Question on alliances

[Hethwill]

The voting period would overlap with the 4th week. Add tension and payback lousy allies.

[Bart Smith]

I would like to see:

 

• week voting period
• three weeks alliance
• maximum two allies

I like simple things

[Chijohnaok]

I would agree that a 1 week voting period, with an alliance lasting for 3 weeks, and a maximum of 2 allies at any given time would sound about right. 

[Bubba Smith]

So let's say on PvE France is at war with your nation, can you attack anyone or just NPCs?   

[Bubba Smith]

gut feeling:

 

3 day voting, 2 weeks alliance lenght.

 

2 alliances max

 

3 Days Voting with 2 week alliance period. 

2 Alliances max. 

[endersTank]

1 week vote, 3 week alliance, 2 alliances

[Fastidius]

you could go the opposite way and see if you can fast track seasoning.  when the PB patch hits try this.

 

2 weeks voting 2 months play port reset after this time. everything becomes a redeemable.

 

Top nations gets a port owners after that time gets 1 rare ship and 3 paints.

 

in fact i think this would sorta highlight a few things for seasons......just need some form of an accelerant to make people chase PBs

[Jeheil]

I like two as it may lead to '3 blocks' as opposed to '2 super blocks'.

 

3 alliances is the best way to prolong conflict.

 

And...I don't think you should be able to attack folks you aren't at war with. Unless you are a pirate dog of course.

 

So it should be either War / Ally or Neutral.

[Bach]

Voting 1 week long IF you want individual members participation high as some log in only a few days/wk

Voting 3 days long IF you want voting by land lords as they all play regularly

Short Alliances will devalue the worth of an alliance. Since it's only a short time no one will care so much.

Long Alliance will increase the value of the choice and mean more to the team mates over time.

Low number of alliances (like 2) will really only effect resource sharing and port battles. Player made alliances drifting to a 2 sides war will likely supersede the in game ones anyway. So high number of alliances (like 3) will allow the game to represent more of what players may really want but may over share resources and port battle participation. I suggest letting players have up to 3 alliances but factor the alliances hostility point gains accordingly. So a nation standing alone get full hostility gains. A two nation alliance gets half hostility gains and a 3 nation alliance a third. This way larger alliance will have to work proportionally harder to go offensive. While solo or smaller alliances have an easier time going on offense.

[Snoggy]

I never quite understood the reasoning behind short alliances.

 

 

Why spend the time to even work with your allies when the very next day you could be enemies?

 

 

Seems the alliances made on the forums and in teamspeak, the far less official but far more effective alliances trump anything that could be done via voting.

[Shark Aumakua]

Louis Garneray, on 23 Aug 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

I think we should have as many alliances we want and if we are not voting for a war against a particular nation it should say "Neutral".

I agree with this statement

[Kronans]

Final voting 1 week

Final alliance 3 weeks

3 allies

3 enemys

[Skully]

I never quite understood the reasoning behind short alliances.

 

 

Why spend the time to even work with your allies when the very next day you could be enemies?

 

 

Seems the alliances made on the forums and in teamspeak, the far less official but far more effective alliances trump anything that could be done via voting.

The game needs to facility and track the result, not be an "active player". Basically it has turned the political sandbox into a PvE.

Both Nationals and Pirates alike are barred from playing out certain options.

And by facilitate I still mean a fair means of voting. (Although some folks do not understand the result and workings of a democratic vote. )

[Cmdr RideZ]

Do not know exactly how things work, but...

 

We vote, and it defines the allies and enemies.

 

If group A is always voting for alliance for VP and GB, and if it is clearly the biggest group -> VP & GB will always be allies.

 

What if..  The next round, only the votes of current allies and enemies are removed from the grid.  It can be that VP & GB will be allies most of the time, but the smaller groups will get a bit more voice this way.  Maybe the VP&GB will be allies the next 2 rounds, but then the alliance with VP&SE has stacked so many votes, that it will be applied for one round.  And after that the same VP&GB will continue.

 

I suppose it could make things to change a bit more, providing different scenarios more often.

[Peter Fouche]

Please make a reminder to vote when logging in. I completely forgot about it... ^^

[Kanay]

I'd say voting: 7 days for those having the time to play for a few hours only once a week , length 1 month, 2 alliances max. 

 

My biggest concern is that we have the choice only between allied or war with others, nothing else, things are not only white or black, we should have neutral choice and maybe more complex choices like, non aggression pact ( allowing OW pvp and skirmish battles without possibility to buy conquest flags in current game mechanic or having no consequences on raising the hostilities level later once implemented ) and few other things likes this.

 

Right now it's white or black and reducing politics to this is simplifying them too much for my taste but it's maybe only me.

 

 

Also hide the votes, show them only between the 2 turns, voting anonymously on first turn, no one knows what are the votes from others inside the Nation going to, end of 1st turn votes and results displayed , then 2nd turn of voting anonymously, and final results only displayed once vote is closed.

 

 

I don't know exactly what, hard to put the finger exactly on it but something is missing in this system.

[Fuhajins of Autumn]

Voting: 5 days/1 week.

Alliance length: 3 weeks.

2 alliances max.

 

I would like to have "neutral" (or opponent, rival) status instead of "enemy".

[Guest]

I'd say voting: 7 days for those having the time to play for a few hours only once a week , length 1 month, 2 alliances max. 

 

My biggest concern is that we have the choice only between allied or war with others, nothing else, things are not only white or black, we should have neutral choice and maybe more complex choices like, non aggression pact ( allowing OW pvp and skirmish battles without possibility to buy conquest flags in current game mechanic or having no consequences on raising the hostilities level later once implemented ) and few other things likes this.

 

Right now it's white or black and reducing politics to this is simplifying them too much for my taste but it's maybe only me.

 

 

Also hide the votes, show them only between the 2 turns, voting anonymously on first turn, no one knows what are the votes from others inside the Nation going to, end of 1st turn votes and results displayed , then 2nd turn of voting anonymously, and final results only displayed once vote is closed.

 

 

I don't know exactly what, hard to put the finger exactly on it but something is missing in this system.

 

 

I agree that the system as it stands are too simplistic. I do however believe it's a great start and one that hopefully will be developed in the direction of "stances" much like u describe.

 

The stances could graduate the "tension" lvls between nations something like this:

 

Total war: increased tension lvls and a bonus to elevating the aggresion needed to conquer enemy ports (in future game mechanics). In current mechanics it could be translated to a reduced cost of flags.

War: No aggression bonus, but general KoS.

Limited war/trade war: Decreased threat/aggresion generation. But the enemy tradeships are marked in red to signify KoS.

Peace: No aggression generation and no red markers for enemy ships.

Non-aggression pact. No hostilities what so ever.

Alliance: Ability to aid the allied efforts in PB and shared threat generation before PB.

 

And limit the amount of allies to 1, non-aggression pacts to 1 and peace to 1. Likewise the Limited war/trade war to 1, the war to 1 and the total war to 1 (which should account for all nations except the neutrals which should be removed). There would then be (if my math is right) 3 nations that can't attack eachother and a maximum of 3 nations that any single nation can take ports from.

[Riparian]

I would prefer only 1 alliance per nation.

 

This would make the choice more important, and also allow more polarity (max 3 pairs of nations, one lone nation and pirates).

With 2 (or more) allies, we will usually get two blocks fighting each other.

 

Fixed alliance length doesn't have be long, as you can always renew the alliance.

Actually it is good that you can get out of an alliance soon if needed.

[PIerrick de Badas]

Only 2 alliances means 2 group of 3 natiosn and ...one nation lonely...

 

To force alliances changes, devs have to define something to make a victory. Then each naiton will try to reach the victory by alliances but will have ot play alone finally to win.

For example a win would be to capture all the capital one or hold a nnumbetr of capital on same time+having X% of the port on the map.

 

Something that will force alliances to turn

[Bramborough]

I think the current vote/alliance length ratio (1:3) is fine.  And seems to be working well.  I see no reason not to go ahead and extend the period to 1 week / 3 week.

 

I do like the various ideas about Neutrality.  Right now, there's no sufficiently meaningful reason to vote a particular enemy over others, since we're "at war" with anyone not an ally anyway.  The extra XP for sinking "enemies" isn't much of a carrot, especially as many RvR players are already Rank 10 regardless.

 

I also think that Neutrality should be a vote-able option, not merely absence of Ally/Enemy status.  Primarily to avoid an oblivious and/or mischievous minority from forcing an Enemy vote upon a majority who would prefer to avoid war with a given state.  

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Off topic posts have been removed.

 

Please stick to answering specifically the questions that Admin has asked.

 

Feedback about the alliances system itself and ideas for same must be made on the following thread:  http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15871-alliances-feedback-topic/

[Skully]

Please make a reminder to vote when logging in. I completely forgot about it... ^^

Would it make sense to currently keep a short cycle and go to a longer cycle after, say, 1 week of region battles?

I originally proposed to have all diplo done via diplomats, because I think players might grow either tired or disinterested into the voting mechanic itself.

We should get some form of insight into what happens after a multitude of rounds quickly.

[Hethwill]

We still have no idea how fast/slow the hostility threshold can evolve. The full 4 weeks with final week being diplomacy round can provide a good testbed especially if hostility plust Port conquest takes its toll on time and preparation.

 

Too short and the nations might achieve nothing but diplomatic bragging rights.

[Anolytic]

While I look forward to alliances lasting weeks instead of days, I think it is not yet time to implement. The current short periods should be kept for a few more weeks to allow at least two full alliance cycles to test every aspect of the system in a sped up environment before it is set to normal speeds. I have a number of concerns and questions about the current implementation of the Alliances, but instead of me pestering the devs with all the issues I can potentially think of - and which they have likely thought of all or most of them already by themselves - let us test the limits of the system a bit more and learn how it works.

 

Just as an example, even though the alliance between France and Danmark-Norge shouldn't expire for another 4 days, we are able to vote to renew that alliance already. Which is a bit confusing. I guess once we learn how this works and understand it, this will be a part of the system that allows flexibility and makes it possible for alliances to actually change (otherwise an alliance and a war would be expiring each round and you would always have to vote in accordance with your previous choice. However right now it is confusing players into voting to reaffirm their primary alliance a round early, instead of using that round to add another alliance, which would seem to be possible.