Aussie Pastor Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Hi guys, I know that it may be some where else, but I'm lazy to look. Has the idea of SAFE STARTING AREA. This area would have 5-8 Ports that COULD NOT be conquered. It can be around the Nations Capital or a secondary Regional Port. The other is......do we really need all the different nations? Can it be reduced to ENGLAND; SPAIN; FRENCH; DUTCH; AMERICA & PIRATES. Just hanging it up the Flag pole to see the community thoughts. PM all the salty and troll comments to me, and leave the thread for game mechanics play and longevity of the game. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaizka Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) I agree with every word. Regarding nations, sometimes less is better than more. Edited March 1, 2016 by Gaizka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xAzDKr Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'd like to see more nations as it does offer the opportunity for more roleplay and PVP, alliances, etc. but I do agree that nations should have *2-3 safe ports that cannot be captured, say the capital and 2 close by towns, this gives the nation an opportunity to rebuild after a losing fight and begin working their way back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibges Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Although the large number of factions would definitely make Henry Kissinger happy, but with only 2000 server spaces it does seem a little large. I agree that a protected starting area is the simplest and best solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 1, 2016 Author Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) I'd like to see more nations as it does offer the opportunity for more roleplay and PVP, alliances, etc.How about the fact it is in the Carribean not the South East ASIA, or we could have the ANZACs.Sorry for making fun about having more nation though; but game mechanics has to take priority, good point about the numbers on a Server (thanks Heibges). Seriously, though; can someone tell me why we got the Sweden and the Danes in this Time Period in the Carribean? It seems a bit out of place, but I may be wrong, as the history of the time and the area is not my specialty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Caribbean# Maybe I played to much PotBS and enjoyed the simple 4 nations, but the Dutch and the young US had real strong influence in the region. The Danes and Sweden only had 1 Port each in 1804, so not so strong in the area. Seriously, for longevity, this needs to be have a heavy outcome on the game. Sorry, my Russian friends as you guys like playing the Danes. Hope no offence is taken, and received with the humility and ignorance it was given. Edited March 1, 2016 by Aussie Pastor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xAzDKr Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 In the end: the moment the devs start helping specific nations is when this game starts to die. I agree that changes are needed, but they must be equal across the board to prevent any sort of issues down the road. For example: the protected lands I suggested in my first reply to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 In the end: the moment the devs start helping specific nations is when this game starts to die. I agree that changes are needed, but they must be equal across the board to prevent any sort of issues down the road. For example: the protected lands I suggested in my first reply to this thread. I'm sorry for being so ignorant, the Devs intervened for a nation? Wow, and did not know that. But it good we agree on a number of Safe or off limits or Protected Ports for nations so they don't go down to the Capital only. But, I would like an Dev or Mod to answer back this post when they can RE these suggestions. Wink, wink,....... Ink, Henry, Admin etc. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I agree with the safe minimum ports idea WITH a caveat that the safe ports can still be damaged and set on fire by other nations. thereby allowing the defending nation to still be blockaded but allowing basic gameplay or at least blockade running from those ports. as for removing nations I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 I agree with the safe minimum ports idea WITH a caveat that the safe ports can still be damaged and set on fire by other nations. thereby allowing the defending nation to still be blockaded but allowing basic gameplay or at least blockade running from those ports. as for removing nations I would say no. Why no, to less Nations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Because variety is the spice of life, and if you're taking away our variety and spices, we'll have to cook with only paprika and oregano, which is terrible, and that limits our freedom. Don't limit our freedom, Aussie Pastor. Why do you hate freedom? What did America ever do to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Because variety is the spice of life, and if you're taking away our variety and spices, we'll have to cook with only paprika and oregano, which is terrible, and that limits our freedom. Don't limit our freedom, Aussie Pastor. Why do you hate freedom? What did America ever do to you? Did you play Pirates of the Burning Sea? Sid Meirs Pirates?That was 4 & 3 nations......was that to restricting for you to play? The main POINT, is gameplay not freedom of choice or taking away variety, but making a mechanism in the game more optimal. So can we also then have an Ottoman corsairs, Zheng Shi Nation, do you want me to go on??? The main point is that having the optimum number of opponents to the playing area! The map we are on right NOW, has been only at 4, but 6 can work, but 8 is overkill. Played tennis, two sides with one or two players, would you like to have a third on the court? How about five teams on the football field at once, but keep the same structure? How many players would you like to play on the Roulette table 20! Well you be the croupier on that table and see how long you last??? No can you see what I'm getting at, REALLY the guy that said 8 playing nations in the Carribean is not really optimal. Edited March 3, 2016 by Aussie Pastor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I was only teasin' ya, don't worry mate. Though as to some of your other points: Extra players on the tennis court would be hilarious; Ottoman corsairs would be so out so out place that I'd at least get a good snicker; couldn't care less about roulette so screw it, 20 it is! For football, it depends on which one you mean. Grid-iron/"American" football? Extra teams on the field would be funny, but the novelty would wear off a lot faster than with the extra tennis player. If you meant soccer, well, the sport's already garbage so screw it, 5 teams at once sounds great. Think of it! They'd be spending so much time diving all over each other that it'd look more like a sad, embarrassing wrestling match! Who wouldn't want to watch that?! In all seriousness, I get what you're after. I like the variety myself, though I think the smaller nations would benefit from having a little more space around them for now; this'll be mitigated once there're proper diplomatic mechanics added though, as the opportunity for, say, France/Dutch or Sweden/Dane-Norway to team up and wreak some havoc would be grand. I really don't mind it, personally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 In all seriousness, I get what you're after. I like the variety myself, though I think the smaller nations would benefit from having a little more space around them for now; this'll be mitigated once there're proper diplomatic mechanics added though, as the opportunity for, say, France/Dutch or Sweden/Dane-Norway to team up and wreak some havoc would be grand. I really don't mind it, personally. Historically, if two nations need to be dropped is Sweden and Dane-Norway. For they only had one Port each in the early 1800's Why is it so hard to get people's head around culling these two nations. 6 nations only WITH the diplomatic gameplay added. So French/US or Britt/ Pirate was a bit historically the way, but we can do many different things and still enjoy the game and have freedom and flexibility. My concern is why hasn't Admin, Ink etc responding, would love some Devs/Mods feedback. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 You're kind of falling into the old "if you disagree then you don't understand" hole here. It's not that I can't wrap my head around your idea; it's simply that I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vllad Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Why no, to less Nations? Let the players not the developers decide that. By giving us so many teams now the players can decide how they want to play the game which is why POTBS was boring. If 20 players wish to play the Swedes then let them. They may want the challenge of being out gunned and out numbers. If no one wants to play the Swedes then so be it. If all the players all spread out amongst the 3 to 4 big powers then the players on THAT server have decided. By giving the players a choice you have already made the game better. You already see small teams getting bigger when they can't find pvp action playing with a Zerg. This is a good thing. I absolutely don't mind more than one safe port. We can call that newbie land. However as someone else posted above as long as every team gets equal treatment I think we are all good. Edited March 3, 2016 by Vllad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Pastor Posted March 4, 2016 Author Share Posted March 4, 2016 I absolutely don't mind more than one safe port. We can call that newbie land. However as someone else posted above as long as every team gets equal treatment I think we are all good. That's, what I'm talking about, not restricting freedom or choice. But look at the map, place the capitals on it. Check the zones of range of playing for teams. I just think, that 6 is more optimal than 8. Maybe have France not have a historical Capital but move it from the East to the west in the gulf? And move the others around to Panama etc. Again it about mechanics, that's why I keep trying different "Similarly" to show the point. Unlike my poor Canadain freind thinking I pull old tricks, no, it's young heads not understanding an old person fumbling with metaphors to extract great knowledge that all you guys have, through "door stop" headlines and explanations. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now