Alliance System Failing

[sveno]

Dear Devs

 

Please for the love of god and whatever, fix the alliance system!
It has not worked since its implementation for more than on cycle!

 

It can not be that hard, cant it?
The impact on the different alliances is huge.

 

A worried tester,
sveno

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by sveno

[Hethwill]

I would dare suggest an alliance should be 2 nations. End of.

But that wouldn't kill the meta which in it stead kills bigger opportunities for more war.

[pietjenoob]

Well not only that is if u are not at war with eachother u should not have the possibility to attack eachother, rules of privateer and a peace cooldown. bit like EU 4 so as soon after x rounds the war is over u cannot attack eachother

Edited November 30, 2016 by pietjenoob

[Bart Smith]

Having current system limit RvR to two sides of conflict and causes question: why we got so many nations in game? I belive there was many suggestions about alliances as they really need rework in not far future. What i personally dislike especially is ability to join port battles by your allies.

For me alliances need be focused more on crafting, trading and in matter of joint fights - only open world pvp. We got perfect picture from recent weeks how this works: One, skilled and very well equipped fleet (Danes) participate in most of their alliance port battles. Don`t get this personally just for sake of testing: Spanish ports defend by one spanish player (rest was Danes) sounds out of place a bit for me. Anyway alliances should be in full release game but after serious rework.

[Archaos]

We now have a situation where we do not know whether the British and Dutch are allied or not. Some are saying that they have experienced no issues entering each others ports and that they are not able to attack each other but still the politics tab shows them to be enemies. With 5 port battles against the British tonight, what happens if for some reason the Dutch allies are not able to enter the battles?

I agree that the whole alliance and politics system needs a rework, especially in terms of allowing one nation dominate all port battles as it is not good for the long term survival of the game. We have seen before where nations after being on the receiving end for a while eventually learn to become a fighting force and excel at defending their territories and even going on the offensive, but with the current game that is unlikely to happen.

[Hethwill]

Allies should never be granted more than 8 slots maximum in a 25 slot PB.

[Bart Smith]

1 minute ago, Hethwill said:

Allies should never be granted more than 8 slots maximum in a 25 slot PB.

With ship size cap - no line ships for example

[Angus McGregor]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Allies should never be granted more than 8 slots maximum in a 25 slot PB.

Seems reasonable that there should be a limit on ally participation, but then PBs at nation-unfriendly times will get to be an even worse problem. \o/

 

[pietjenoob]

Well also the alliance system would be better if it was a bar-o-meter of some kind if u want war u have to make first raiding actions that can give u Causes Belli to attack eachother.

and steels idea of PB is also a nice one

The idea of Steelsandwhich of PB:

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 25

 

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 25

 

How do port battles look currently?

 

So, let’s look at the goals in the ideal port battle.

 

The inherent goal of the attacker is:

Attacking the fortifications

Taking the capture zones

Destroying the defenders

 

The inherent goal of the defender is:

Defend the fortifications (optional)

Defending the capture zones

Destroying the attackers

 

What features are in the port battle:

Heavier fortifications

Capture zones

The raiding of resources (Only in raid battle, see end of post)

Land in battles, including shallows.

 

How does this look like in the battle itself?

Land is green, shallows are lighter blue

 

When including the fortifications and capture zones:

Red circles indicate the zones, the yellow squares the fortifications

 

So, what does this to the fleet composition?

Fortifications -> Attackers will bring mortar brigs -> defender will bring frigates to attack mortar brigs-> attacker will bring frigates for defending the mortar brigs.

 

Shallows -> Deep drafted ships can only operate in certain areas -> the usage of shallower draft ships.

 

So, what does the fortification do to the fleet composition?

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 17

Frigates 5

Mortar brigs 3

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 18

Frigates 7

 

When shallows are taken into the calculation, the usage of 4^th rates and 3^rd rates will increase.

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 10

3^rd/4^th rates 7

Frigates 5

Mortar brigs 3

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 12

3^rd/4^th rates 6

Frigates 7

 

When raiding of resources is also taken into account, this will result in the following:

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 10

3^rd/4^th rates 6

Frigates 4

Indiamen 3

Mortar brigs 2

 

The end result is a very tactical approach to a currently linear engagement. The attacker can position himself for the most optimal appoach, whilst the defender is incentivized to sally with the frigs to take down the MB's. Also the fleetcomposition plays a massive role in the strength in battle, no longer will 1^st rate on dominate.The whole cat-mouse game starts there and then.

 

 

For more extensive and detailed proposition regarding the draft of ships in this game, look here:

http://forum.game-la...pshallow-ports/

 

Which would create a detailed spectrum in which PB can be split.

 

 

Certain ports will allow up to 6, certain to 8, some to 5,5, others to 4.

Not only will this diverse how ports are spread across the map, it will also create interesting combinations and even more variety besides the earlier described diversity incentive.

could not find the proper link for it so had to copy it from the page

Edited November 30, 2016 by pietjenoob

[Hethwill]

35 minutes ago, Angus McGregor said:

Seems reasonable that there should be a limit on ally participation, but then PBs at nation-unfriendly times will get to be an even worse problem. \o/

 

There will always be problems. And we are excellent in finding problems everywhere.

Don't we want a healthy age of sail living breathing world ? A naval action wargame ?

First big problem is ALTs in different nations. I expect a purge soon.

[Angus McGregor]

13 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

There will always be problems. And we are excellent in finding problems everywhere. We are aren't we?  But that's kind of our role here. To find the unforeseen consequences.

Don't we want a healthy age of sail living breathing world ? A naval action wargame ?  Yes - definitely. Which requires compromises left and right.

First big problem is ALTs in different nations. I expect a purge soon.  Hoo boy!  Don't hold your breath on that one.  I doubt it will happen.

My best case scenario is that we get better Dev communication about "legal" ALT uses.  Like a sticky thread where the Devs ask us to put forward questions about ALTs, and then they answer. Still waiting on the decision about the 'traitor' ALT crafters that create the war supply bombs from components in PB ports. That activity is just too obvious and egregious to not have consequences. Geez I don't want to think this way but it *is* looking bloody suspicious that this goes unresolved until at least after the current fiasco today. Like the old Hamlet saying goes... "there's something rotten in the state of Denmark"  

 

[Angus McGregor]

50 minutes ago, pietjenoob said:

Well also the alliance system would be better if it was a bar-o-meter of some kind if u want war u have to make first raiding actions that can give u Causes Belli to attack eachother.

and steels idea of PB is also a nice one

... MASSIVE SNIP ...

Not only will this diverse how ports are spread across the map, it will also create interesting combinations and even more variety besides the earlier described diversity incentive.

could not find the proper link for it so had to copy it from the page

Interesting PB ideas but this thread about Alliances is not the place for it. WAY off topic.

[pietjenoob]

With the PB idea u can more easily limit the allied nation to certain rolls for example light ships and light frigates (12 Pdr max) that is way i show this 

[Hethwill]

I wrote it regarding the in-game commitment of a Nation as in national effort with help from allies and not a full reliance on allies alone.

 

[pietjenoob]

13 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

I wrote it regarding the in-game commitment of a Nation as in national effort with help from allies and not a full reliance on allies alone.

 

what in some PB's is the case but i am also guilty as charged in that regard Bridgetown PB of 

Edited November 30, 2016 by pietjenoob

[Hethwill]

16 minutes ago, pietjenoob said:

what in some PB's is the case but i am also guilty as charged

No victims son, just volunteers

[Sir Texas Sir]

I agree only 2 allies and really there should be some system to keep super alliances of the two biggest nations.   I hate to say that after so many rotation you are forced to break that alliance.  RIght no for example on PvP2 British and US are Allied and they are the two largest nations.  We asked them what ya'll going to do when you crush the pirates and ahve no one else to fight.   I think they pretty much want it to turn into a PvE server.  In the past folks left there nation to come Pirate cause they weren't fighting us back.  Even though they had way more numbers than say 15-20 guys that was doing a lot of the action.  Right now most of my clan is AFK and MIA cause we got burned out fighting two nations and they are taking advantage of that.  Well fine take the few regions we have and than see who you have to fight?  Even if you don't capture our national capital it just means we will stop fighting too.  Than even more players won't log in and the server will be even more dead.

 

They like to point out isn't that exactly what we just did.  Not exactly cause it was only 15-20 guys and they where all ways able to fill a full PB against us even if we didn't have 25.  Right now we are having a hard time getting 10 players to show up to a port battle.  Doesn't help that every port battle has been very early in the eve when most US players are still at work are just getting home from work.  There was a reason we tried to keep all our port times to a certain later slot so the max number of players can show up for all sides to fight.   This problem can be fixed if they bring in the governor port protector concept they have talked about.  Sounds like PvP1 kinda having the same problem too with off hour attacks.

 

I personnely think the server should reset it self after every say 3 months.   This keeps from super powers keepign things stagmented and not pushing total conquest or fighting each other and every one doing pretty much a cease fire.  

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas SIr said:

I personnely think the server should reset it self after every say 3 months.   This keeps from super powers keepign things stagmented and not pushing total conquest or fighting each other and every one doing pretty much a cease fire.  

I think this comment raises a very interesting point about how the advanced stages of the game will look and how it will affect playing the game. 

I would disagree with a set time for server reset as once you got close to that time the incentive to carry on attacking will be gone. Just look what happened to port battles before the last map reset.

On the other hand what happens when one alliance starts getting the upper hand and start to dominate the map? At what stage do the remaining nations give up playing? Would a surrender mechanic work, where a nation eventually realizes that they have no chance and votes to surrender? or are they forced to continue till all regions are captured?

There was talk of a nations capital being subject to attack when it was their last territory and if captured they become part of the capturing alliance, was this implemented in the last patch? and if so how would this work in practice, for example Britain subjugates the Danish nation (I know many would disagree that this could happen, but for sake of argument imagine it), would the Danish nation now happily join the Brits and attack former allies? I dont think so.

The game will have to have some conditions for a map reset and start again or it would have to be so balanced that no side could ever win which would kill a lot of incentive.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Good points.  POTBS and I hate we have to keep comparing this game to that one I think did it every 3 months and the winner was who had the most points.   It wasn't just an auto reset of every thing.   The ones that one got so many points for trade in and the second place and so one all got points even the looser got one point.  Those items where used to trade in for other things like mods and sheep deeds.   It gave you incentive to fight to the end and get the most points.  Though that system was ports not regions also.   

 

I also think there should be a system that allows folks to switch to the weaker nation after that time to get more server balance, but the high pop nation can't get folks to join them to keep folks from all rushing to the wining team.

As for the Capital part I can't find a confirmed answer if they did or not add it.  So if they didn't or even if they did and the other nations decide they won't take that last port than you will not join there nation and total conquest will never happen.  You will have a nation that is stuck in one port with no alliances.  Our poor Spanish right now have lost almost all but the starter capital ports on PvP2 and the other regions they still have are all regions that don't give any crafting bonus.  They are worse off compared to most other nations with only a few players.   Shouldn't it be better for some one to just finish them off and make them allianged with there Nation?  With that system since right now Pirates can't have alliances, if they take one Nation down to there last port and capture it will that Nation be now in an alliance with them?   There are a few things that the Devs never made clear on these things that would be nice to know. I get they want us to discover some of these things out for our self, but if the for mention problem of super alliances and cease fires happen we will never be able to test these things.