Should a Nation be able to 'win'

[Mighty Bouff]

The question I pose today is should a nation be able to 'win' the map.

 

This begs many other questions, a couple of which I'll highlight:

 

-What form would winning take? 

For me this would either be a straight port count, though I dislike that. Instead I'd have each Nation have set goals for this map cycle which they need to achieve in order to win. These would need to be quite a stretch and I'd imagine them taking in the order of 6 months+ to achieve.

 

-What happens when the map resets?

If you have stuff in a port that gets reset what happens to it? Aside from the advice to use free towns for storage I'm, not sure on this one. I'd imagine it could all be teleported to the nearest free town, but then  I'd probably be OK if it was just locked up and I had to capture that port again in order to get to my stuff.

 

-What would be the rewards?

I'm not sure I'd give specific rewards for winning the map (perhaps some sort of medal system in the future), instead I'd make the rewards come in as you advanced towards a goal. I'd group regions (around each regional capital) so that if you owned all the available ports in that region the NPC (and in the future player) material production got a modest boost. This does have drawbacks in that if a nation is already strong it could make them stronger, but that would drive them onwards towards a map win and reset it back to parity.

 

-If you win, should you get a disadvantage next time?

I think so, or perhaps the losing nations should get benefits. I'm a fan of the PoTBS mechanic where the most underpopulated nation got an XP boost to incentivise players to join that nation. The winning faction could also have more of their nations fleets spawn in the open world (which they can't attack but everybody else can) though I'm sure everybody else can come up with better thoughts on this!

 

As we have seen on PVP1 Spain has got themselves into all sorts of difficulty and are going to find it very hard going. Under a system where a nation could 'win' a map reset might not be far away and would help resolve the issues (or at least give a fresh start).

 

 

Anyway that is enough for now, please let me know your thoughts etc, please keep it civil and hopefully it may give the admins/devs some food for thought as they work out how the meta game will all fit together!

[OlavDeng2]

What would happen when map resets? people who are part of a nation will still be in said nation(il always be dutch for example), the spanish will have a bit of breathing space until a certain point where we end up right now, and then server reset and we go through it again and again, if we dont reset the map what spain will be forced to do is build proper alliances and get support from them to thrive.

[hoarmurath]

What would happen when map resets? people who are part of a nation will still be in said nation(il always be dutch for example), the spanish will have a bit of breathing space until a certain point where we end up right now, and then server reset and we go through it again and again, if we dont reset the map what spain will be forced to do is build proper alliances and get support from them to thrive.

 

Forced? You forget the most probable option : they will just stop playing.

[OlavDeng2]

i misunderstood, ignore this post

[charognard666]

I think a nation must have something like 8-10 ports others nations can't capture in order to provide a "safe zone". If a nation is reduce at the minimum ports number, it must work in order to grow up again, by recruiting captains, thinking about a strategy, diplomacy ect ect... 

 

I'm not ok with a periodical reset. In life some are winning, other are loosing. We just need to make some tools to make looser a chance to fight back. 

 

I think little nations must be the most interesting to play, like when you start Crusader King 2 as a little baron. 

 

If we had forums and whining poster in 18th century, may be France got more lands in Caraibian sea now

Edited February 17, 2016 by charognard666

[mirror452]

I think a nation must have something like 8-10 ports others nations can't capture in order to provide a "safe zone". If a nation is reduce at the minimum ports number, it must work in order to grow up again, by recruiting captains, thinking about a strategy, diplomacy ect ect... 

 

I'm not ok with a periodical reset. In life some are winning, other are loosing. We just need to make some tools to make looser a chance to fight back. 

 

I think little nations must be the most interesting to play, like when you start Crusader King 2 as a little baron. 

 

If we had forums and whining poster in 18th century, may be France got more lands in Caraibian sea now

 

 

We already have a safe zone, the Capital, and I believe Regional Capitals. Don't forget that not every nation can be like Britain, US or France. Sweden started with one port.

 

And btw, I believe I am right that most in Sweden are proud to fight for their country without an XP boost.

[Lyric]

I believe that guild wars 2 world v world should be used as a major inspiration in this matter.

The issue is that nobody wants one nation to win by global domination, involving several nations being reduced to just one port. Nobody also wants to sit in a stalemate. Finding a solution to this lose - lose scenario requires a lot of thought and trial and error.

What I propose is NOT to wipe any ships, exp or stats. That would lose a substantial amount of players, probably including myself. I don't mind the grind, I've done it 3 times, but once is enough.

I believe there should be seasons which calculate the total victory points acquired by each nation, and scales it with previous performances and national population. That is how the international leaderboards are run.

The nations who are lower in the ranking should receive some sort of bonus aiding them in their struggle. One suggestion of the top of my head is mercenary guilds.

I believe pirates should become a major part of the game in the form of mercenary contractors only hireable via in game mechanics by smaller nations who are struggling. In entering into contract, the pirate guild gets a large bonus for helping out the smaller nations and a tiny bonus for helping the larger nations. This would be a great way to add some diplomatic fun whilst still helping to balance out the nations.

Pirates being pirates can choose to break their word, so the guild UI should be unique to pirates in a special honour system. Guild leaders of a nation can then look at the honour reputation and decide whether they want to employee the mercenary guild.

Just my 2 cents

Monkey

[Ghroznak]

Instead of resets it would be cooler if there was a background simulation which simulated different nations entering into alliances with eachother. They could change every 3 months or something, thus shaking things up where an alliance between, for instance, France and Denmark-Norway turns into an alliance between France and Sweden instead, thus placing Denmark-Norway at war with France.

 

This way a system could be implemented where different nations (as long as they are allied) can use the ports of their allied nations, e.g. trading between French and Danish ports while allied, but when diplomacy changes the alliances, those ports and trade routes become inaccessible.

 

Just throwing the idea out there...

[mirror452]

Instead of resets it would be cooler if there was a background simulation which simulated different nations entering into alliances with eachother. They could change every 3 months or something, thus shaking things up where an alliance between, for instance, France and Denmark-Norway turns into an alliance between France and Sweden instead, thus placing Denmark-Norway at war with France.

 

This way a system could be implemented where different nations (as long as they are allied) can use the ports of their allied nations, e.g. trading between French and Danish ports while allied, but when diplomacy changes the alliances, those ports and trade routes become inaccessible.

 

Just throwing the idea out there...

 

Please do not force diplomacy on players. Players should (and already do) make their own diplomacy.

Check this link: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8715-political-situation-pvp-1-eu/

 

What has to be done is to put a working diplomacy system directly into the game.

[Ghroznak]

Please do not force diplomacy on players. Players should (and already do) make their own diplomacy.

Check this link: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8715-political-situation-pvp-1-eu/

 

What has to be done is to put a working diplomacy system directly into the game.

 

Player diplomacy doesn't allow for trade between the allied nations ports. Also, there are no consequences for someone simply ignoring an alliance and fighting the "allies" anyways. Just cause one clan decides it want to have a ceasefire or alliance with another nation doesn't mean the everyday player cares about it... or even knows about it for that matter.

 

There needs to be some sort of boundaries in-game as to how the diplomacy works, consequences and so forth.

 

Anyways, digressing from the topic at this point.

[Admiral 8Q]

I think the devs or moderators should make the national alliances. Let's say the USA is dominating. The moderators could then have all the other nations as allied. Alliances should last awhile though, and only be changed to keep a balance of power.

It would get more complicated with national alliances of course. Lets say France and Holland allied, USA allied with the Swedes, Spain and the rest allied, that sort of thing.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there should be no "win".

Any port that was captured should have to be occupied and maintained. Otherwise if ignored for too long it reverts back to it's original nation or neutral.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Admiral 8Q

[Fletch]

It should stay as it is in my opinion. Owning ports is not vital other than your home one witch cannot be flipped. There are enough free ports to ensure players can build outposts anywhere in the world map without fear of loosing the contents.

The rest just seems like bragging rights to me.

[Mighty Bouff]

It should stay as it is in my opinion. Owning ports is not vital other than your home one witch cannot be flipped. There are enough free ports to ensure players can build outposts anywhere in the world map without fear of loosing the contents.

The rest just seems like bragging rights to me.

 

Well and access to resources, thats the main reason for taking ports, it gives you access to more resources and denies them to the enemy

[mirror452]

I think the devs or moderators should make the national alliances.

 

Just.. No! I want to at least feel like I have a part in saying who I am allied with and why.

It's not about keeping every nation at the same size anyway. Differently sized nations, differently populated nations, differently powerful nation make this game interesting. If every nation/alliance would be the same size, and then suddenly alliances can shift out of nowhere just because one becomes "too strong"... What sense does it make to fight? What are you fighting for then?

It's a sandbox game. If your nation is losing ground, try to find a solution... Training, different tactics, different alliances, maybe even paying tribute to one nation to keep the peace and stop losing more ground, while trying to get stronger again. Players shouldn't rely on devs or moderators to help them out of their miserable situation. A sense of accomplishment is what keeps games alive. And there is no bigger satisfaction than to see your nation on the ground and then see it rise again because of your (and your friends') effort.

 

(This said... Damn it, Spain, get your s*** together and do something about the ports around your capital.)

[Nathaniel]

I'm not convinced a nation should be able to win at all. Having ever more port should be possible, but request a hard strain, thus maybe allowing a faction to dominate for months, but ultimately leading to the other nations gankng up on it with another pretender to emerge. Works well for EVE's alliances, should work with only minor tweaks here too.

[mirror452]

Maybe make the price for the flag dependend on how many ports a nation owns... More ports -> higher costs to expand

[Ghroznak]

Just.. No! I want to at least feel like I have a part in saying who I am allied with and why.

If we want to be historical and realistical about it... Individual ship captains had little, if any, influence on the political agendas of their nation as a whole. And we are all just individual captains on our ships, even if some band together in groups of varying sizes.

Obviously a captain can ignore his nations relationship with another nation, but that is called going rogue, e.g. becoming a smuggler by trading with enemy, or outright stripped of all rights within your original nation.

I know it is a game, but it is a bit overkill for captains of every ship in the caribbean, from a pickle to a belle poule, to influence the politics of non-democratic european monarchies and, at the time, superpowers.

[beagleplease]

I believe that guild wars 2 world v world should be used as a major inspiration in this matter.

The issue is that nobody wants one nation to win by global domination, involving several nations being reduced to just one port. Nobody also wants to sit in a stalemate. Finding a solution to this lose - lose scenario requires a lot of thought and trial and error.

What I propose is NOT to wipe any ships, exp or stats. That would lose a substantial amount of players, probably including myself. I don't mind the grind, I've done it 3 times, but once is enough.

I believe there should be seasons which calculate the total victory points acquired by each nation, and scales it with previous performances and national population. That is how the international leaderboards are run.

The nations who are lower in the ranking should receive some sort of bonus aiding them in their struggle. One suggestion of the top of my head is mercenary guilds.

I believe pirates should become a major part of the game in the form of mercenary contractors only hireable via in game mechanics by smaller nations who are struggling. In entering into contract, the pirate guild gets a large bonus for helping out the smaller nations and a tiny bonus for helping the larger nations. This would be a great way to add some diplomatic fun whilst still helping to balance out the nations.

Pirates being pirates can choose to break their word, so the guild UI should be unique to pirates in a special honour system. Guild leaders of a nation can then look at the honour reputation and decide whether they want to employee the mercenary guild.

Just my 2 cents

Monkey

Think i wholeheartedly agree with you're whole 2 cents there great idea with the pirates and you are very right about wiping exp ships etc.

[Nash]

wipe ship is not a problem. If you know what you are doing, you will be back to your 3rd in no time. But 2nd and 1st will take time because you need resources.

[Quineloe]

Realism!

Six out of eight nations are not sovereign countries but belong to a European power. If war broke out in Europe, it swiftly swapped to the colonies. I think it would be great if we had a mix of player decided diplomacy, but every now and then a major European war would overwrite our treaties and make enemies out of friends and vice versa

Edited February 18, 2016 by Quineloe

[OlavDeng2]

Realism!

Six out of eight nations are not sovereign countries but belong to a European power. If war broke out in Europe, it swiftly swapped to the colonies. I think it would be great if we had a mix of player decided diplomacy, but every now and then a major European war would overwrite our treaties and make enemies out of friends and vice versa

sounds great in theory, in practice it would probably not work as the clans would just respect the treaties and deals they allready made.

 

for example, dutch and danes are allies, european thing does so that dutch and danes are at war, dutch and danes just continue being friends and continue working on whatever they were doing

[Quineloe]

And for failure to follow the orders of your king, all taxes shall be raised 10%. You may now kiss the royal insignia ring.

Or work with bonus rewards for such a situation. I am sure it can be worked.

[OlavDeng2]

And for failure to follow the orders of your king, all taxes shall be raised 10%. You may now kiss the royal insignia ring.

Or work with bonus rewards for such a situation. I am sure it can be worked.

honestly, i dont think it will work, let me expand my example:

 

dutch and danes are allies and at war with france, the european thing causes danes and dutch to be at war and you get bonuses for attacking danes, why would you open up yourself to a french attack when you got a perfect ally working them on one side, and you on the other?

[charognard666]

Really, we are all looking to find solutions to a false problem. Spanish lost many and many ports, and now there re frustrated... Well, I think, if y nation was in their situation, i'll work 200% hardest, and i'll try to find IG solution by diplomacy, by trying to regroup and motivate all my nation players, and lead my way to grow again... It can work, it can fail, but it was the game and all about in all game isn't success in all task but try its best. If, because a nation is in troubles, all captains stop playing or switch nation, the problem can't be fixed by dev, cause it's a looser human mentality problem.... Sry if it sound rude...

[OlavDeng2]

Really, we are all looking to find solutions to a false problem. Spanish lost many and many ports, and now there re frustrated... Well, I think, if y nation was in their situation, i'll work 200% hardest, and i'll try to find IG solution by diplomacy, by trying to regroup and motivate all my nation players, and lead my way to grow again... It can work, it can fail, but it was the game and all about in all game isn't success in all task but try its best. If, because a nation is in troubles, all captains stop playing or switch nation, the problem can't be fixed by dev, cause it's a looser human mentality problem.... Sry if it sound rude...

it is a problem, not a false one, whoever the main reason it happened is not due to game mechanics or anything, it is due to politics, as far as i am aware we offered(the dutch we offered them) peace, what did they want? everything west of coqibacoa while we are for all intents and purposes winning the war, i belive that is what the spanish issue is. i would love to be wrong on this though, i personally would love to see peace with the spanish, but i dont want to loose all the ports to the east of coqibacoa for a peace which we dont necesarrily need.