Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

too many nations?


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, admin said:

We do not see the dilution
a9SkKIr.png

People join the nation they like, but the majority still picks traditional nations (like SWEDEN ;)) .

And in terms of the buyers - here are the top 10 countries, ranked by sales, who are buying the game after custom localization file has been added
uaskNrh.png

The two puzzling facts

  • Poland buying more copies than UK
  • US should be the most numerous nation but it is not.

but how many Alt account too?

Edited by CITOYEN Julien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Most of your statements are false. It's not the national pride, but the language barriers. In Polish nation most players speak Polish, in Russian most speak Russian, in Prussian most speak German and same goes to French and Spanish nations. US... well, you guys spwak British. Most players speak British in GB, US, Pirates, Danes, Dutch so you don't have the language barrier limitation. You are free to go wherever you want. Second factor is emigration. No one wants to play in a nation that can't win a single battle and is caged in a corner of the map. US achieved close to nothing in the past year at least. The only times US was actually relevent goes to pre-wipe times, before the server split and wipe. 

You just proved the language one wrong, aren't you polish?  You play in Prussia right?  Sorry if I'm wrong.  Though the great thing about many EU players is they are bi-lingal.  You speak pretty good English from all the times we chatted.  So the language thing isn't exactly true, though it is helpful.  Like I stated before I understand some french, Spanish, and Portugal so being around folks that speak those languages doesn't bother me, I just can't speak them so it's hard for me to communicate back to them if they don't understand English too.  Every time I been in one of those nations there has all ways been some one that could translate for the most part when we had big battles.

Though I do agree with you about US cause they are stuck in the corner getting beaten down by half the server cause they are easy to find and kill.  No other nation gets that even during the EU times cause they are so spread out.  Even when we did get some of the coast and Bahamas we still had to fight off several larger nations and better players until folks just gave up and ports started to drop.  This is why I have suggested merging US and GB together.  To me it seems any time US tries to get ports folks think they have to beat them into nothing.   Than they wonder why the population on the server in those times are so low and folks don't want to come out and play.  When you are constantly loosing it's not fun.  Folks don't want to be the looser all the time.  That is why on another topic removing safe zones is going to be very bad for this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's chill with the "cultural and RL nation" bullshit ! 

Games serve to bring people together. To bring people from everywhere to a single place where they can have fun, together.

( I wrote the word people, not the word players. )

Behave all of you.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If you still dont see the issue with the % of VP, DN, Poland and Prussia then we can end this discussion here.

Average daily playerbase is 700 right now (taking into account both servers and alts) so 5% is only 35 players.

35 players that probably also play along the day, across different timezones. 

I repeat, we can close the thread if you really believe 35 players is fine.

 

I think your math is wrong.

5% is 21 players.with a maximum yesterday online.

image.png.7996cdaa8aa3f6dc7885e4d2e57c1c22.png

But correctly use unique logins. And if we assume that the number of unique logins during the day is about 3000 then 5% is 150.

P.S.

PolishLithuania is real hardcore nation. 1% against 99%

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2019 at 4:37 PM, Christendom said:

Having fought them in a number of PBs at night, GB easily has as many players in the US time zone as the US nation.  They just don't have an "evening rediii" to marshal the troops at night.  They could easily attack your timers.

Jesus christ could not win a port battle with them. Don't ever forget that rediii never built a port battle fleet in Gb. He took a clan to GB. There is a huge difference. There is no snowball chance in hell those guys will ever become competitive. They need 5-10 good night time pvpers to carry them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

Jesus christ could not win a port battle with them. Don't ever forget that rediii never built a port battle fleet in Gb. He took a clan to GB. There is a huge difference. There is no snowball chance in hell those guys will ever become competitive. They need 5-10 good night time pvpers to carry them. 

I enjoy waiting patiently for when HAVOC ever decides to go somewhere else to see how many ports get lost, how many groups leave and follow havoc, and which groups decide to finally attack GB again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

I enjoy waiting patiently for when HAVOC ever decides to go somewhere else to see how many ports get lost, how many groups leave and follow havoc, and which groups decide to finally attack GB again.

If you wait long enough you might even see them fall apart. They do however have a good attitude for an rvr clan. They do not care about much. Their only issue is that they make allies like bitches. Back when I had a say there was no allies. In all fairness I only ever did what @Mr Pellew told me. He was in charge of everything. He even told me what to do in port battles since to this day I have no idea how circles points work. Only thing I did was pew pew at red targets. I really never did much gb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If clan wars had become a thing, then pretty much every clan would have been it's own nation. Having more nations has been a good thing, less forcing many of us into the same nations as players we wouldn't want to be aligned to ( thats me being careful with my wording ) Some people advocated 3 great nations and the rest being Pirate clans who could fight amongst themselves or against the 3 larger Nations if they wished

 

I'd have though having more choice would be good for the game, more chance of people wanting to switch nations , they can dlc if they wish or re roll if they don't.

 

too many people here seem to think only of right now and the game as they are playing it. Some of us should look at the future and what could be good for release

 

Forcing players into alliances is not sandbox enough for me. It's bad enough that i get joined every 30 days by a new spy I cannot do anything about or a nation wrecker only intent on causing disunity

 

I'd have more choice , not less. I would however give serious thought to outlaw battles for Pirates and perhaps restrict their use of the largest ships and perhaps tinker with having more Port battles that need a lot more Line ships, people like those trafalgar type scenarios

 

just my thoughts

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Neads O'Tune said:

I think I missed the physical alliances era. Was it just restricted to RvR or could you not attack ANY player from a nation you are allied with in open world at all?

Was based on votes.

When you got allied you could not attack ANY player from that nation.

The biggest issue was that all it did was create 2 blocks that fought against each other and anyone who didn't agree was basically told to shove it or go pirates. Pirates had no diplomacy. Simply, alliances as they were didn't work...BUT an alliance system could work through our friendly clan lists.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

The biggest issue was that all it did was create 2 blocks that fought against each other and anyone who didn't agree was basically told to shove it or go pirates. Pirates had no diplomacy. Simply, alliances as they were didn't work...BUT an alliance system could work through our friendly clan lists.

During this same time, pirates had green on green and would avoid being revenge ganked by attacking each other to hide. Also, alliances were screwed because alts would vote an alliance keeping their main nation safe from their enemy.

Clan on clan alliances should work great and prevent this. I also think green on green rat battles should come back, but allowing other nations to join either side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Neads O'Tune said:

I think I missed the physical alliances era. Was it just restricted to RvR or could you not attack ANY player from a nation you are allied with in open world at all?

It was horrible for people searching for PvP. It got so manifested after a time, people wouldn't even think about changing their votes.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

Was based on votes.

When you got allied you could not attack ANY player from that nation.

The biggest issue was that all it did was create 2 blocks that fought against each other and anyone who didn't agree was basically told to shove it or go pirates. Pirates had no diplomacy. Simply, alliances as they were didn't work...BUT an alliance system could work through our friendly clan lists.

That sounds balls! Anything that limits potential for "content" (as much as I hate the word) should be avoided at all costs.

3 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

True, but they caused lots of tensions and dramas with the DK. Apparently, Lars planned to destroy them, but it never happened.

I think that's because it's hard to stay mad at the Polish. They're like little Jack Russells, irritating little f*ckers but we love them really.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

True, but they caused lots of tensions and dramas with the DK. Apparently, Lars planned to destroy them, but it never happened.

DNP was a democracy and I was out voted.. Apparently some ppl care.. real bears like that..

 

2 hours ago, Christendom said:

Lars would need to leave the safe zone to do that.  

Drinking from Graffis pot have ya'? Why leave the only area that make me feel all cuddly inside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Vidar said:

You could make nation transfer free if you're in a big nation and join a lesser populated nation

Then, with player migrations, the "most populated" are transformed into the "less populated" thus granting free transfers all the time ( in theory ) making the purchased DLC obsolete.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

We are actually missing a lot of the AUS/SEA players that won't play cause of server location.  We really need to move it to a more general world location for all players over all. 

quite hard to move it to a more general world location though, because the last time i heard it the earth was round

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

, just they aren't stuck in one corner of the map to easily farm.

 

Yes, there is a farming element to that of course, there's no one that can say it isn't true BUT you could also phrase it another way.

"to easily find because the player numbers are so low it isn't worth the time sailing around empty areas to look for them and most likely find nothing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the context of this discussion.

Are we discussing lack of players? Because for me this has nothing to do with the amount of nations we have. Of course it might be harder to fill the BRs of a big portbattle, but then shouldn't we discuss an adjustment of BR of ports.

For me a bigger issue is the size of the map and the amount of ports compared to current amount players , but then we shouldn't design the game for a pre-release playerbase but create the requirements to sustain a healthy amount of players.

Even though I like the idea of subfactions and more distinctive nations with special traits, which will have to be heavily balances tho. 

Part of my fascination for RvR is the unregulated sandbox politics with no rules in place. In my humble opinion, if we create a diplomacy system it should not cut the freedom of this sandbox experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...