracy you could really only remove Russia, Prussia and Poland-Lithuania.. And USA but then only if we dial back the set period for the game. I for one think that the introduction of three new nations, despite being historically inaccurate, have provided much needed battles to the game.. Wether this will last after the new nations have settled is anyones guess' but for historical accuracy it is really only the recently introduced nations that could be removed and if it's more dynamism that is called for then all early indications is that they should stay.

In short it's not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alado said:

no plz, we need more nations, we need countries as important as Poland, Russia or Prussia in world navigation at that time, such as Switzerland, Andorra, Hungary or even leichtenstein

We could have a VERY VERY long list of nations to add.

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

It really doesn't matter how many nations we have. It matters how many players we have.

Implement clan vs clan and port battle BR limits (tho I don't like defenders being able to adjust those limits) and we can deal with lower pop numbers a bit better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game would be more lively with a smaller map and less nations....but we can't have nice things.  

Merge it up.  Figure out a way for all players to be happy together with timers.  Bring in the PVE lot somewhere in the gulf or the pacific.  Hope we make it to launch.

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

32 minutes ago, Christendom said:

The game would be more lively with a smaller map and less nations....but we can't have nice things.  

Merge it up.  Figure out a way for all players to be happy together with timers.  Bring in the PVE lot somewhere in the gulf or the pacific.  Hope we make it to launch.

Blue in the face yet?

 

as for making it launch if things don’t get better in the next few months the games done which sucks, 

 

as as for the merge it has to happen but with th EU guys threatening to quit it’s not gonna happen cause there selfish and very shortsighted, and seem to forget we’re here to test and improve the game for all not just one group 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Rebrall said:

Blue in the face yet?

 

as for making it launch if things don’t get better in the next few months the games done which sucks, 

 

as as for the merge it has to happen but with th EU guys threatening to quit it’s not gonna happen cause there selfish and very shortsighted, and seem to forget we’re here to test and improve the game for all not just one group 

The global server was tested. And it failed. We are testing one regional server and one global server. Numbers testify that regional servers are the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

The global server was tested. And it failed. We are testing one regional server and one global server. Numbers testify that regional servers are the way to go.

I agree if the rules were the same through out but they wernt so the results we currently have are false players quit befor the recent change and refuse to play 

 

so you are wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

The only shortsighted thing is to bet for a global server when it is the european server the one is working better among the two.

Im here to test the game and it is clear that a region server surpass a global one. 

 

No it did not,

 

the servers should never been split till the rules of the game were set so you have proved nothing.

 

if the rules were as they are currently then we split the servers and global failed I’d stay quite but it didn’t,

 

the only hope hope for this game is to actually go backwards a few steps get the rules set grow it population then look at multiple servers and split us 

 

so yet again you have been shortsighted, 

also the servers need descriptions cause I bet a lot of newer players outside of the EU PB times jump on the wrong server get pissed off and refuse to level on another server 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

The global server was tested. And it failed. We are testing one regional server and one global server. Numbers testify that regional servers are the way to go.

 If I were to tell you the "test" was setup to fail from the start would you believe me?

https://www.scripted.com/measurement/factors-that-can-skew-ab-test-results

The Admin setup the "test" incorrectly  which lead to a perceived failure.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

With the hostility system we have now a EU clan that want to conquer a port with US timers have to be awake during 2 nights. One for grinding hostility and the following one for the PB itself.

And I put this example because it happened in the past that one nation conquered ports from another EU nation and set the pb timer in the middle of the night. So they force the other nation to sacrifice their sleep in order to reconquer that port. An attack which may be not succesfull when the enemy also have US playerbase.

What if that us player base wasn’t on the clans friend list there would be nothing the us players could do you seem to be stuck on nations and it’s not anymore it’s all about clans like I said I don’t mind being split on release and we had a good population between us all but less the 1500 across 3 servers there is no need for 3 servers that money is better of being put back into development 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Are you going to set a game mechanic based in "what if"? Really?

There can be US players playing in the clan that conquered that port. So it doesnt matter if we are speaking of nations or clans. Also it is very easy to add any clan to friend list and let them play a defensive PB. I dont know how you play on global but in EU no one want an enemy port in the core territory. And, at the same time, most clans like to have a forward base near the enemy to gank their traders and jump into missions.

Your entire argument is based on what happened on what 3-4 rule sets ago then call me on a what if really????? 

Nothing has been tested on this rule set cause players like you cry and threaten to quit, 

 

dont get me wrong I see your point but there is heaps of options to be used but you seem to be scared to work on them cause you might lose a port, you do realize ports mean next to nothing and the players on global don’t do empty portbattles so don’t expect flips and not to be contested 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Ports matter when more than 25 guys needs to be on the same place and time, they matter when you have spent real lfe time preparing/crafting your ship, upgrades and repairs. 

When all this effort is not being given the proper value then the game is worthless, and the people quit talking shit about the game. I know because I have heard it myself lots of times before the server split.

It doesnt matter either we have a flag or a hostility system. So I really dont get which current rules you are refering to be so sure that your idea could work now.

No they don’t cause those ports you currently have could of been taken by no more then 6 of you unless it was taken from another clan. 

If you treat the game like a second job by which it sounds like you do, no wonder you take losing a port so serious, quite literally my clan had enough mats to build well over 25 1st rates in less then a week and that wasn’t running at full capacity there was literally 8 of us. As for the effort of getting players in one place is not that hard just look at the conquest section of the map look at the scheduled pb’s and move ships to suit it’s not that much effort also you can tow a ship now to which makes life really easy.

 

as for the rules I mean the clan owned port with hostility missions, there are multiple options that could work with all of us being on one server we just need to to stop flipping from one extreme mechanic to another and work on one with potential which we have btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rebrall said:

No they don’t cause those ports you currently have could of been taken by no more then 6 of you unless it was taken from another clan. 

If you treat the game like a second job by which it sounds like you do, no wonder you take losing a port so serious, quite literally my clan had enough mats to build well over 25 1st rates in less then a week and that wasn’t running at full capacity there was literally 8 of us. As for the effort of getting players in one place is not that hard just look at the conquest section of the map look at the scheduled pb’s and move ships to suit it’s not that much effort also you can tow a ship now to which makes life really easy.

 

as for the rules I mean the clan owned port with hostility missions, there are multiple options that could work with all of us being on one server we just need to to stop flipping from one extreme mechanic to another and work on one with potential which we have btw

If you don't take the RvR segment that seriously why then does it matter if you merge the servers? you could just go to the EU server and do PvP.. Ofcourse it won't help with online numbers at those hours seen as all euros are asleep.. Rather than breaking one server that actually functions, why not figure out why global is such a failed idea? - Other than that global just is a failed idea ofcourse..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

With the hostility system we have now a EU clan that want to conquer a port with US timers have to be awake during 2 nights. One for grinding hostility and the following one for the PB itself.

And I put this example because it happened in the past that one nation conquered ports from another EU nation and set the pb timer in the middle of the night. So they force the other nation to sacrifice their sleep in order to reconquer that port. An attack which may be not succesfull when the enemy also have US playerbase.

Why do you need to attack the US clan?  Go fight other EU clans....oh wait cause ya'll all joined the same alliance and couldn't fight each other last time?  Well there is no alliance system so you can attack any one in any nation in your time zone slot so EU clans can fight EU and US clans can fight US clans.  Evne the SEA guys can attack each other.  The problem it seems is ya'll can't other clans doing there own things in there own time zones.  Or big clans that can handle mulit time zones beating you in your prime zone and than setting the port in there own.  If you couldn't beat them in your own prime time than you prob not going to beat them in there prime time.  The issue is ya'll need to stop chasing other clans of other areas of the world out of your nation and let clans fight each other.  This game is no longer Nation vs Nation it's about the clans.

If you can't beat them in there time zone than get a friendly clan that can attack that port and then they can reset it back to EU time.   You know do some actually diplomacy and get other RL national players of other time zones into your friends list.  

As for why there is more players on EU is cause the majority of the players don't give a crap about RvR and they just want to play on a populated server so they join EU and let the RvR guys do there own thing.  That was the whole reason I started on EU originally cause I had no interest in RvR and just wanted to play in the OW with a good big pop.  It wasn't until I got level enough to start RvR and no chance to get into port battles I moved over to the PvP2 server and got very involved into RvR.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

I didnt understand at all the first paragraph.

About the rest. I dont care about your clan capabilities. Building anything in the game takes time, and time, for me, is gold. The game turned into a night job because of nightflips, and we care about our ports because they are the base for future operations or strategies, which will give us more fun and user made content.

The clan owned ports with hostility missions dont solve anything for themselves. Which are those multiple options? Would you please elaborate?

you asked questions/made points i answered/countered them don't be an a**hole 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bearwall said:

If you don't take the RvR segment that seriously why then does it matter if you merge the servers? you could just go to the EU server and do PvP.. Ofcourse it won't help with online numbers at those hours seen as all euros are asleep.. Rather than breaking one server that actually functions, why not figure out why global is such a failed idea? - Other than that global just is a failed idea ofcourse..

actually i do mostly RvR so your point makes no sense,

no i don't care so much about the ships or the ports but i enjoy the fight,

also ship is easily replaced and a port is easily taken back, 

you guys are just defeatists you've lost before you enter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

Very easy to say and to write in a forum post. The reality is very different. 

The get friends and allies of other timezones was the exactly same bullshit we were told by US and GB.

If people from different part of the world almost always choose other nations than yours you are basically screwed.

Have you tried?  Nope you refuse to try something new.  This is testing phase of a game.  It's not the final release.  So with that you should try new things. If it doesn't work wipe the map and go back to something that works.   The fact ya'll refuse to try means you don't want to encourage more players to come and play.  I ask you why do you think 50% of the buyers of the game aren't playing the game?   Why do you think they stop playing?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

To your question. 

Yes, we tried. But never my nation had the enough players in comparison with others. So dont answer for me.

I refuse to try again a thing that didnt work some months ago.

That funny cause port timers was removed during the Alliance patch and new port battles.  That was over a year ago around August.  So how exactly did you test this a few months ago on the current port battle system?    Timers was only tried on the old flag system not current  so that means you only speaking from stuff in game over a year ago that didn't work and I think most of us agree at that time it was a bad system for the game mechanics.  The game mechanics aren't the same now, but we need something that brings more player to the game over all not just to one small portion of the players that think the game revolves around them.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...