Alliances discussion + Poll

[shunt]

1 minute ago, Pablo Frias said:

You pretend nations to be allied with each other based on their population. You forget about extra factors such as RvR interest, players skills, map situation... that usually are more important than the number of players. 

 

and also spain doesnt know what to do without russia telling them

 

[Sella]

If you desperately want to regulate the wars between nations, you could do it based on events, kinda like: News from Europe etc. But it would be preferable if the wars changed every now and then.

[Jorge]

1 minute ago, shunt said:

and also spain doesnt know what to do without russia telling them

 

True, Putin pay our ports and shipyards. 😋

[qw569😳]

27 minutes ago, admin said:

• Denmark 2.87%
• Polish Commonwealth 0.97%

Denmark have no captured ports

Polish Commonwealth have 7 ports.

Russian Empire have almost the sane populations as France, United States, Spaine or Sverige. But they are in the second place on the RVR leaderboard.

Are you sure that RVR depends on the population?

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by qw569

[Cap Trujis]

You could try for a month before the launch to see how the mechanics are going

[Archaos]

17 minutes ago, admin said:

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

This happens anyway with the forged papers DLC. Just look at how GB was struggling a few months ago till Havoc joined the nation, all of a sudden many other clans switched nation to join the zerg. Prior to that Spain had been a dominant power and Russia had been almost wiped off the map. Many transferred from Spain to Russia to combat GB and now Russia are probably the most powerful on the server. GB is unlikely to be able to effectively defend it current ports.

[Hethwill]

2 minutes ago, qw569 said:

Are you sure that RVR depends on the population?

More on "time spent" per individual in said nations than amount of individuals really, I agree.

[Sven Silberbart]

20 minutes ago, admin said:

 

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

The number of possible alliance Partners must decrease by game mechanic if the Nation ist too strong (big and active population and/or much ports). That would Prevent a super power and as more a nations shrinks as more alliance partners it could have. Simple..isn't it?

[Teutonic]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

I say no to that system. It doesn't lead to a balanced system. Different nations have different amounts of RvR interested players aswell as pvp interested players. NA is too skillbased to only make it dependend on numbers

 

Instead, let clans set 2 other nation clans to their friendlist so they can join their PB's or something along these lines. Not too many clans though so the nation has to fight.

I mean we continue to ask for it but it never seems to come. I'd rather we have these awful coalitions than what we currently have.

But hey, I'd rather be able to add a clan or 2 from an opposing nation too. Looks like it's not happening

[Thonys]

well, at least we need a good well thought overhaul ...

let's start at the beginning: the making of a clan in a nation 

> . to make a clan you need at least 5 potential members on a list to even start a clan .

(we have 70 clans of 1 or 2 members ) what makes a nation, not an efficient nation, to begin with)

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Thonys

[Jorge]

4 minutes ago, qw569 said:

Are you sure that RVR depends on the population?

Of course no. 

[Archaos]

19 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

This could easily be avoided, if alliances would be based on number of players. No alliance should have more than 25% of players in game. Then Russia, Prussia and Spain could ally but Britain would have to fight alone.

I'm strictly against forced alliances. This will kill the game.

Although I agree in principle to your suggestion the problem is if you just go on numbers of players in a nation it does not take into account how many of them are involved in RvR. GB has a very large number of players who do not get involved in RvR or even PvP, while nations like Prussia are made up of majority PvP players who can participate in RvR. So going by your example 3 very strong nations could ally against GB who would not have a hope of defeating them in the long run.

[LeBoiteux]

26 minutes ago, admin said:

Should we enforce alliances from Europe by game rules.

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%

+1.

It'd add an historical flavor to the game and enforce a feeling of pursuing a common goal to all in the nation/alliance (solo players, clans...)

[CdrNexoe]

36 minutes ago, admin said:

Captains.

Let's discuss the number of nations for the release state of the game.

• Should we keep current 11 nations at war with each other, where smaller nations have less chance to compete in RVR
• Should we enforce alliances from Europe by game rules.

 

Current populations

• Pirates 14.52%
• Spain 8.83%
• France 10.21%
• Great Britain 26.86%
• Dutch  4.88%
• Sverige 8.76%
• Denmark 2.87%
• United States 9.15%
• Russian Empire 9.33%
• Prussia 3.61%
• Polish Commonwealth 0.97%
   

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland 
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%
   

Proposed coalitions will have separate starting capitals but will act as allies allowing clan alliances between nations and port usage rights.

Coalitions will increase minimal size of the nation from 43 average daily players for the smallest nation to 600 average daily players for the smallest coalition, greatly increasing the potential and ability to have effect on the map.

Well.. Generally, I support Player Made Alliances.

 

And where did you dream up YOUR suggested Alliances?

WHEN was Sweden & Denmark in a Coalition /had an historic agreement with each other during the Napolionics?  And WHICH Polish Navy? WAS no Poland at the start of the Napoleonics, nor at the end of it..

 

Western Coalitions?  US Navy was small. And the Spanish was WITH Britain half of the war..

Holy Alliance  Prussia- Russia...  OK.. But with WHAT Prussian Navy? And the Russian was not too big either..

In the Carribean, there was British, French, Spanish & US ships… NONE of the others...

Dont try make up something out of thin air.

 

Alliances yes.. But Player made!

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by CdrNexoe

[Beeekonda]

23 minutes ago, admin said:

 

 

Current populations

• Pirates 14.52%
• Spain 8.83%
• France 10.21%
• Great Britain 26.86%
• Dutch  4.88%
• Sverige 8.76%
• Denmark 2.87%
• United States 9.15%
• Russian Empire 9.33%
• Prussia 3.61%
• Polish Commonwealth 0.97%
   

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%

North - Ultimate EU Zerg coalition

Brits - gonna be good old stagnating nation after HAVOC leaves to Danmark-Norge on release

West - USA consists mostly of US players, French US aka KoC and his gang hates US so id say he will move, Spain is EU based - how this coalition supposed to work? US will put their 14-17 dodge timers on all ports?

Holy - Holy shiet Russia is gonna be doing some real heavy lifting. Banned Privateer had to arrange alliances with half of the server to get things going. Take ports EU time? Pentaflip. Defend ports? Dodge timers. Haven't been strong enough for real RVR since russians departure.

Pirates - for almost a year without any reasonable strong EU clans. Last RVR attempts I could name are Salina Point flips, when WTF tried to take the port as non-requin fleet vs requin fleet.

This system did not considered EU/US RVR and does not consider player migration. Today they look even and fine, tomorrow there will be one big zerg and many weak alliances.

 

[Severus Snape]

11 nations is honestly madness.  If this solves it, I'm for it.  It sounds interesting. 

With this plan however, you effectively kill off pirates.  Pirates were the odd man out last time during the alliance system and players left the nation because of their lack of utility.  I would propose moving their starting area over to the secret islands (really should be nassau) and allow them to act as mercs in a sense.  

[huliotkd]

remove impossible Nation and you will never need Alliances system. we have too many flag and you are suggesting to create ally to reduce them to 5 big nation...well, remove some nation so after wipe everyone have to improve their already big coalition.

you must reduce playerbase dispersion, so you must reduce Teams (nations)

put a player number cap on each nation, so switching nation every 30 days allows you to enter olny a smaller nation and never the biggest one

improve frontlines, without the legacy exploiting system as we seeing now.  so every player knows where he can find PVP and where he can help the nation attack to the next frontline.

make rare wood random , with limited quantities (without buy contract, you can buy only what you can transport) that change port after each maintenance so you give the big 5 nation a purpose to fight for

improve Raid mechanic, where you can go behind enemy lines and raid a port collecting a little quantity of resources sold by that port and try to come back home

reduce port bonus, so a smaller nation with low skilled player (because you always speak about numbers and never about player skill, this is the point of that problem) can have 1 or 2 chance to attack a stronger nation.

track Steam ID of players, or something else, to collect their PVP score during a period of time and blocking their changing nation where another top rank PVP player already joined. for example:  Dron and Moscal can start as pirate and play together but if they want to change nation, they must split so the skilled player are more distributed throughout the server....or they can stay together in the same nation trying to improve their nation players.

 

yes, a little bit Off Topic but we cannot talk about alliances if we first don't talk about all others thing i wrote.

i voted for 11 at war. alliances as it is proposed with the mechanic we have now and playerbase we have now, will be totally gamebreaking

 

[van Veen]

Yes, we need alliances!

Yes, we need them forced by game! Simple reason is: you cannot trust the players to make "good" decisions, i.e. good for the game as a whole. I would not even trust myself on this one 😉

BUT... the alliances should not be STATIC!

Changes to the alliances be done manually by server admin in reasonable intervals. Announcements from the sovereign nations should give a lot of story telling potential.

Add "neutral" status as well, please. 

[Severus Snape]

There was several topics on these forums about creating 4-5 starting nations and then a "catch all" action that is just pure RVR and runs off clan based alliances to fill port battles.  Any thought to a system like that?

  

[Angus MacDuff]

IF we were to go with this type of alliance, there would have to be some changes to make it work.  Map positioning would have to be adjusted so that allied nations were together.  All nations have a capitol.  I really think Portugal would have to be in the game.  And I know I keep repeating this (but I believe its a game changer), but no hostility from free ports.

[Archaos]

If the game is to have enforced coalitions it would have to be a dynamic system managed externally from the game so that large active RvR nations did not ally together to form super blocs. It would need someone actively monitoring the effectiveness of Nations in RvR and deciding to allow weaker nations to ally. But even such a system would be open to accusations of bias if an allowed alliance became too strong.

[mikawa]

46 minutes ago, admin said:

Let's discuss the number of nations for the release state of the game.

You just can't discuss that at all based on your current player numbers. Firstly you just can't tell if the players are really active or passive so you can't know if you should count them or better not, and secondly I am pretty sure that many players will change their nation if they are forced to start from scratch by release wipe. So your proposal is nothing more than a decision on white paper worthless after release.

The third fact is that with alliances the distances to go to meet some foes will significantly increase which is bad for gameplay.

[Vernon Merrill]

49 minutes ago, admin said:

Captains.

Let's discuss the number of nations for the release state of the game.

• Should we keep current 11 nations at war with each other, where smaller nations have less chance to compete in RVR
• Should we enforce alliances from Europe by game rules.

 

Current populations

• Pirates 14.52%
• Spain 8.83%
• France 10.21%
• Great Britain 26.86%
• Dutch  4.88%
• Sverige 8.76%
• Denmark 2.87%
• United States 9.15%
• Russian Empire 9.33%
• Prussia 3.61%
• Polish Commonwealth 0.97%
   

Proposed coalitions

• Northern Coalition 17% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars
  • Dutch
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Poland
• British Empire 27%
• Western Coalition 28% (based on historical agreements during napoleonic wars)
  • USA
  • Spain
  • France
• Holy Alliance 13%  (based on the historical holy alliance against france)
  • Prussia
  • Russia
• Pirates 14%
   

Proposed coalitions will have separate starting capitals but will act as allies allowing clan alliances between nations and port usage rights.

Coalitions will increase minimal size of the nation from 43 average daily players for the smallest nation to 600 average daily players for the smallest coalition, greatly increasing the potential and ability to have effect on the map.

What is needed, in my opinion of course, is random "Diplomacy Changes from Europe" happening only a few times per year.

This would reduce the amount of salt in the community as well as provide ever-changing content for continued interesting game-play.

Static alliances and perpetual war with the same enemies day after day clearly causes burnout, which is marked by extreme frustration and inevitable toxicity.

If you make it so that enemies must become friends at some point, I feel like this would be a good thing.  

As we have seen over the past few years, humans will always choose the path of least resistance.  Letting a computer randomly generate some changes now and then is a much better idea.

[Sir Texas Sir]

41 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

----------------------------------------------->

But my dream;

British Nation

Spanish Nation

French Nation

Dutch Nation

Privateers (remaining nations with flag of their nation but under privateer faction, where clans able to get letter of marque from nations)

Pirates (not a nation but clans, end game for best players, only level 1 shipyard, fame board, can retire from pirate with forge papers and join a nation (very expansive), but very profitable during pirate life if you are good)

 

I have proposed something like this.  Privateers would be your current pirates. Except no owning ports.  They can join either side of fights as long as it's not

a privateer first.  They can join hostility missions and help out a nation.  Maybe some how have it coded they can be aded as a friendly clan for a short time and work for a clan/nation.

Than have the outlaws/PIrates are the ones with free for all and can't do RvR or own ports.  Every one hates them and have no capitals (maybe one shallow port?) per say and can't capture any ports.

54 minutes ago, admin said:

 

no
if alliances come back they will be forced by the game

reason is simple: previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo. 

The problem with the old system was there was no check and balance system to keep from teh two strongest nations from joining together (like GB and US did on global).   Make it so that the top nations can't join each other, they can only do one alliance with a weak nation.   Than have the other nations allowed to allied with up to so many nations.  This will have top nations changing out if folks move.  With forged papers the population that you have listed will go up and down.

[Steele OooOoOOoOOOooooOOOO]

Having a duality faction ,main nation/pirate within the nations.eliminating blue on blue ban,making them defacto pirate allies...