We have too many Nations - Remove some!

[Fenris]

4 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Um No.  

I am saying that SINCE our current population is so low we do not have enough players to fill these nations.  Which creates an environment where the amount of content is spread too thinly across 11 nations.  IF this game had double or triple the population it currently has...we would not be having this discussion.  But we don't.   

I would suggest you comprehend my posts before commenting on them.   

We're done here.  Thanks

Thats the reason why your approach makes no sense, speaking about having a brain.

Having 5, 10 or 3 nations can not force people to play. Player numbers rise and fall. 500-600 players in 5 or 3 nations are still 500-600 players.

You assume there would be more what if there would be less nations? More Peeweepee? More ArrWeeeArrr? More what? What kind of content you want by eradicating number of nations?

What would happen then? You would probably have the same amount of players, but in less nations. If people dont like a nation, they can switch anytime.

I did comprehend your post, it makes no sense, and maybe you should think first before you post some suggestion which makes no sense at all.

I m not done with you, not yet

 

 

[Barbancourt]

3 hours ago, Christendom said:

clan based would be ideal.  but too much of a leap for the time being.  

So you think there are too many nations, but you're in favor of fragmenting the game even further into clans?  Doesn't compute. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Barbancourt (rownd)

[Eyesore]

Just a question:

We have too many nations ... let's say ok.

Then you say clanbased would be better. let's say ok aswell.

Would every clan then not be a 'nation' by itself? Would we not end up with even more 'nations'?

Playerbased would definately do the trick after that? ;--)

[Fenris]

2 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Dyfed simply can only cry. Was already that way in RDNN.

Lol, Klooth "Crying"? Really?

Did more for nation and clan in 1,5 years more than you ever did

Everyone knows that

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Fenris

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OneEyedSnake said:

should only be the main colonizing and trade company contenders tbh. Spain, Britain, France, US, and Dutch. 

If I didn't feel the history was important I'd agree - except for the US since they didn't become a major trade/colonizer before after the american revolution (and even then not untill the early 19th cent) and didn't have a navy to speak off before the 1st world war. I do however believe that history is important - otherwise just redo the map and make fictional nations. The current map is prob one of the worst geographics for a game in the world and the nations is what initiated the entire Nightflipping/lunchflipping in the first place. I don't think the game would cater to many if it didn't have the historical backdrop however or the nations to feel affiliated with.

[Christendom]

5 minutes ago, Eyesore said:

Just a question:

We have too many nations ... let's say ok.

Then you say clanbased would be better. let's say ok aswell.

Would every clan then not be a 'nation' by itself? Would we not end up with even more 'nations'?

Playerbased would definately do the trick after that? ;--)

MOST open world MMOs operate with a clan or alliance based system.  Albion for example has no factions, just clans.  EVE has factions, but corporation focused.  Several others are like this.  Why?  because they work.  Lets think of factions instead of nations.  Do you know of any other successful games that have 11 warring factions and a max evening population of 700 players?  

The game has already taken steps towards a clan/alliance based game.  Clan owned ports.  Friendly clan lists.  BR PBs.  

Clans and alliances would replace factions.  Clan X would create the rediii alliance and add HRE, CABAL and VCO.  Clan Y would create the Kloothomel alliance and add MRF, BF   etc.  PBs would work just like nations.  The key is that the rediii alliance can attack EVERYONE else in the game and does not have to be friendly with people in their "nation" that they don't want.  This would eliminate nation strife, rogue clans....all that bullshit.  To limit mega alliances you could put a cap on how many clans or even members are in each.  That would bring the game into full realization of it's sandbox potential.  

Admin can introduce clan flags or alliance flags.  sruPL can create the Prussian alliance and fly his black chicken.  

[Kloothommel]

24 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Lol, Klooth "Crying"? Really?

Did more for nation and clan in 1,5 years more than you ever did

Everyone knows that

 

 

Keep believing that. See you soon in Sweden.

[Slim McSauce]

No denying that 3 of the nations are completely useless and should be merged to pirate because they serve no gameplay purpose on their own.

[Fenris]

5 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Keep believing that. See you soon in Sweden.

Lol, i am not believing that. thats known

You will be very lonely there......If you think that would help you or anyone, be my guest.

[Barbancourt]

10 minutes ago, Christendom said:

The key is that the rediii alliance can attack EVERYONE else in the game and does not have to be friendly with people in their "nation" that they don't want.  This would eliminate nation strife, rogue clans....all that bullshit. 

So basically you want few nations, and at the same time you want to be able to force all of the other clans out of the nation...but they'll have nowhere to go, just have to quit the game. 

[Fenris]

11 minutes ago, Christendom said:

MOST open world MMOs operate with a clan or alliance based system.  Albion for example has no factions, just clans.  EVE has factions, but corporation focused.  Several others are like this.  Why?  because they work.  Lets think of factions instead of nations.  Do you know of any other successful games that have 11 warring factions and a max evening population of 700 players?  

The game has already taken steps towards a clan/alliance based game.  Clan owned ports.  Friendly clan lists.  BR PBs.  

Clans and alliances would replace factions.  Clan X would create the rediii alliance and add HRE, CABAL and VCO.  Clan Y would create the Kloothomel alliance and add MRF, BF   etc.  PBs would work just like nations.  The key is that the rediii alliance can attack EVERYONE else in the game and does not have to be friendly with people in their "nation" that they don't want.  This would eliminate nation strife, rogue clans....all that bullshit.  To limit mega alliances you could put a cap on how many clans or even members are in each.  That would bring the game into full realization of it's sandbox potential.  

Admin can introduce clan flags or alliance flags.  sruPL can create the Prussian alliance and fly his black chicken.  

What now? Less nations or clan based?

Lol.

[Barbancourt]

4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

No denying that 3 of the nations are completely useless and should be merged to pirate because they serve no gameplay purpose on their own.

I ain't no dirty pirate.

 

[Palatinose]

The current problem isn't the amount of nations but the amount of players. And imo we can't bring up a reduction of nations everytime the server pop drops. We gotta find a solution that has more of a longterm value. Basically what should happen is many defeated nations muss turn against a winning/strong nation. This nation falls, others will rise. To me it seems, we just Need to be more hostile towards each other. That's what this non coalition system is made for. If we are more hostile we can keep up the content. People leave because of few content. Well now one could call for changes by the devs but what IF this game gets released and all the changes we cried for were basically made just because we were in an alpha status with few people online? 

Why not just play the game more as it's intended: sink ships and don't always and only achieve something and then stop? If one nation gets too strong because it has to create content for it's players (therefore do rvr all the time) the others form alliances. Just be more tough. Here is too much safety wanted (i mean the casuals dear prussia). I need safe ports for crafting, safe ports for trading blablabla. Our community is so much about securing the achieved that to me it seems we forget that the journey is the reward.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

I ain't no dirty pirate.

yes you are now go fight for your right to get overly intoxicated in public

[Eyesore]

15 minutes ago, Christendom said:

MOST open world MMOs operate with a clan or alliance based system.  Albion for example has no factions, just clans.  EVE has factions, but corporation focused.  Several others are like this.  Why?  because they work.  Lets think of factions instead of nations.  Do you know of any other successful games that have 11 warring factions and a max evening population of 700 players?  

The game has already taken steps towards a clan/alliance based game.  Clan owned ports.  Friendly clan lists.  BR PBs.  

Clans and alliances would replace factions.  Clan X would create the rediii alliance and add HRE, CABAL and VCO.  Clan Y would create the Kloothomel alliance and add MRF, BF   etc.  PBs would work just like nations.  The key is that the rediii alliance can attack EVERYONE else in the game and does not have to be friendly with people in their "nation" that they don't want.  This would eliminate nation strife, rogue clans....all that bullshit.  To limit mega alliances you could put a cap on how many clans or even members are in each.  That would bring the game into full realization of it's sandbox potential.  

Admin can introduce clan flags or alliance flags.  sruPL can create the Prussian alliance and fly his black chicken.  

Yes, and nations are the factions in NA. All they do is concentrate 'power'. With more 'powerhouses', wouldn't you create more opportunities for players to find the nation/faction they like?

Wouldn't it also make things less predictable? Make it more diverse?

More 'diplomacy' is needed, yes, internal problems may arise, yes. It's part of the game I'm afraid.

I don't want to fight for redii-alliance, or cabal or rubli, or whatever, i want to fight for Sweden, or my bretheren pirates, or whatever.

[Barbancourt]

8 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

Basically what should happen is many defeated nations muss turn against a winning/strong nation. This nation falls, others will rise. To me it seems, we just Need to be more hostile towards each other. That's what this non coalition system is made for. If we are more hostile we can keep up the content. People leave because of few content.

You can't attack anyone because of either all the stupid deals that have been made between clans that we're supposed to follow, or because trying to make a port battle or doing PvP triggers punitive RvR. 

 

[Teutonic]

I agree and don't agree.

What should be done is dropping Nations and adding clan based FOREIGN diplomacy. Have a real diplomacy system in place.

we don't want nations? yes that's actually exactly what would be nice - the Flag becomes your Clan flag, the ports you own are your clan ports. You make friends, you ally them and they can use your ports and vice versa. You make enemies, they take your ports. finally something to look forward too....if it was happening.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

The current problem isn't the amount of nations but the amount of players. And imo we can't bring up a reduction of nations everytime the server pop drops. We gotta find a solution that has more of a longterm value. Basically what should happen is many defeated nations muss turn against a winning/strong nation. This nation falls, others will rise. To me it seems, we just Need to be more hostile towards each other. That's what this non coalition system is made for. If we are more hostile we can keep up the content. People leave because of few content. Well now one could call for changes by the devs but what IF this game gets released and all the changes we cried for were basically made just because we were in an alpha status with few people online? 

Why not just play the game more as it's intended: sink ships and don't always and only achieve something and then stop? If one nation gets too strong because it has to create content for it's players (therefore do rvr all the time) the others form alliances. Just be more tough. Here is too much safety wanted (i mean the casuals dear prussia). I need safe ports for crafting, safe ports for trading blablabla. Our community is so much about securing the achieved that to me it seems we forget that the journey is the reward.

Reintroduce the alliance system and make factions valuable to one another would be one way to go.. as for the rest pala - that's kinda bs and you already know it.

To say that ppl "just has to be more hostile" is however rather short sighted - what makes swedes take 1st rates to do hostility missions and other nations to take 2nd rates? - The answer isn't that the swedes are more aggressive but rather that they can readily replace their first rates while others either have to buy VM that swedes get for free or do endless hours to PvP for the VM.. People leave because of the skewed balance in the current game mechanics - an imbalance that was pointed out from the very start. People in general don't mind winning, nor losing but they do mind an unfair contest where the game is rigged for the winning side to allways be winning. This problem is exacerbated by the thickness meta (which is still a meta even if it has been nerfed) and the availability of the VMs for the winning side and not the losing side. The problem becomes even more skewed when people leave a losing faction to join the winning one. I'm in favor of ppl being able to jump from faction to faction, but the system should encourage the weak - not promote the strong.

[Eyesore]

4 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

What should be done is dropping Nations and adding clan based FOREIGN diplomacy. Have a real diplomacy system in place.

we don't want nations? yes that's actually exactly what would be nice - the Flag becomes your Clan flag, the ports you own are your clan ports. You make friends, you ally them and they can use your ports and vice versa.

And this would be easier to controle than what we have now?  I geuss when there is a disagreement, you can just kick a clan out? A clan that might not have it's own ports? And nowhere to go? Good luck managing that. Eventually you will/may end up with an equilibrium somewhere ... but I doubt it'll be roses and moonlight for long. How will new players pick where to play? What about clans that are just not good enough to win a pb or can't keep a port defended? Wouldn't you need even more deals to make your comeback possible or even to stay alive?

I also geuss the endnumber on clan-alliances would be far higher that 3 or 4, a free-for-all and endless drama is what we end up with. Perhaps some carebear-alliance may rise that will harbour the fledglings, no questions asked?

That the diplomacydepartment in this game needs work is a certainty, but making it so only the strong can survive/thrive is going to attract and retain players how exactly? Join or die? Get out and die? Go play something else?

[Barbancourt]

I thought I read that the game tried alliances a year or so ago and it just resulted in the largest factions being allied with each other?

[Fletch]

Just create more in game content and the people that got bored will return.

Offering people even less choice than they have today will simply make things worse. 

Instead of worrying about nations bring some random events into the game, stop this endless ability to run away and repair in battles, making every battle last hours on end. 

Make AI fleets play  part in the game by at least attacking anyone with contraband 

Nations are the least of things to worry about in my opinion, , bring back the old conquest flag and use it for raiding, (yes raids what ever happened)  allow a fleet to have a flag ship, there is a lot that could be done to spice things up

Edited March 2, 2018 by Fletch67

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

I thought I read that the game tried alliances a year or so ago and it just resulted in the largest factions being allied with each other?

Yeah but that was because the mechanic forced two blocs to appear with 1 outsider (the pirates) unable to ally with anyone.

If the alliance system was limited to one nation could be allied to only one other nation then there would be 5 blocs in the current iteration of the game or 3 blocs in the pre-russia, PL and DE iteration.

[AeRoTR]

I think with the current online players numbers, map should be quarter size of the current map. I also think reducing nations will help to increase the RVR at least.

For how many players, the current map is designed for, 5000 ? We have average 500 players nowadays, so the map is too big. I suggest cropping the map, and unluck all the map with FULL RELEASE of the game, or they can unlock if average number of players increase, which seems unlikely.

Below map is a cropped example.

[Barbancourt]

I enjoy roaming the map.  If the size of the map is that small It's going to be really hard to get around without getting sunk, which means a lot more time spent hauling materials.

[Vernon Merrill]

This shit again?......