Wars and Diplomacy

[Fellvred]

After coming back to the game from a little break it's a bit disappointing to still see the same old allies, enemies and front lines. The alliance system was meant to add an extra layer of strategy and push players towards the conquest battles – but at the moment we (pvp1) seem to just have two sets of nations and players entrenched on each side. I can't see too many changes planned on the dev plan so thought I'd make a couple of suggestions, taking a few ideas from EU4

One way to deal with the inevitable stalemates would be to take away the alliance/wars choices from the players and give it to the admiralty (ai/devs). Each war would have a defined end goal for each side which would be voted on by the attacking nations players, and balanced to keep a similar number of players on each side.

For instance if Britain found themselves at war with France the players would be able to vote on what kind of war this would be in the Caribbean. These could range from simply controlling an area of water, a trade war or a war of conquest.

 

(few examples)

War for resources – British have 7 days to successfully complete 4 raids on french ports, winner receives global 20% bonus to resource production for the next 7 days

Trade War – British and French have 7 days to gain points by bringing trade goods to a certain free town, winner receives 20% bonus to trade good prices. (points received depends on size of nation/alliance etc)

Sea control – British have 7 days to gain a certain number of points by sinking French ships in a french region – any British ships sank by the French reduces the points score, winner receives 10% pvp gold/xp bonus for the next 7 days.

Conquest – British have 7 days to capture a region etc...

 

Anyone taking part in these events receives bonuses or admiralty points as a secondary currency. Any ports taken in a resource/trade/control war would be handed back to the original owner at the end of the war. I know a lot of people wouldn't want RNG diplomacy but friendly wars can be just as fun as wars against bitter enemies (thinking back to TDA vs SLRN in the old days ^^)

[Sir Texas Sir]

I think the problem is there is  NO TOTAL CONQUEST in game. You can't capture a nations capital and you can't do total conquest so every one gets settled into there little alliances and it doesn't change.  I think one big way to change this is that you can only be in an alliance so many times and than you have to go netural for more than just one cycle.  But you have to go to war with some one.  That some one can't be the same person every time.  On pvp2 every one is at war with Spain so they don't have to go to war with each other.  Would be nice if there was some system to force high pop nations to only aligned with low pop nations so they war with other high pop nations and help each other out.     On PvP2 it's even worse. You have the US/BRITS/DUTCH three largest nation all in an alliance with each other and they only fight against the Pirates.  Dutch are fighting the swedes but other than not no one else is fighting each other.  US just crushed France that was kinda forced in an alliance with Swedes prob with alts.   Spain every votes war with except the Danes.   That way they don't have to go to war with each other.  The Danes pretty much keep to them selves but they use to fight the swedes and dutch.  US has majority of the map regions and keeps taking them, but Brits and Dutch seems to not care cause they can use there ports.  The problem I think is when you can use other ports with an alliance than why should you fight each other?   I think they should only be able to trade in those ports not craft or make it you can only craft ships in your nations regions, but you can do buildings in alliance regions.  This would make it more important to actually own the region yourself.

[Koltes]

7 hours ago, Fellvred said:

One way to deal with the inevitable stalemates would be to take away the alliance/wars choices from the players and give it to the admiralty (ai/devs).

Thank you! lol
I also believe that Nation Politics needs to be a storyline. Devs aka monarchs in Europe should decide who is fighting who in the New World of West Indies. After all its their territories and their conflict.
So war between nations giving an edge in relationships between players, but the actual conflicts are more of a local character between clans (better call them companies or brotherhoods depending whos clan it is).

So we need story driven Nation politics and player driven Clan politics. Allow Clans to have land assets such as their owned territory. Allow players to develop territories to get better production / defenses etc. Allow clans to declare wars on each other etc etc. This will bring so much action its gonna be crazy active again. It will also bring lots of end game content.

[monk33y]

It's not the nations that r the problem it's the players who play within those nations. We have long standing disputes and grievances between players and clans. This has created a system where players have become suspicious of anything that is outside of what they have known.

This alliance system is rubbish it's created a new stalemate. Conquest is just not happening, pve is now the game focus. You can understand why this has happened. The new players have been given a kicking in pvp etc, rvr is mainly the same faces day in day out! Conquest gives new game choices and chance at fun.

But the Dev's have given up on this failed project 

[fox2run]

Yeah - the pvp died with the unability to get easy access to battles. Hard PB-mechanics, no joining timers and a diplomatic system that is ww1 alike. Its the first time I see a game become worse and worse as time progresses. 

My advice would be to termintate the game - and build a new one from scratch based on good PvP. 

This game is simply not fun apart from 50 or so hard core players that stop any progress towards a fun game.

[Fellvred]

1 hour ago, fox2run said:

Yeah - the pvp died with the unability to get easy access to battles. Hard PB-mechanics, no joining timers and a diplomatic system that is ww1 alike. Its the first time I see a game become worse and worse as time progresses. 

My advice would be to termintate the game - and build a new one from scratch based on good PvP. 

This game is simply not fun apart from 50 or so hard core players that stop any progress towards a fun game.

Slight overreaction    but yeah there needs to be easier access to battles, most players don't have 4-5 hours a day look for combat.

[SirSamuelHood]

1 hour ago, Fellvred said:

Slight overreaction    but yeah there needs to be easier access to battles, most players don't have 4-5 hours a day look for combat.

I think the PvP events might be the devs' attempt at luring more people into combat. IMO they're going to need to offer better prizes to really see larger crowds of people attend these events. Maybe something integral to crafting, or a nice ship itself as the prize.

[Angus McGregor]

3 hours ago, SirSamuelHood said:

I think the PvP events might be the devs' attempt at luring more people into combat. IMO they're going to need to offer better prizes to really see larger crowds of people attend these events. Maybe something integral to crafting, or a nice ship itself as the prize.

Better prizes? Free (VRare) paint schemes and Ship redeemables, what more do you want???

The PvP events are a temporary bone thrown to the PvP people to try to offset the low server populations. And as I suspected would happen, a segment of players are just using it as a self-serving opportunity to gank instead of making any attempt to keep it enjoyable for the majority. A sarcastic "Well done" to them.

[SirSamuelHood]

2 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:

Better prizes? Free (VRare) paint schemes and Ship redeemables, what more do you want???

The PvP events are a temporary bone thrown to the PvP people to try to offset the low server populations. And as I suspected would happen, a segment of players are just using it as a self-serving opportunity to gank instead of making any attempt to keep it enjoyable for the majority. A sarcastic "Well done" to them.

Not better prizes, simply more necessary items than overpriced fingerpaints. 

 

If the prizes consisted of things NEEDED rather than simply COVETED, more people might attend the events than the gankers and people looking for a fancy new ship, or indeed paint for their current one. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by SirSamuelHood

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

PvP 2 US server is the same way. Two biggest factions are in an alliance picking fights on the weaker faction. The politics system has backfired and needs to be removed or altered in some form.

[Koltes]

2 hours ago, SirSamuelHood said:

Not better prizes, simply more necessary items than overpriced fingerpaints. 

 

If the prizes consisted of things NEEDED rather than simply COVETED, more people might attend the events than the gankers and people looking for a fancy new ship, or indeed paint for their current one. 

Prize will not help to make dull event brighter. They will put temporary shine which will disappear pretty soon.
PVP Event needs to be done in sort of like a staged quest type. Get group of 3 players together (or do it alone for solo quest) sail to specific port (not too far) and buy specific ships there (all 3 different types of ships are designed for the event. Ships are not random and are the same for all teams). Then sail to another location and kill AI. The choice is yours if you want to cap or sink, but you cant have fleets. Then Sail to 3rd location (all locations are within region distance) at the specific time and fight another team over a wreck. The winner gets the loot. No ganging. Everything is fair and based on your skills and decisions made. Done simple

Edited December 30, 2016 by koltes