van Veen Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Cabral said: That's a new phenomen that's happening from some months to now and it's spreading. Same people with clan in Russia then their alts with clan in Spain, now we also have french players playing in both France and Russia. And they control the most important ports in both nations, it's plain stupid but is how it works on the game we have today. It's not new. Fake news. It's just you noticing it now, not previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) Probably 2 main reasons for RvR dwindling in activity. 1. Alts in other nations bypassed the nation limitations - fixed now that clans control it. But I feel the nation should still have access to a portion of it. 2. Players didn't/don't want to spend time killing AI to make a port battle. To be honest I don't think it is that bad anymore. Edited March 20, 2019 by Teutonic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vizzini Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 You can chose your friends , you cannot chose your family roughly translated.. You can chose your clan mates .. you cannot get away from any trouble making idiots inside your own Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van Veen Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Voting is a no-go. It did not work before and will never work. Letting players vote seems to be a good idea, but any election will be ridiculed by alts. Alts cannot be simply banned (how to identify an "alt"? what again did the player do wrong? why is he banned exactly? and how do you prove it?). The problem cannot be solved easily. If this game wants to be historic, nations are needed. You could forsake the historical aspect completely and go full on clan wars. But then, the whole RVR game will be controlled by a handful of powerful clan leaders. The majority of players is just standing by and watching. How do you ensure the game stays enjoyable for everyone even in the not so unlikely event that some of those clan leaders happen to be toxic idiots? I liked the old system where you had neutral/friendly/hostile status among nations, but the system we had needs serious improvements. This is how I still think it should be done: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, rediii said: decreasing RvR is because of the wipe which is coming relativly soon. Atleast it's the reason HAVOC is mainly not in NA anymore atm Well yes - We are not in normal circumstances. but I don't really count this time before a wipe as a main reason in terms of what "normally" stops folks from wanting to RvR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIL3 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, John Hill Regard said: Hello the mixture between clan and nation is toxic. The clans think clan (treachery, abandonment of ports without consultation etc etc) and the nation no longer makes sense We should go back to a nation management. A simple system would be to have a Governor elected each month by the players. This Governor would have the privilege of deciding the statue to other nations Peace: no RVR no PVP Neutral: no RVR but PVP War: RVR and PVP. Another privilege would be to manage the ports, timer taxes etc. except for the neutral renders which should be subject to referundum. Taxes collected will be divided between the players if there are excedents or taken to the players if the system is defficient .... To the Governor to be good The Governor would be remunerated for his duties and if he makes the nation prosperous he will be proud and rich in wealth if he even his nation to ruin it will be punished by the next elections ... Here is a simple system and much more representative of the idea of Nation than the anarchy that reigns today on the open world I totally agree with you: this clan system is completely useless because clans are often in disagreements with each other and at the same time 1 clan is not enough to win a pvp, save some exceptions like HAVOC, BF, REDS.. In fact a clan can oppose itself to the decisions of other clans and this disrupts the national cohesion in general and because of only 1 clan all the other clans and the nation in the whole can suffer. It would be simpler to have a Governor indeed or a President elected for a month that would be entitled as well to deal with diplomacy, foreign affairs, to conclude alliances etc. Edited March 20, 2019 by DFIL3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, DFIL3 said: I totally agree with you: this clan system is completely useless because clans are often in disagreements with each other and at the same time 1 clan is not enough to win a pvp, save some exceptions like HAVOC, BF, REDS.. In fact a clan can oppose itself to the decisions of other clans and this disrupts the national cohesion in general and because of only 1 clan all the other clans and the nation in the whole can suffer. It would be simpler to have a Governor indeed or a President elected for a month that would be entitled as well to deal with diplomacy, foreign affairs, to conclude alliances etc. then if you don't like the governor or president, what do you do? accept that for a month of your time playing the game is not going to be enjoyable for yourself? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Cru Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 That's why I suggested a Clan Server and a Nation Server. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus MacDuff Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 So some player that paid the same amount for the game as me can tell me who I can or cannot attack?? That's ridiculous. We already have some diplomacy. Some clans make deals with foreign clans. That does not affect all players in the nation and everybody understands that. Democracy in a war game is silly. 51% to win an election means that 49% are unhappy. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIL3 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, Teutonic said: then if you don't like the governor or president, what do you do? accept that for a month of your time playing the game is not going to be enjoyable for yourself? And what do you do in real life if you don't like your president or your prime minister? You emigrate to another nation or you just form an opposition party and wait for another election and you vote against. The second choice is about your civic commitments. In fact it's all about diplomacy, guys: we have to decide once and forever WHO CAN ENTER INTO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS - a clan or a nation? I agree with the fact that cities should be controlled by clans and let the clan exist - no problem. But a nation state in real life makes sense only because a group inside this nation ( a clan, a business company, a political party etc) must respect the diplomatic decisions taken by a nation in the name of all the nation. It has been like this in modern history since 1648 ( Westphalia treaty). But if a clan can enter into diplomatic relations with other subjects, then there is no nation at all. Then each clan = a particular nation. So who can enter into diplomatic relations: a clan or a nation ( even if some clans disagree)? As soon as we answer this question, all the problems will be solved. Edited March 21, 2019 by DFIL3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus MacDuff Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, PYR said: Yes but the alternative is that the 49% (often less) mess with the 51% (often more) and that those 51% that are unhappy… what is best? Our current anarchy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus MacDuff Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, PYR said: Sorry, but then a lot and among them me, while not play, because anarchy = infighting, trolling, insult,.... And you think that trying to run a democracy in this game will not cause infighting and insults? I have never been insulted by a member of my own nation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Death Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 15 hours ago, John Hill Regard said: What you propose sound more like a pirat game not à nation game..... A Nation should be in peace or in war Attack all nation is non senses.... so remove Nation give all player’s Thé pirat flat and let clan manage thé anarchy in Carabean. I dislike clan system and it’s frustrating yes it is to see this game be so far from what it should be ..A Great War Game between Nation.. Clan are ruining this great idea ... But it just doesn't work that way. When we had "national" play, what happened is this: Port battle scheduled for strategic port >>> everyone wants to help (great!) >>> unskilled players join port battle to "help" >>> port battle is lost because those players ruined it (frustrating for everyone who worked hard to capture the port, only to lose it due to a few player's mistakes). I was commander of a very important port battle a couple years ago. Had a nice plan with players and ship selection drawn up the day before. I said in nation chat "if you are not in my port battle group, please do not join the port battle, but rather screen outside, fleet composition is set, but we appreciate the turnout." This was responded with sentiments like: "Be quiet! You don't tell me how to play! I paid my $40 and I'll join that port battle if I want! I know what I'm doing!" Well we had 2-3 such players join, so a couple of our assigned ships couldn't make it in. Despite this, we got to ~960 points before everything turned bad. One of the players went AFK. Another rammed one of our players into land and proceeded to stay stuck for a while, being battered by the enemy in the process. And that was neither the first nor the last time such events happened. I lost all hope for a "nation-driven RvR system" that day. I know it sounds incredibly rude, but if I don't know a player to be at least capable of manual sailing, then they should please stay out of any important port battle my clan is running. You'll find most port battle fleets are commanded that way. Players can be useful outside in the screen fleet, or join one of the friendly clans and receive training on how to be relevant inside the PB. If a player possesses a desire to become skilled in the game and is at least somewhat friendly, most any clan would be happy to recruit them. Worse still is using alts to do this. You say "ban the alts," but its not that simple. How do you prove that its really an alt and not a player who is simply playing really poorly? You can't just ban a player for being bad at the game. And IP address is meaningless too since players can have accounts in several nations, as long as they are playing as a legitimate character for that nation at the time in question, that player has done nothing against the rules. On to alliances: they're fun for a while, but when everyone in the nation gets a vote, this happens: alts get votes in the politics (alts can rig the alliances) players will make uninformed votes (since Jeheil quit playing and producing his excellent video content each week, it has become very hard for players to make informed decisions on the politics of the game) most importantly, the map immediately divides into two blocks. It happens every time. It even divided along the same lines on the separate servers one time! One block inevitably has the smaller population, but usually the larger number of skilled players, while the other block has numbers but lacks skilled players (but can easily dominate because everyone likes to zerg) 16 hours ago, admin said: Clans remove trolling and griefing by alts or spies in port control or port battles. National unity is nice but 3-4 alts in lynxes could ruin your port battle before. Now they cant. Admin has it 100% correct here. I disagree with a lot of development decisions over the past couple years, but moving to clan-controlled PBs was one of the best changes made to this game. I can only hope that more mechanics allowing clan warfare and alliances are introduced in the future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim McSauce Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 4 hours ago, William Death said: Port battle scheduled for strategic port >>> everyone wants to help (great!) >>> unskilled players join port battle to "help" >>> port battle is lost because those players ruined it (frustrating for everyone who worked hard to capture the port, only to lose it due to a few player's mistakes). Well that's just the fault of the entirety of RVR being decided by a single, average scale battle. Maybe if PB's weren't utter trash leftovers from sea trials it would be fine to have 150 people on the same objective, considering port capture effects the nation as it does the clan, pretty fair to assume the nation should be ones to also enjoy some port capture. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalai Lama Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 21 hours ago, Slim McSauce said: See this this that weird cope I was talking about. There is no actual feature for clan diplomacy in game, it doesn't exist, yet the sandbox enthusiast will say the made up portion of the feature IS the feature. Instead of having the actual programmed feature for said mechanic, we name that which doesn't exist, or is left empty as a "sandbox" element, as if it's by choice that we lack the said feature, because it somehow grants more freedom to the players to make pretend things are going on instead of it being official, like wars and alliances between large factions tend to be, not just a mere word of mouth type thing. Well isn't our society is based on that "mere word of mouth type thing". No "coded feature" in real life from preventing you to insult, harm, rob or murther other people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim McSauce Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Henry Durnin said: Well isn't our society is based on that "mere word of mouth type thing". No "coded feature" in real life from preventing you to insult, harm, rob or murther other people... No it's not, we have laws and regulations, certificates and credentials that are the support as to why we can dictate things. Maybe to the citizen nothing is but word of mouth, in levels of government and in agencies with hierarchy, which is any workplace there is real pathways and events which lead up to everything. What you describe is world which doesn't exist in this setting, you cannot apply a tribal sense to a civilized world. A declaration of war between two nations, or two factions is not the same as guerilla warfare between two sides occupying a space. We are not chimps, we are men. We do not base all things off mere gossip. Edited March 21, 2019 by Slim McSauce 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalai Lama Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Sorry but I can still hit my neighbour if I choose to do so, might have to live with the consequences. This is a multiplayer game. For me it's about social interaction. I still don't like the idea of restricting interactions by rules. I would rather prefer that we implement consequenses for actions then putting a hard limit in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Death Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 22 hours ago, PYR said: Ban known alt and players that troll or insult in the nation chat. Would not stop spying, but would clean up nation chat and make the place a lot better Ban them for what? Existing as an alt? Developers have said alts are allowed, they must follow the same rules as other players. Ban the players who always insult others? Yes, the developers already do this. The report function works. Let us not forget that alt =/= bad human. A person can have an alt and obey all the rules of Naval Action, and be polite in chat. 21 hours ago, Slim McSauce said: Well that's just the fault of the entirety of RVR being decided by a single, average scale battle. Maybe if PB's weren't utter trash leftovers from sea trials it would be fine to have 150 people on the same objective, considering port capture effects the nation as it does the clan, pretty fair to assume the nation should be ones to also enjoy some port capture. I wouldn't go so far as to call PBs "utter trash," but I agree, they could be much much better. I think they were better in the old Martello tower days. At least then if your ship was sinking you could go capture a Martello tower and command it. Not to mention it encourage more actual fighting and not the same old circle kite and cap game we play now. (incoming: "but mahhh strategies!" complaints) It would be interesting if more than 50 people could be in a PB, but that would require entirely new PB mechanics not based off BR. Not to mention how do you stop zerg nations from being even stronger? In a game with <500 online most of the time, lopsided battles are bound to happen more often than not. And then you'll still have the issue of a few players (maybe alts maybe just unskilled/new players) who can cause more harm than good in the battle. How do you deal with this? If there are no mechanics to prevent such things, they will happen, and players will be upset that player "____" did ____ and caused them to lose the PB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim McSauce Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, William Death said: It would be interesting if more than 50 people could be in a PB, but that would require entirely new PB mechanics not based off BR. Not to mention how do you stop zerg nations from being even stronger? In a game with <500 online most of the time, lopsided battles are bound to happen more often than not. And then you'll still have the issue of a few players (maybe alts maybe just unskilled/new players) who can cause more harm than good in the battle. How do you deal with this? If there are no mechanics to prevent such things, they will happen, and players will be upset that player "____" did ____ and caused them to lose the PB. I'm not sure, zergs in OW battles don't seem to be such a severe problem for pvp players, part and parcel they would say. I don't think PB's and RVR are much different in that sense, a zerg is powerful but only as powerful as it can reach before it slows down. Upcoming "front lines" rvr update may already have the solution in pocket, who knows but RVR does need some attention. Edited March 22, 2019 by Slim McSauce 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartholomew.E.Dogg Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Problem with having diplomacy in this game is that it can make large areas of the map unplayable due to lack of enemies. If there must be diplomacy of any kind Pirates surely must be excluded from this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vizzini Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Leave the main nations as they are the rest Pirate clans who can fight amongst each other or against whomever they wish they can stop spies entering their clan , can police their own language policies inside their own clan , port battle against any enemy port they wish , get attacked by anybody not in their clan , stop putting up with the drama inflicted on them by anybody else make sure they cannot outlaw their way into port battles and I think most would be ok with it leave the players to decide their allegiance, not some emperor or king with a 30 day cooldown on the next election promising teak and live oak for all who vote for him / her 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketunpoika Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 40 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said: Each player can decide, if he wants to follow proposals of the nations leaders or if his ship shall stay in port. Why would i have to be a puppet of my nation? Why would i have to follow my nation "leaders"? Why should i stay in port if i dont dont care about my nation "leaders" proposal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Admin talked about the possibility of war companies being added long ago. Allow players not it clans to be a part of their nation and go about nation politics. While players in war companies (basically clans as we have now) to be autonomous. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van Veen Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 War and peace has a huge impact on all players on the server. A small change in state of affairs affects a lot of players. Not everyone will support each decision. If decisions are made by players this is an endless source of salt, beef and toxicity. After all, who are we to decide those high politics? We are merely captains far away from our home countries. More realism, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cetric de Cornusiac Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, van Veen said: We are merely captains far away from our home countries. No excuse for irresponsible behavior which does damage to your nation. All Captains in the age of sail had to answer charges back home if their deeds were getting known there and found contradicting to their nation's interests. Or why you think William Kidd got persecuted for what he was doing... far off... at Madagascar? After he left the legal path of his letter of marque and started attacking english and allied ships instead of just french and pirate as he was entitled for? This idea of the Caribbean being a lawless region where you could do what you want and it had no consequences with nations involved is a myth founded by novel writers and then Hollywood. Edited March 24, 2019 by Cetric de Cornusiac 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