Isink A Lot
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Isink A Lot
-
-
Step 1
Basic alliances that are coming this august we would like to share the plans and ideas for new improved RvR.
Step 2
Changes to port battles are briefly described in this post
http://forum.game-la...t-battle-set-up
Ports
Ports will change: Map will split into regions with regional capitals.
Nations will conquer regions (not individual ports)
This will also help a lot in hostility generation and will open road for significant trading/supply/demand improvements, with proper regional goods distribution.
The above quote is from Admin's post Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR). Is this still planned? Is it coming with this map reset? There are many questions that have not been answered about all this new RvR from the many different post on each small part of it.
The above quote in red, what does this mean? I will use Sweden as examples in my Questions I have.
1. What does it take to "capture" a region?
2. Is it just the Regional Capital?
3. So for Sweden to take Bovenwinds do we only have to cap Oranjestad?
4. If this so then all Port Battles will be 1st rate affairs only?
5. Or do we have to cap a majority of the lesser ports before we can cap Oranjestad?
6. If so how many? Bovenwinds has 3 other ports all of which are deep water 4th rate PB's currently. And if this is the case then the quote in red is not really true because we are fighting over individual ports.
7. Do we get to use those ports and deny the use of them from our enemies before capping Oranjestad?
8. Are National Capitals capable?
9. Are noob capitals capable?
10. Do we still have 3 different port battle types? Regional Capitals = 1st rates, deep = 4th, & shallow?
-
3
-
-
The idea on paper is pretty if I understand it correctly - noobs learning the ropes fighting other noobs but in practice you might as well rename it ''The pit'' where seasoned players are slaughtering noobs with the aid of BR system (blocking out any further reinforcements that fresh players would desperately need against those sealclubbers in twink ships)...
Right now people have to put in some effort and sail to enemy territory to sealclub, with this idea you provide a concentrated zone that requires minimal sailing since everything would be within hand's reach. The capital could actually become safer option to spawn in for newer players if that will be the case.
I hope I am wrong
Ding Ding we have a winner winner chicken diner! It's a MMO, people live to troll and grief new players, it's how they get their jollies on, it will happen and happen often I guarantee it! Just like the "Events" where to bring big PvP battles, in the Dev's minds and on paper it looks good, but us players will abuse it and screw it up to no ends. This is seal clubbing gift wrapped and delivered to your door step! All be over here chuckling to myself.
Now change the ROE to Character level of more than two or three in difference the younger character gets unlimited reinforcements then the seal might have a chance to get help from the older wiser seals and the clubber might just get clubbed.
-
2
-
-
So you say there are 2 3rd rates in development, have there been any hints to what they might be or roughly how many guns they might have, I do hope we are due some smaller 3rd rates similar sized to Agamemnon.
Not that my opinion really counts for anything but I personally despise the devs taking artistic liberty to ships for balance. There is nothing wrong with a Dutch, Dane, Swede or US player piloting a foreign designed 1st rate. I would much rather see equality of opportunity for all nations to sail what ever ships they please, its a much nicer outcome than bastardising more designs. While I am still impressed by the workmanship and time it has taken someone to model into the game, with all due respect the extra 10 guns they gave the Bucentaure just really frustrates me, id much prefer to see the true design but the ability for whoever to sail it. The Game should celebrate the chosen naval designs of each nation, they had reasons for picking the architecture they chose, pretending a ship is bigger or smaller than it was just insults the history and detail the game has going for it.
Good, now I expect you to also champion for the removal of ship mods and officers perks as they are a contrived fantasy and nothing more the World of Warcraft magic spells as it insults the history and detail!
No nation will have nation specific ships.
What will happen is that regions procude a good you need to build a specific ship.
Lets say your regio produces tea. You will need tea to build Victories.
That means you will have to acquire tea. Trade, smuggle or capture such a region which produces it.
There will never be a ship restricted to a nation.
Now that that is out of the way I hope the devs stick to reality.
The rattle heavy I hope is a unicorn feature. (totally overloaden ship O_o)
__
Dutch 1st rate?
I begin to think thats a faulty information
maybe they want to begin a hypetrain for dutch ships^^
Who knows?..
There are a few rates beauties in the shipyard. 7 provincien. chattam, vriijheit (spedded that right?) etc..
And some of the dutch 5th rate SoLs sure look magnificient
No one every said they would be by game mechanics limited by the nation you chose to play, however with a National material needed to construct them they WILL become one by game play. National materials are in regional ports, regional ports are 1st rate PB ports. Nation A has a first rate BP and more than one Regional port for its material, Nation B has the 1st rate BP but no regional port. Nation B must "smuggle" enough of the matts to make 25 first rates to try and cap one of the regional ports. Meanwhile Nation A does not, hell they don't even have to travel as far to get them in the first place, and they start making 1st rates at a rate Nation B can not even dream of. Now even if Nation B wins the first PB for that regional port they will not be able to sustain the 1st rate production for that ship to keep it from Nation A. Trying to make Nation A's 1st rate will become a futile endeavor that will lead to Nation B to stop trying. Players that want to sail a 1st rate and fight in regional port battles will then leave Nation B to go to Nation A, C, or D that has a 1st rate with their own national material. This will lead to a map controlled by three Nations that have a 1st rate with their own national material in game, because they will be the only ones with 1st rates to fight for a region. And if those 3 nations are allied, what fun will that be? It will happen and if you don't think so I have to ask have you ever played a MMO before? Players will always go for the easier rout to get what they want!
"Two 3rd rates in development" means something like: Agamemnon and Wapen von Hamburg III.
Wapen von Hamburg III has many guns to fit in English 3rd rate classification or 4th rate.
It is a "convoy ship", something like a fortress with sails and it could be 4th or 3rd rate.
Christian IIV could be 2nd according to English or 1st using Dutch rating system.
and yes, there are other ships in production
So you are confirming that the Christian IIV will indeed be the Dane/Sweden 1st rate? See below why it should remain a 2nd rate unless you up a gun deck size.
Agememnon is a 3rd rate which will be classified as a 4thrate ingame IIRC.
How about we drop the rate systems of the real world? I mean for this games purpose it really only matters what the game rates it as, and what type of port battle it can get into. Here's an idea why don't we change the in game rate system to be based on broadside weight instead of real world or gun count rate systems. OTMatt had a post http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13912-ship-list-with-broadside-weight/?p=255889 of broadside weights for ships. Looking at only the ships in game what would the cut offs be for the 7 rates we have?
Using OTMatts numbers I think the ships should be rated as such.
1st = 1,290lb+
140-Gun Santisima Trinidad
34x 9 Pounders = 306
36x 12 Pounders = 432
34x 24 Pounders = 816
34x 42 pounders = 1,428
Broadside Weight: = 2,982 / 2 = 1,491lb
118-Gun Ocean
18x 9 Pounders = 162
34x 12 Pounders = 408
34x 24 Pounders = 816
32x 42 Pounders = 1,344
Broadside Weight: = 2,730 / 2 = 1,365lb
106-Gun HMS Victory
14x 12 Pounders = 168
30x 12 Pounders = 360
30x 24 Pounders = 720
32x 42 Pounders = 1,344
Broadside Weight: = 2,592 / 2 = 1,296lb
90-Gun Admiraal de Ruyter (not in game but we know it is coming) LOOK A DUTCH IN GAME RATED 1st RATE!
30x 12 Pounders = 360
30x 32 Pounders = 960
30x 42 Pounders = 1,260
Broadside Weight: = 2,580 / 2 = 1,290lb
2nd = 1,000 to 1,289lb
82-Gun St. Pavel
4x 6 Pounders = 24
20x 6 Pounders = 120
28x 24 Pounders = 672
30x 42 Pounders = 1,260
Broadside Weight: = 2,076 / 2 = 1,038lb
90-Gun Christian VII (not in game but we know it is coming)
8x 6 Pounders = 48
26x 12 Pounders = 312
28x 18 Pounders = 504
28x 42 Pounders = 1,176
Broadside Weight: = 2,040 /2 = 1,020lb
80-Gun Le Bucentaure
18x 12 Pounders = 216
32x 24 Pounders = 768
30x 42 Pounders = 1,260
Broadside Weight: = 2,244 / 2 = 1,122lb
3rd = 651 to 999lb
74-Gun HMS Bellona
18x 9 Pounders = 162
28x 18 Pounders = 504
28x 32 Pounders = 896
Broadside Weight: = 1,562 / 2 = 781lb
74-Gun 3rd Rate
18 x 9 Pounders = 162
28 x 18 Pounders = 504
28 x 24 Pounders = 672
Broadside Weight: = 1,338 / 2 = 669lb
4th = 451 to 650lb
62-Gun Ingermanland
14x 6 Pounders = 84
24x 18 Pounders = 432
24x 32 Pounders = 768
Broadside Weight: = 1,284 / 2 = 642lb
54-Gun USS Constitution
24x 12 Pounders = 288
30x 24 Pounders = 720
Broadside Weight: = 1,008 / 2 = 504lb
70-Gun Wapen Von Hamburg III (not in game but we know it is coming)
22x 6 Pounders = 132
24x 12 Pounders = 288
24x 18 Pounders = 432
Broadside Weight: = 852 / 2 = 462lb
64-Gun Agamemnon
12 x 9 Pounders = 108
26 x 18 Pounders = 468
26 x 24 Pounders = 624
Broadside Weight = 1,200 / 2 = 600lb
5th = 201 to 450lb
50-Gun HMS Trincomalee
22x9 Pounders = 198
28x 18 Pounders = 504
Broadside Weight: = 702 / 2 = 351lb
40-Gun Essex
12x 12 Pounders = 144
28x 18 Pounders = 504
Broadside Weight: = 648 / 2 = 324lb
38-Gun Frigate
12 x 6 Pounders = 72
26 x 18 Pounders = 468
Broadside Weight: = 540 / 2 = 270lb
6th = 121 to 200lb
38-Gun Belle Poule
10x 6 Pounders = 60
28x 12 Pounders = 336
Broadside Weight: = 396 / 2 = 198lb
38-Gun HMS Surprise
14x 6 Pounders = 84
24x 9 Pounders = 216
Broadside Weight: = 300 / 2 = 150lb
30-Gun Renommee
4x 6 Pounders = 24
26x 9 Pounders = 234
Broadside Weight: = 258 / 2 = 129lb
7th = 0 to 120lb
26-Gun Cerberus - Non PB Ship
26 x 9 Pounders = 234
Broadside Weight: = 234 / 2 = 117lb
20-Gun Niagara - Non PB Ship
20x 9 Pounders = 180
Broadside Weight: 90lb
18-Gun Rattlesnake Heavy (what the heck is this)
10 x 6 Pounders = 60
18x 6 Pounders = 108
Broadside Weight: = 168 / 2 = 84lb
22-Gun Snow
6x 6 Pounders = 36
16x 6 Pounders = 96
Broadside Weight: = 132 / 2 = 66lb
20-Gun Mercury
20x 6 Pounders = 120
Broadside Weight: = 60lb
18-Gun Navy Brig
18x 6 Pounders = 108
Broadside Weight: = 54lb
18-Gun Rattlesnake
18x 6 Pounders = 108
Broadside Weight: = 54lb
16-Gun Brig
16x 6 Pounders = 96
Broadside Weight: = 48lb.
12-Gun Pickle
12x 6 Pounders = 72
Broadside Weight: = 36lb
12-Gun Privateer
12x 6 Pounders = 72
Broadside Weight: = 36lb
12-Gun Cutter
12x 6 Pounders = 72
Broadside Weight: = 36lb
12-Gun Yacht
12x 6 Pounders = 72
Broadside Weight: = 36lb
8-Gun USS Lynx
8x 6 Pounders = 48
Broadside Weight: 24lb
-
4
-
-
Now we have Dutch, Dane, Swed, and US captains sailing Brit, Spanish, and French 1st rates to cap deep water ports. Even though the Dutch, Danes, Sweds, & US did not make a true first rate is it the end of the world if the Dev's took one of those 15 90 to 95 guns ships and added an extra 5 to 10 guns to it? Or kept the 90 to 95 and upped the 2nd decks poundage to get a similar broad side weight as the other 1st rates? And hasn't that already been done on some ships we already have in game? And if that small change is not okay for game play reasons then why the hell is magical officer perks and ship mods okay?
My guess for the Dutch ship "upgraded" to a first rate is the De Ruyter. hehe
-
admin, on 01 Sept 2016 - 04:18 AM, said:
Experimental hot fix deployed today
3) Regional changes implemented for vessels as an experiment that will spread to other high ranked vessels- Victory - requires british national good to construct - removed until regions are introduced
- Santisima - requires spanish national goods to construct - removed until regions are introduced
- Ocean - requires french national goods to construct
- When introduced - Christian first rate will require Danish/Swedish national goods to construct
- When introduced - Dutch first rate will require Dutch national resources
- Second rates are under consideration
This is done as an experiment to see if regional changes will create more variety in large scale port battles, making national choices more interesting.
UPDATE (H. Darby): The Regional Changes for vessels will be rolled back in a hotfix tomorrow only for existing first rates (L'Ocean will still require national resources). Bear in mind that this change will be made in the future when trade routes are more correctly established/balanced and more ships are in the game. In the future, Exceptional ships will be rare, first rates will be rare and hard to build. Many vessels will require you to conduct economic warfare to be able to build them.
Exact post from Admin later in this thread:
Per Admin's statement here the Christian VII is a first rate for both Danish and Sweden. Not a second as you have listed. Maybe they are modeling the up gunned version?
-
Yes, I know that. I mean that as well as alliances, some ward seem to have been declared. The US and Spain for example.
Technically you are at war with anyone who is not your Ally by game mechanics, but agreements can and will be made as they are now I am sure. I still think a third neutral state needs to exist but eh...
-
Don't you also have to factor declared wars?
Only for round two and beyond. You can not have an ally that has your enemy as an ally. Let do that and see what it looks like.
Ally picks
Spain - picked France, France picked Denmark so no alliance for Spain
France - picked Denmark, Denmark picked France so they will have an alliance.
Brits - picked Dutch, Dutch picked Brits so they will have an alliance
Dutch - see Brit pick
Denmark - see France pick
Sweden - picked Denmark, Denmark picked France so no alliance
US - picked Brits, Brits picked Dutch so no alliance
Enemy Picks
Spain - picked US
France - picked Brits
Brits - picked France
Dutch - picked France
Denmark - picked Brits
Sweden - picked Brits
US - picked Spain
First round of voting alliances are Brit/Dutch and France/Danes all others are odd men out.
Round two:
Spain can pick anyone as ally as their enemy as no ally
France can not pick Dutch (allied with Brits), everyone else is game
Brits can not pick Denmark (allied with France), everyone else is game
Dutch can not pick Denmark (allied with France), everyone else is game
Sweden can not pick Dutch (allied with Brits), everyone else is game
US can pick anyone as ally as their enemy as no ally
I think that's right!
-
3
-
-
I am a lone guy not implied in political and diplomacy stuff , just seeing what happens and taking note of it,
I have a question tho, seeing the current " grid " for Swedish votes i see that one of your selected enemies with most votes is France. Why aren't your friendly with Spain, France and Denmark at the same time ? Right now votes put you at war with Spain, France and Britain, allied with all others.
Shouldn't it be logical to create a block there so you can profit of Spain infrastructures and help them later if needed ? Following your own words that " would be a more healthy situation for the RvR on PVP 1 " while at the same time voting for your " geographical logical partner " when it comes to France too no ?.
Like i said i'm not into diplomacy stuff so maybe i am missing something obvious or more subtle in those votes here, so i just ask it here trying to understand.
Swedes in game always were good guys to fight along, always straight in them shoes, a bit surprised by those choices in grid.
Thanks
I hate to break it to some of you but if the votes stays as shown here Sweden will not have an ally. Both sides must be each others TOP pick, therefore Sweden who picked Denmark must have Denmark pick them which they haven't (they have picked France). So lets do a run down shall we.
Spain - picked France, France picked Denmark so no alliance for Spain
France - picked Denmark, Denmark picked France so they will have an alliance.
Brits - picked Dutch, Dutch picked Brits so they will have an alliance
Dutch - see Brit pick
Denmark - see France pick
Sweden - picked Denmark, Denmark picked France so no alliance
US - picked Brits, Brits picked Dutch so no alliance
First round of voting alliances are Brit/Dutch and France/Danes all others are odd men out. Second round will start to form the "blocks".
What this does show however is National populations or at least higher level captains to the effect of how many players are interested in RvR for each nation. Which is as follows: counting ally votes only!
1. Great Britain 3,162 votes
2. Dutch 1,309 votes
3. France 1,302 votes
4. Denmark 1,008 votes
5. US 896 votes
6. Spain 828 votes
7. Sweden 782 votes
We need fewer Brit Captains! lol
I hope someone gets a screen cap of the finial voting so we can see number of votes each nation had!
-
5
-
-
Have you thought about the fact that they might be saving up some models for when the game is released?
I dont know what their plans are, but i known they are working continuesly on content so i would not be surprised if there is a group ready but not released.
No I don't think they are nor do I think they should. Ship tuning to balance PvP is something that hardly ever is right right out of the box. We are alpha testing. All ships should be tested now before release so no one ship is overwhelmingly OP compared to the others. Once release happens new ships should be tested in the test server before release to the "live" server(s).
I agree there looks to be a load of new ships coming now, but they are all 1 year plus in the making, and with all the new RvR, officer, crew, mission stuff I have no idea if any new ones have even been started. So how long will the 2016 voted ships take to get in game, end of 2017? How fast can they crank out ships with all the other content they are doing? And does that matter? When we vote a ship it will be added to the game at some point. So we should vote on ships the game needs to fill a role or a size that is lacking. For instance I would like to see the next vote be strictly 3rd rate ships if the Dev's can find a way to make them useful in game (cause right now they aren't). I think we could all come up with our favorite 3rd rate to vote on without players whining about not being able to vote for their favorite 4th rate, or what ever size ships the Dev's feel is lacking. No one complained in the last one when US or Brit ships could not be voted on. I don't see what the issue would be to have both needs filled?
-
I will try to explain last time because talking to people repeating the same things over and over again is exhausting and I have better things to do.
- USA right now is not interesting.
Having an ally or an enemy whose main base of players is in another time zone for me is useless. I´m not interested in have advantage in european primetime or have to stay awake till four o´clock in the night to have an interesting battle. Erickilla, this is boring to me and in general for all the spanish players. And it is not intended to be an offense.
If this is true then why did I see you up at 4 am your time trying to take US ports? If your not interested in being up at 4 am why are you attacking other nations ports at that time? Here is a clue for you, don't try and take ports that require you to be up at 4 am, take ports that are open at your time of play! Not hard. Are you saying none of the other nations have interesting battles at your prime? So you have to be up at 4 am to have interesting battles against the US, but main time zone not in yours is useless? This is why I left Spain 2 months ago, no logic to there nation at all.
-
The point of voting for a wild card or a ship in general is to get into the game a ship that people like and not what is needed for the game. The latter is getting taken care of by the devs
Just keep that in mind
But is it? With the length of time it takes to get a ship in game and the limited number of Dev's doing said ships I think what we "vote" for should reflect what the game needs more so than what we "like". And I would guess that most captains would like whatever ships they got that filled both of those roles. We are into the last half of this year and still don't have what "wild card" ship the Dev's have chosen for the first half, And we shouldn't we be voting on the next round of ships?
For instance the 2015 ship poll had the Amsterdam, HMS Indefatigable as the two top vote-getters with the Océan-class as the Dev choice. We have only one of those in game a year and a half later! However we did get the Rattlesnake which was third in voting.
As for 3rd rates I agree they are lacking, but they have NO USE in game as they are to small for Regional ports and to big for all other deep ports. Which I think is a big mistake in game design. 3rd rates should be the most crafted and used ships in game!
A bit of interesting info on the 3 player votes:
2014 Voting - 183 total votes - 4 out of 5 in game
1. HMS Ontario - 55 votes - in game
2. Ingermanland - 51 votes - in game
3. Santisima Trinidad - 36 votes - in game
4. Brig Mercury - 21 votes - in game
5. San Felipe - 8 votes - not in game
2015 Voting - 833 total votes - 2 out of 12 in game, 4 of remaining 10 in development
1. HMS Indefatigable - 155 votes - in development
2. Amsterdam - 138 votes - in games as the indiaman
3. Rattlesnake - 129 votes - in game
4. Christian VII - 83 votes - not in game
5. Wasa - 63 votes - not in game
6. HMS Agamemnon - 61 votes - in development
7. USS Independence - 60 votes - not in game
8. Téméraire-class - 54 votes - not in game
9. Océan-class - 42 votes - Dev choice in development
10. Hermione - 19 votes - in development
11. USS Bonhomme Richard - 18 votes - not in game
12. Amazon-class - 11 votes - not in game
2016 Voting - 1836 total votes - no dev choice as of yet.
1. Christian VII - 386 votes - in development
2. Diana - 295 votes - in development
3. Wasa - 293 votes - not in game
4. Venus - 274 votes - not in game
5. Admiraal de Ruyter - 205 votes - not in game
6. Dordrecht - 63 votes - not in game
7. Wenden - 49 votes - not in game
8. Princesa Real - 48 votes - not in game
9. Mars - 46 votes - not in game
10. Venetian 22-gun corvette - 39 votes - not in game
11. Freja - 38 votes - not in game
12. Vrijheid - 28 votes - not in game
13. Descubierta - 26 votes - not in game
14. Christiansborg - 25 votes - not in game
15. Prinds Christian Frederik - 15 votes - not in game
-
It's too much to read sorry but the idea of 24 h port battles would only help the biggest factions and hardcore gamers.
Small faction or factions with less hardcore gamers wouldn't stand a chance. And you forget the reward/loot system. Which needs a major rework in my opinion.
The lengh is not the problem. Just how it starts. I am still for a mechanic like in PotBS. It was simple it was good and it worked for everyone and it was a pool for everyone who wants to do PvP and maybe there would be less ganking at capitals.
What if the 24 hours was busted up into 12 separate battles? A defender only needs to win 6 of those, an attacker needs to win 7? That's 1/2 a day of coverage if you win them all. Now throw in allies to help you with your battles, and pirate clans as hired mercs and you could cover the entire 12 battles if you make the right political deals. This will require the "Pirate Nation" to have the ability make make contracts for a port offence or defense to be paid by the nation that hires them. And if done by clan or group you could have Pirates on both sides of the battle! Of course I have the idea of Pirates becoming strictly pvper's, no crafting, no trading, but that's a separate post.
PotBS way sucked also. I can't tell you how many "flips" I helped get started only for them to be finished in the middle of the night, and then the battle happen before I got off work, effectually excluding me from said port battles I helped create. Timers of any kind will screw all players over one way or another. It is a global game and needs global mechanics if this is to last or players will figure out how to set the times to when it is the easiest for them to win (read least resistance). Then get bored and stop playing.
-
I can only add to that with the hostility generation is already a 24/7 mechanic.
But really I expect the different conflict-zones to become centered around one of the 10 time-slots. (There is that magic number 10 again.
)You know that at the end there is going to be a port battle and you want that port battle to be in your favorite slot. Yes, it is a bit gimmicky, but time-zones are (I'm afraid) a RL interference.
So everybody will be focused on getting his time slot, both in terms of offense and defense.
The other thing is that Nations may not be capable of raising fleets 24/7. We'll have to see how this plays out initially.
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/?p=275044
With multi battle does it matter if you can raise a fleet 24 hours? What I proposed will make each PB 12 battles long, as a defender you only need to win 6 of those (tie goes to defender), as an attacker you need to win 7 (attackers should have to win more, no?). So if you can cover 1/2 a day with you pop and or ally/hired guns (hired guns are pirates clans) you can still win even if the rest of the battles are empty. But with this setup you just might find people spreading out to other nations to get fights instead of certain time zones having a couple of nations with all the pop.
-
because people want resolution - action must bring results based on their actions (not on somebody else's actions)
If the battle lasts for several days not everyone has 48 hours to be online.
If i fought well and won the port battle then someone should not be able to lose my result.
I disagree.
1. It was not yours and yours alone action that resulted in the fight to begin with!
2. A national effort to create the PB should mean a national effort to win it. (not on somebody else's actions to lose it)
3. If I fought well to get the PB and some other player loses my port because it didn't happen in my play time I will be extremely more upset about it than if my nation lost it as a whole.
The very reasons you list as to why not have it a national effort are the same reasons not to leave it up to just 25 players multiplied by the number of players that help create it in the first place!
-
5
-
-
Wouldn't that be the same as a neutral?
-
May I suggest that if a nation is wiped out, you can start as that nation from a free port and pull the flag from that free port to try and re-take the nations capital. This will allow people who want a challenge of rebuilding a nation the option to go that nation and try and recreate that nations foothold.
Example: Spain is wiped off the map, anyone who starts as Spain will start at Key West with the option to pull the flag from Key West for La Habana (Spain's capital). No other flags can be pulled from the free port and the flag can only be pulled if La Habana is occupied from a nation other than Spain.
Um with the new PB system there is no "flag" to pull.
-
2
-
-
Looks to me like "I" is freetowns, "N" is Neutral (capture-able). No idea what the white circles would be.
EDIT: Red circles are obviously capitals, seems like white circles are towns that may be changing faction? E.G Sunbury is listed as US on this map?
Then look at the Costa del Fuego area. Cabo Canaveral, San Sebastain, Jobe, & Rio Seco are all freetowns with only Ays (regional capital) & Cayo Bisayno as Spain and therefore capable? I think the (I) is something else.
-
Why do port Battles have to be in a "time slot"? Think out of the box. 48 hours after hostilities hits 100% the port opens up for battles, port battles last 24 hours! Each battle happens in a 1 1/2 hour time frame with 30 min. delay for the next one. All time zones are covered this way. Battles are decided by which side does the most damage for that battle (promotes fighting), most battles that are won wins the port. Remember allies and or hired pirates can enter you port battles to help cover low pop times for your nation. Discuss!
-
3
-
-
Interesting.
Does the (I) equal freetowns or the (N) or the big white circles? If (I) or (N) is not freetowns, whats the difference in them?
-
The questions I have which have not been answered is are these:
1. Does the ally of your ally become your ally?
2. Does the enemy of your ally become your enemy?
3. What can you do against nations that are neither your ally or your declared enemy, for example, can you enter their ports? Can you auto enter their battles? Can you buy flags against them? Open world pvp only? What are those limits?
Can all the rule sets for how a nation votes be listed in regards to how all the other nations vote so we can see if we can poke holes in it?
-
alliance lasts longer than 1 week
that means you sign one alliance in week one
and another one in week two
so by end of week 2 you will have two alliances
You answered while I was editing the following, can you answer these questions?
And just what are the other 4 nation states to your nation if they are neither the chosen ally or enemy? What can you do against them, take ports? Open world pvp only? enter their ports? France and Denmark allies week one, what are the Dutch, Brits, Spain, and US in relation to France?
Week one:
France vote ally Denmark enemy England
Denmark vote ally France enemy England
England vote ally US enemy Spain
US vote ally England enemy France
Spain vote ally Denmark enemy England
Dutch vote ally Sweden enemy Denmark
Sweden vote ally Dutch enemy Spain
Week one results
Alliances are France/Denmark; England/US; Dutch/Sweden with Spain with no allies because their top choice was not top choice of other nation?
Enemies France, Denmark, & Spain enemy to England; US & France are enemies; England & Sweden enemy to Spain; Dutch are enemy to Denmark.
Does this make France/Denmark+Spain enemies to Sweden/Dutch and England/US? What is England & US's relation to Sweden & Dutch? What is France/Denmark relation to Spain? Can they take ports, can they enter their ports, can they enter thier PB's, open world pvp only, what can they do or not do to each other? Does the enemy of your ally also become your enemy in effect giving you the potential of having two enemies voted each round?
-
You can sign 1 alliance per week
but you can have 2 (or maybe 3) nations in an alliance
You edited your answer, lol. I still have this questions.
How? You stated each nation had to be top choice to become an ally. There is only one top choice per week right? Week one France and Denmark pick each other as top choice. Week two Denmark and Sweden picks each other as top choice, does this break the alliance with France for Denmark since both nations must be top choice? Or are you saying the first week vote last two weeks so the second week they do not need to be top choice? Does that also mean that on the third week Denmark and France have to vote top choice to be allies again, meaning every other week you must vote to retain alliance with the nation you picked in week one?
And just what are the other 4 nation states to your nation if they are neither the chosen ally or enemy? What can you do against them, take ports? Open world pvp only? enter their ports? France and Denmark allies week one, what are the Dutch, Brits, Spain, and US in relation to France?
Week one:
France vote ally Denmark enemy England
Denmark vote ally France enemy England
England vote ally US enemy Spain
US vote ally England enemy France
Spain vote ally Denmark enemy England
Dutch vote ally Sweden enemy Denmark
Sweden vote ally Dutch enemy Spain
Week one results
Alliances are France/Denmark; England/US; Dutch/Sweden with Spain with no allies because their top choice was not top choice of other nation?
Enemies France, Denmark, & Spain enemy to England; US & France are enemies; England & Sweden enemy to Spain; Dutch are enemy to Denmark.
Does this make France/Denmark+Spain enemies to Sweden/Dutch and England/US? What is England & US's relation to Sweden & Dutch? Can they take ports, can they enter their ports, open world pvp only, what can they do or not do to each other?
-
what if scenario...week 1France (declared enemy england) allies denmark (declared enemy england)week 2denmark (declared enemy england) allies with Verenig. (declared enemy USA)If France launchs a series of invasions against Verenig. (as it seems you do not need to have them as declared enemy to do so)can danes join BOTH sides in a PB? no side? How is green on green fire defined in this stance?"Alliances also will play important part in hostility generation" does this means a bonus to hostility against "chosen enemies"?
Dutch wil be part of France/Denmark alliance so france won't be able to attack them
no
both nations must be a top choice for each other - but because the voting lasts for a week and you get multiple votes you will be able to put votes to make the second choice a first choice
basically - only 1 alliance per week.
How do these quotes work together? They seem to contradict one another. How can the Dutch be apart of a French/Denmark alliance if you can have 1 and only 1 ally per week? Per your first post Denmark cannot ally with Verenig until they break their alliance with France first.
I'll ask again, can you please show us an 8 week voting process for all nations and what the "state" (there are only 2 types, allied or war) between each nation would be after each weeks vote? All your answers to questions in this thread look to me like they contradict each other. Or am I missing something?
-
3
-
-
Quote #1
Hello Captains
Would like to share our final view on the design of alliances that will be deployed next patch.
Allied Nations will be enforced by a ruleset.
Allied nations:
- Can enter each other ports
- Are pulled into battles as friendlies
- Can enter port battles
- Cannot be attacked
Enemy nations: Needed to block situations where your ally also has an alliance with your enemy.
You cannot ally with nations who have alliances with your enemy and vice versa. They must dissolve that alliance first and only after that you will be able to ally with them. Alternatively you must change the views on the enemy and then will be able to join the alliance
Alliance creation is a political process that requires national effort in voting screen and in real life.
Alliances are created by national voting and are enforced by systems.
How voting will work.
Voting is done in weekly rounds.
Every voting round your nation does 2 things
- votes for the enemy nation (same enemy can be picked)
- votes for the potential ally
Alliances are signed for top choices for matching nations for a certain time (several weeks).
Example on how it will work.
Week one
- France picked Sweden as a top ally choice (picking denmark as enemy)
- Sweden picked France as a top ally choice (picking great britain as enemy)
Then during next maintenance alliance is signed for 2 weeks between France and Sweden. Once alliance is signed all votes are reset and credited back to the player for the next round of voting.
Week two
France is already allied with Sweden
- France wants to ally with Great Britain
- Because one of their ally members has listed Great britain as enemy this alliance cannot be signed and is not available for voting
- To be able to ally with Great britain france must persuade Sweden to drop Great britain as enemy and replace it with someone else (for example Denmark)
As a result in 3 weeks (3 rounds of voting) 2 or 3 large blocks will be created. Over time the situations might change. Because of the forced enemy decision there will always be 2 large blocks at the minimum.
Votes
Vote limits are granted based on level. Voting is allowed above a certain rank. To be able to vote for allies player must first vote on the enemy.
Other considerations.
Alliances also will play important part in hostility generation
Sinking enemies will grant extra points in pvp and pve. Attacks on allied NPCs will be forbidden and will force players to move closer to hostile waters.
Quote #2
Pirates cannot sign alliances
Quote #3
no
both nations must be a top choice for each other - but because the voting lasts for a week and you get multiple votes you will be able to put votes to make the second choice a first choice
basically - only 1 alliance per week.
Quote #4
if you are not allied you are at war
enemy choice is needed for blocking purposes - but i am sure your nation hate one of the nations more than others
Quote #5
you can only have 2 (current) or maybe 3 alliances
but everyone can pick the same enemy yes.
These quotes don't add up to me, can you clarify for me please?
8 nations: your nation plus the pirate "nation" (quote #2), plus your voted ally nation leaves 5 nations you are at war with at all times Per your quote #4. So you have 2 states for each nation you can be 1. ally and 2. war, but only one nation as an ally at a time per quote #3.
How does this work? 6 nations only 1 can be an ally (last 2 weeks per quote #1), only 1 can be an enemy (how long does this last, not stated anywhere I read?), what are the other 4, per quote #4 should be war therefor an enemy? Now if you had a neutral state this could make since to me but you state per quote #4, which was a reply to this question, that there is no neutral state. So how does quote #5 work where you can have 2 or maybe 3 current allies when quote #4 says you can't? Can you do a full 8 week of voting scenario with all nations shown to show how this works?
Using your example France & Sweden are allies with different enemies. Is Denmark an enemy of Sweden since Sweden is allied with France? So Sweden would have 2 declared enemies after this voting (as would France), but what are the other 3 nations to Sweden and France, per quote #4 they must be at war, but how?
The way this reads to me is you can have one ally only, one declared enemy (and one per your ally maybe?) and 3 or 4 nations you are still at war with. What the difference between a declared enemy and a nation you are at war with? Only declared enemy can you pull flags for? I cannot see how only two state for a nation works.
Can I suggest a 3rd state - the neutral state:
Neutral nations:
- Can enter each other ports
- Are NOT pulled into battles as friendlies - must manully enter as you can now
- Can NOT enter port battles
- Can be attacked on OW - will create tensions for changing who the enemy is maybe?
- Can be an enemy of your ally
- Cannot pull flags
Allied nations:
- Can enter each other ports
- Are pulled into battles as friendlies
- Can enter port battles
- Cannot be attacked
- Cannot pull flags against
Enemy nations:
- Cannot enter each others ports
- Can pull flags for ports
-
3
)
Important - Final map. Player action required for both PVE and PVP servers.
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Nope they have said they may, not that they will be. Hence the question.