Sturmherold Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 I would suggest systems that stop population imbalance from rendering the game unplayable. As it is, natural overpopulation plus domino leads to small factions giving up the game en masse. Population imbalance is very 2005; no major release since then has not acted to constrain imbalance and make the game fun for all. Just my two cents. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 While I agree, it's been said they don't want to restrict anyone from playing a nation they desire. That plus the fact there are about 50% of players using alts that would just fill low nations if forced, but would never help those nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr RideZ Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 The players cannot decide who are in war and against who. It should be the devs. The players simply do not understand to make interesting scenarios. This way they can define that some nation is in peace with all, for X time to recover or something. And then make at least 3 alliances that are even. Just check from active players etc. statistics. They can maybe make it automatic even. 3 alliances is far more interesting than 2. But the whole idea that big nations should capture capitals, make the other players their puppets. This was not a good decision if asked from me. While the game is running to direction that the biggest nation will win the war, naturally, the game gets slowly more and more boring. It is not fun when the game is at situation that one nation has 90% from map and is soon going to win the game. This is just not fun. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Texas Sir Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said: The players cannot decide who are in war and against who. It should be the devs. The players simply do not understand to make interesting scenarios. This way they can define that some nation is in peace with all, for X time to recover or something. And then make at least 3 alliances that are even. Just check from active players etc. statistics. They can maybe make it automatic even. 3 alliances is far more interesting than 2. But the whole idea that big nations should capture capitals, make the other players their puppets. This was not a good decision if asked from me. While the game is running to direction that the biggest nation will win the war, naturally, the game gets slowly more and more boring. It is not fun when the game is at situation that one nation has 90% from map and is soon going to win the game. This is just not fun. I actually think the players could. The problem is they keep chasing off the PvPers that want war and the guys that stick around are the ones with multi alts and all the power to make what they want of the game and that is a PvE carebear alliance for the most art. This is why they really needed to have map resets every couple of months like POTBS did no matter who won or not (the winners was the highest points/regions). Than lock out any one from joining that Nation until the next reset, but give incentive like xp/credit bonus to any that join the lower pop ones. Other games even give lower xp/credits to the high pop nations. So that way you can still stay in your fav nation, you just might get as much XP/Credits as the little nations or the average ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr RideZ Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said: I actually think the players could. The problem is they keep chasing off the PvPers that want war and the guys that stick around are the ones with multi alts and all the power to make what they want of the game and that is a PvE carebear alliance for the most art. This is why they really needed to have map resets every couple of months like POTBS did no matter who won or not (the winners was the highest points/regions). Than lock out any one from joining that Nation until the next reset, but give incentive like xp/credit bonus to any that join the lower pop ones. Other games even give lower xp/credits to the high pop nations. So that way you can still stay in your fav nation, you just might get as much XP/Credits as the little nations or the average ones. XP/Credit bonus could be an option as well I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monk33y Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 It's more a problem that the big nations seem to be full of self-imposed masters of the universe who say is final. Christ (lol) look what happened over Xmas we got forced into a ridiculous no pvp/rvr event as the masters of the universe couldn't take part!!!! I only got two days off over that period and repeatly got shouted at in nation chat for doing missions and pvp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr RideZ Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Amonacc said: Devs doesn't think so. It was suggested couple times before. I know. But as we all know, Devs are not always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sveno Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 In-Game decisions should stay with the players, that includes war/peace and alliances, anything else would just drive away players. What needs to be adjusted is the incentive to keep things balanced, as many players like to win with the least effort, sadly. A tool for giving a balancing incentive could be that the number of active players (and eventually the number of held regions) in an alliance block (or nation if alone) is having impact on PvP/RvR gains for XP & loot. That multiplier (or divider) should be reaching up as far as 200% (or 50%). The amount of needed hostility points to start a PB could also be subject to this balancing tool. For that, numbers of each nation should be made available as an ingame information OFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monk33y Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) I was thinking about this today and the solution to balancing larger and smaller nations Is very simple really. I'm a tad surprised no1 has looked at it already! The largest nations have the number of available free ports restricted. (comparing to a full port list) Eg, Spain + Britain on pvpeu1 loose two port slots. No other game breaking or altering features just a simple adjustment. You as a player of a large nation must pick your ports more carefully. Very simple don't you think. Whole nation can't be everywhere at once opening door for rvr etc. As you can still move ports around you don't loose anything gamebreaking but you have to be abit more select!!! Edited December 30, 2016 by monk33y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimera Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 How is it promoting PVP and RVR if I can be where the fight is? All it promotes is port swaps and empty port battles with regions nobody cares about switching ownership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monk33y Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) Because you will need to set up ports on the battle zones, meaning either to set up ports for goods or for conflict. Yeah if you can't maximise your defence you loose regions as it should be! I understand those with everything don't want to loose anything! If you want pvp and u have less ports you'll move your front line ports with the rvr fountiers. Otherwise you have to sail a distance to get there opening the door for pvp! And having two less ports means you may have to focus on farming mats or conflict. Of you pick war you'll need to buy more items funding the economy. But hey we all want everything and to loose nothing! Edited December 30, 2016 by monk33y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Loss must be "real". There is no risk/reward management, losing a combat is a grain of sand in the beach, to even excuse specific individual actions let alone nation wide rallying for a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chijohnaok Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 5 hours ago, monk33y said: It's more a problem that the big nations seem to be full of self-imposed masters of the universe who say is final. Christ (lol) look what happened over Xmas we got forced into a ridiculous no pvp/rvr event as the masters of the universe couldn't take part!!!! I only got two days off over that period and repeatly got shouted at in nation chat for doing missions and pvp! If it is the "Christmas Truce" that you are referring to, that was limited to RvR(port battles) only. There were no PVP restrictions under the truce. 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