Alliances discussion + Poll

[Barcucu]

35 minutes ago, Marques said:

The poll  is very tight. 50% do not want to change,  vs  49 %  yes wants to be ruled. What is the problem to be ruled ¿?¿?  This is not a custom game... and you can choose many things. Someone said above that never will fight join with their enemies...it seems very ridicoulous, because the important thing is that NA has many players, and be fun and playable.

I think these  50 % first represent the "status quo" , British, Russians, Polish, and minor nations that do not want to disappear on their currently happy position.

But actually , in this game, there isn't  any kind of diplomacy, nor alliances, nor agreements between nations and clans...All is secret !!   and sometimes there are secrets alliances that can broken the game.

This problem should be fixed, because it is a very important factor that can spoil the entire game. Also we have time to test, before release.

So please let the DEVS  rule the game,  and I hope they thinking well how to contol the alliances and increase the number of players.  I prefer for a short time ,to be allied to the

British, or the other ugly nations , than to have a game closed, difficult to play and lack of the players. The Devs launch the poll because they know we have a problem with Nations.

If you read carefully this post, you will understand what all the dictators in history were thinking!!

[Marques]

On 5/3/2019 at 9:00 PM, Barcucu said:

If you  guys think that there are too many nations for the current population the solution is much more simple than this, you just need to eliminate some of them. You can join some  nations, like Sverige and Denmark  to the Dutch, and join others in a different nation. Portugal, for example, has way more rights to be in the game than Russia.

Actually i never truly understood what the hell are doing nations like Prussia, Russia or Poland in a realistic Caribbean game. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Barcucu said:

If you read carefully this post, you will understand what all the dictators in history were thinking!!

 

Barcucu...who is the dictator ?..Do you really writte this both text  , explain ¿?    .... if you do not educate and govern your dog ... sooner or later he will bite you

Edited May 5, 2019 by Marques

[Simon Cadete]

No alliances. Didn’t work before and won’t work now. Why not just eliminate a bunch of nations and leave only Spain, France, GB and pirates. Everything else must go. Also reduce the number of ports by half to make the ones that remain much more important. With a peak of 400 players online ( alts included) and under 200 players average, the size of the map and the number of ports in it are too big and too many.

[Armored_Sheep]

Why coalitions? Just get rid of the historical nonsense of new nations added to the game.

[Corona Lisa]

Yes to forced coalition since it basically means less nations.

[Barcucu]

2 hours ago, Marques said:

 

 

    .... if you do not educate and govern your dog ... sooner or later he will bite you

I have nothing to explain... you just demonstrated i'm right! 

[Barcucu]

56 minutes ago, Father of Dragons said:

Yes to forced coalition since it basically means less nations.

Yep!! With one big difference....you also will have way less people to fight with!!

I am starting to think that all of this defenders of coalitions are the same sailing a trader linx up and down for twelve hours!!  xDD

[Corona Lisa]

14 minutes ago, Barcucu said:

I am starting to think that all of this defenders of coalitions are the same sailing a trader linx up and down for twelve hours!!  xDD

stop offending me

[Siliexe]

I think a optimated alliance system based on the the old alliance system would be the way to go

also a Player-Cap for the nations to balance them, but its a bit late now.

and same start conditions for all nations.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Siliexe

[John Page]

On 5/3/2019 at 7:46 AM, admin said:

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.

Is your goal to increase number of players per coalition for RvR purposes?

I don't like that coalitions will be forced. Essentially just making 5 nations with some flying different flags. Why don't you just remove some of the smaller nations and have all nations at "war" with each other, that way alliances can change organically, as it is now. Less confusion that way.

Edited May 5, 2019 by John Page

[King of Crowns]

On 5/4/2019 at 8:04 AM, van der Decken said:

Players already limit targets on their own. If devs force over populated nations to fight over populated nations then perhaps it could work.

the only agreements we make are RVR not open world.  so that when we are hunting anyone and everyone are targets

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

45 minutes ago, John Page said:

Is your goal to increase number of players per coalition for RvR purposes?

I don't like that coalitions will be forced. Essentially just making 5 nations with some flying different flags. Why don't you just remove some of the smaller nations and have all nations at "war" with each other, that way alliances can change organically, as it is now. Less confusion that way.

I think the reason they can't shrink the nations numbers is cause they sold DLC (FLAGS) for those nations.  So it's easier to just make 5 Coalitions of the 11 nations to shrink them down.  Than all you have to do is pick the coalition that has your fav nation/flag and you join it.  Yes this means some clans will h ave to change nations if they want to fight other clans/nations of there time zone.  I'll use US French players WO/BLance will have to leave France to fight the US, or they could just start attacking the Pirates instead of being buddy buddy with them.  I'm sure other nation/clans will have to do this too.  Mixing up the numbers ins't a bad thing.   

[Gargamel]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 1:53 PM, 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. 

if the players always join the strong one, why not limit the nations to a size of 20%?

[Magallanes]

On 5/3/2019 at 1:56 PM, 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.

That is a good starting point for future alliances... Factions usually going to equilibrate the game themselves. When a strong faction arises, others do same in opposite way. Only weak factions move to strong side.

[vazco]

On 5/3/2019 at 1:58 PM, Sella22 said:

Also i think its time to replace Poland with Portugal. It will be a more popular choice and it will help reduce the massive numbers of GB players. The playerbase seems to be spread fairly evenly currently

I'm against introducing cartoonish nations. Portugal was not on Caribbean during game's time frame. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

38 minutes ago, vazco said:

I'm against introducing cartoonish nations. Portugal was not on Caribbean during game's time frame. 

You think folks would know what Treaty of Tordesillas was, but they have more reason to be in the area than three other nations do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

[van Veen]

Some people are convinced that less targets means less PVP. But thinking about it, you might come to the opposite conclusion. 

Less targets means less options for PVP, but does it really mean less PVP overall? After all, you can fight only one battle at a time and you cannot take all options. 

Less options actually means that PVP locations become more predictable, which could in turn lead to actually more PVP as you need less time searching for targets.

 

[Jorge]

1 hour ago, vazco said:

I'm against introducing cartoonish nations. Portugal was not on Caribbean during game's time frame. 

Lol, Prussia, Russia, Poland, Sweden and Denmark????? 

[van Veen]

Forced alliance are good, because they are simple to implement and they do not require players to vote (which will never work out well). 

BUT alliances should be dynamic!

And I really hope that the system is based on nations-to-nation relations with allied/neutral/hostile status. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

10 minutes ago, van Veen said:

Forced alliance are good, because they are simple to implement and they do not require players to vote (which will never work out well). 

BUT alliances should be dynamic!

And I really hope that the system is based on nations-to-nation relations with allied/neutral/hostile status. 

We can still maybe have PvP zones that anything goes where you can attack any one but your own nation.  That voting thing didn't work cause if a nation voted peace and not all players are agreed than they are forced to do what others voted for. That a or the two largest nations, GB and US on PvP2, would refuse to fight each other.

[Crimson Sunrise]

i'd say we need to reduce the number of nations currently in game we dont have the playerbase to fully use 11 nations on this map just look at the leaderboards its painfully clear which nations have the least amount of players.  we have enough players to field 5 nations at best with decent numbers. based on the statistics, unless we get a large influx of new players or returning players there is no reason to have so many nations to choose from. at best i see GB, US, FR, PR, RU as the primary nations with Spain and sweden as the next batch of nations.  the map shouldnt be littered with nations that have so few players. we wouldnt need a coalition with 5 large nations fighting 

 

[Teutonic]

It keeps coming up and it should be hammered again.

1. Players keep saying there are too many nations and we should reduce them.

2. Devs say they will not reduce the nations but have instead proposed that we have coalitions.

If you do just a little bit of thinking it lowers the players blocks from 11 to 5 which effectively makes 'less nations' but the kicker is that players can still play their national pride while being in a large group.

Outcomes?

1. More players to play with.

2. More players means more options to engage in large pvp activities.

3. More pvp activities mean more action

To those complaining that they'll lose the possibility to fight a large group of players is a rather narrow mindset. You can leave a coalition to join another one to make sure you have your favorite targets again or you can fight new enemies in the different coalitions.

But hey, we can keep with 11 nations all at war and have no alliance system which the devs seem pretty adament about. They told us either we have it game controlled or no alliances. 

Let that sink in before deciding.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Teutonic

[Crimson Sunrise]

3 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

It keeps coming up and it should be hammered again.

1. Players keep saying their are too many nations and we should reduce them.

2. Devs say they will not reduce the nations but have instead proposed that we have coalitions.

If you do just a little bit of thinking it lowers the players blocks from 11 to 5 which effectively makes 'less nations' but the kicker is that players can still play their national pride while being in a large group.

Outcomes?

1. More players to play with.

2. More players means more options to engage in large pvp activities.

3. More pvp activities mean more action

To those complaining that they'll lose the possibility to fight a large group of players is a rather narrow mindset. You can leave a coalition to join another one to make sure you have your favorite targets again or you can fight new enemies in the different coalitions.

But hey, we can keep with 11 nations all at war and have no alliance system which the devs seem pretty adament about. They told us either we have it game controlled or no alliances. 

Let that sink in before deciding.

yes coalitions is nice but whats the point in having the nations if the coalition vote doesnt go thru now were still at 11 nations with no real point with less players in the other nations giving too much variety without the players to keep those nations worth playing defeats the purpose of pvp. a smaller nation like poland cant compete with a nation like GB we can field more ships more player and more advanced ships against a smaller nation like poland. so players joining a much smaller nation like poland are now at an even greater disadvantage. 

back when we had 5k players i can see 11 nations being useful but with the current numbers there is no need to have so many to choose from

[Crimson Sunrise]

a better idea might be to reduce the number of nations to 5, 1 from each coalition and apply the flags to that coalition so instead of being a US player u would be a Western Coalition player with access to the flags of the nations that would make up that coalition or alliance, this way everyone gets what they want, we get 5 choices to start in, but still have access to the various nation flags for that coalition.  

Northern Coalition Flags - 

• Dutch
• Sweden
• Denmark
• Poland

Western Coalition Flags - 

• USA
• Spain
• France

Holy Alliance

• Prussia
• Russia

Britannia Flags -

• British Empire

Pirates  Flags - 

• Pirates
   

so each nation is represented but gives the player base less choices of nations to join and still satisfies the feeling of being part of a specific nation. by allowing each player to fly the flag of their perfered nation by being apart of these coalitions and alliances.

 

[Jorge]

20 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

a better idea might be to reduce the number of nations to 5, 1 from each coalition and apply the flags to that coalition so instead of being a US player u would be a Western Coalition player with access to the flags of the nations that would make up that coalition or alliance, this way everyone gets what they want, we get 5 choices to start in, but still have access to the various nation flags for that coalition.  

Northern Coalition Flags - 

• Dutch
• Sweden
• Denmark
• Poland

Western Coalition Flags - 

• USA
• Spain
• France

Holy Alliance

• Prussia
• Russia

Britannia Flags -

• British Empire

Pirates  Flags - 

• Pirates
   

so each nation is represented but gives the player base less choices of nations to join and still satisfies the feeling of being part of a specific nation. by allowing each player to fly the flag of their perfered nation by being apart of these coalitions and alliances.

 

No thx.