Alliances discussion + Poll

[Sir Texas Sir]

23 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

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

That is why we have a vote, you either don't get a coalition and it stays the same or we get one and the number of nations is kinda reduced as every one is put into 5 groups/coalitions.  

Poland is always going to be a small nation for the most part, but with the coalition they can now fight with Dutch/Swede/Denmark and use each other ports.  Making them a much larger force than they where and able to maybe find off some one like GB.  GB doesn't have an alliance and they are the largest but most spread out nation so hard to defend all those ports.  Thus the coalition will give small nations like Poland more of a fighting chance.

13 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.

 

You're asking for more coding.  The Coalition can work pretty simple as they  all ready have the alliance system code.  They will just have to make perm alliance with the nations of each coalition.  Now it would be cool if every one gets there nation flag and a coalition flag they can fly, but with the DLC they can pick other flags of there nation.  Remember they all ready sold DLC's for the nations so they can't really combine them or split them as it's all ready a sold product and you can pick your nation.   This would be the simplest way for them to do it instead of removing actual nations put in.

If you are in a time zone where suddenly a coalition means you can't fight a certain nation....example would be the US Prime time French clans WO/BLANC.  They would have to go to another nation if they want to fight US or they can actually stop being a bunch of cowards and fight the pirates along with the US.   Though I honestly see them going to pirates to stack them even more against one small nation instead.  

Pirates really should be an impossible nation with no port of there own at the start just like how Russia/Poland/Prussia currently is.   Make them the hard core mode of the game and more like pirates and bring back FFA.  They all ready can pick sides in battle to join so they can act as privateers if they wish and help other nations.

[Sir Texas Sir]

also remember if you don't like an alliance/coalition we always have these forge papers we can use to switch nations.

[captain smile]

I m for the nordic coalition but not the other ones .

Regards

[captain smile]

After if its historicly accurate its cool the way you like

[Farrago]

4 hours ago, van Veen said:

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.

 

I don’t agree.

If I recall correctly, PVP Zones with their circle of death and bonus awards were introduced because there were too few players to reliably be able to find PVP. At least that was one of the reasons. Many of us avoid these areas not because we don’t want to fight, but because the design to easily allow ganks and the fact that it takes away the tactical decision of sometimes you need to retreat. It’s also a terrible place to use good ships that you’ve worked hard to obtain.

More population means more targets and more predators in the open water. 

[Marques]

5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

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.

Things that you say here are totally ridiculous ... Now you want a new PVP exclusive zone, for novices ... then you want that there are no alliances, and that hundreds of factions are voting to organize themselves , ins't a Republic or democracy....is a game with rules... All that is absurd ... it  Naval Action does not work now , we need more players ... Without regulating the game NA is a kaos .... I vote for  4-5 nations, No more . The rest are only flags, allies. And this countries  should have a fewer rights. And if  were necessary to change alliances every 3 months that will be perfect.  Kings could be the DEVS, or a history engine that adjusts the number of players to each faction ... and  ¿why not limit the number of licenses per nation?  each 25 %, players, perfect....means all  equals weapons per nations.  Those who arrive late should go to Portugal,  or Denmark, or any other smaller one as an ally. If you lose your right to navigate for your country, you will be careful and ready to recover your seat next time.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Marques

[Marques]

5 hours ago, Teutonic said:

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.

Perfect  analisys !   Congratulations...I think less nations, with order, and many flags  will be very interesting to the game.  Balance is the Key....As you said if you play as minor country, in alliance of big Nation you will be more free to have many enemies, but also more support from your protector nation.  Chances  to improve war or action increase. Security or peace, I don't know.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Marques

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Marques said:

Things that you say here are totally ridiculous ... Now you want a new PVP exclusive zone, for novices ... then you want that there are no alliances, and that hundreds of factions are voting to organize themselves , ins't a Republic or democracy....is a game with rules... All that is absurd ... it  Naval Action does not work now , we need more players ... Without regulating the game NA is a kaos .... I vote for  4-5 nations, No more . The rest are only flags, allies. And this countries  should have a fewer rights. And if  were necessary to change alliances every 3 months that will be perfect.  Kings could be the DEVS, or a history engine that adjusts the number of players to each faction ... and  ¿why not limit the number of licenses per nation?  each 25 %, players, perfect....means all  equals weapons per nations.  Those who arrive late should go to Portugal,  or Denmark, or any other smaller one as an ally. If you lose your right to navigate for your country, you will be careful and ready to recover your seat next time.

I'm not getting you?  Your calling me ridiculous (we don't have to call each other names to get our points across) and your wanting them to scrap code and start all over pretty much and what does PvP exclusive zones have anything to do with this topic?  The only time I brought up a PvP zone was to make a zone that is FFA where any one can attack any one no matter nation or coalition.   That would make the guys happy that complain they have no one to fight.  Hell I would make it a SOLO PvP zone and put it some where in the middle of the map.   

Now back to topic I"m for the Coalition cause it reduces the game to 5 groups.   Each of these groups will have sub groups.  This is actually very simple for them to do with the old alliance system we have all ready tested. All they do is turn on the alliance for those nations in each of the Coalitions and it's done.  No changing code, no limiting numbers, which never works in games cause you still get the best of the best pilled into one nation.   No forcing us to suddenly attack our friends. If you don't like the alliance of your coalition than you can use forge papers and switch to a nation that is in another coalition or just delete and make a new char.  The only folks that this change would effect the most are the die hards that has to play one nation and only that one nation.  They can still do it, but now they have an alliance with other nations within it's coalition.

The only big issue I see with the Coalitions is that which has been mention above or past post of the die hards that want to play and deal with only certain nations and the ones that might have to change nations to kill another nation they are farming currently cause of TIME zone and easy kills.  The other big issue would be location of alliance members compared to others.

• Norther Coalition:  Most of these nations are on the East side of the map that some would call traditionally the EU side of the map.  Poland location isn't known yet.
• British Empire:  Well they start at the center of the map and grow out from  there, prob one of the best areas to start and grow which matches them being the largest nation in game.
• Western Coalition:  Spain and US are very close to each other so they could be easy support of one another, but it can block US from being able to move and fight others unless they use Spain's front-lines.  French is on the other side of the map so can be surrounded by others coalitions and blocked off if they don't branch out to other areas or there allaince members don't come help.
• Holly Alliance:  We don't know where they will start, Prussia did have Vieques at one time so that would be a very interesting place to put it's capital.  Which would also mean it's right on the edge of the Northern Coalition.
• Pirates:  Honestly they should get the impossible system and start with no capital or it should only be a shallow port (Nassau any one?)  Force them to work out of free-towns and shallow waters like more real pirates.  Bring back FFA system for them.  Keep the system they can join either side.  Maybe limit them to only shipyards 1/2.   Actually make pirates more pirate like.

[vazco]

17 hours ago, Jorge said:

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

At least Poland, Sweden and Denmark were present at Caribbean at some point. Portugal, not so much. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by vazco

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

If inside a coalition, you can use you allies ports (& bonus if in clan list) like if yours, i think that could work, like a french setting outpost in la Habana  or a dutch in Gustavia ?

[Norfolk nChance]

@admin

The vote is evenly split with just over 200 votes for each. Very close...

Then the feedback for the following 12pages post some very good opinions for each. The problem is in the question. It comes down to RvR and how much the Dev’s want to manage the game post launch?

If the Dev’s don’t want to offer RvR with content, but leave it up to the players to write their own story within the Caribbean, then Option1 is the obvious choice. Option2 would degrade the OW game as already pointed out into strangling Care Bear Alliances forming. This we’ve already witness on multiple servers.

 

Last year I proposed a dynamic NPC Nation overlay.

https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26648-idea-dynamic-npc-nation-overlays/

I could update it, but the short of the idea is dynamic NPC Overlords rule individual Nations. The word dynamic is the key. Each Nation must have a purpose, large and small alike. I mention multi-linked mission arcs that can drop top bling. This builds with Co-Ops and PvP but are optional and require multi-Nation participation.

This arc should be reset and changed regularly every quarter (3 months). Included would be Nation alliances. This kills the historical aspects but the game basis forces this anyway...

Smaller Clan alliances (different Nations) and raids again allowable but must be controlled. The Clan alliances wouldn’t receive rewards (Big Bling) for arc complication that need exact nation compositions. Privateer hiring also would go along with this on a timed limit...

 

I believe Option2 would work the best, but would require a quarterly recycle time. The major problem would be then Game-Labs would need to continually deliver RvR post the game launch going forward.

 

Norfolk

 

[Barcucu]

7 hours ago, vazco said:

At least Poland, Sweden and Denmark were present at Caribbean at some point. Portugal, not so much. 

It is time for you to learn some History mate!!

[Dr Yueh]

No more nations, only clans

[Eyesore]

more factions = more opportuntities to get a fight = more chaos = more interesting.

I didn't like the previous alliance-attempt, we ended up with two powerblocks and couldn't attack half of the people you saw at sea and were forced to fight/ally with people you may not really liked ... was fairly boring, a constant stalemate, too rigid.

More factions creates more 'chaos' and makes things less predictable and thus more interesting/replayable. Smaller factions are easier to block or push back (big stalemates can take weeks or months before they are broken ... and players switching nations to accomplish this is hardly a good mechanic?).  Playerdriven diplomacy will give drama offcourse ... which is actually the point? I'm less likely to fight you or take your ports if i like you?  Forced alliances made me play less and i had to sail a lot further to find a fight (or the area to look for targets got smaller).

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

14 hours ago, vazco said:

At least Poland, Sweden and Denmark were present at Caribbean at some point. Portugal, not so much. 

I see you didn't mention Russia.

[van der Clam]

Portugal would start down by Trinidad/Orinoco area.

[Takehitsu]

So I came up with an Idea that could Tag off these factions. Now hear me out here because this is kind of taking other peoples ideas and making a new idea that would work overall, make the game more interactive, and a monthly Event That would promote more gameplay.

So First; Make a monthly event call it the Monthly Coalition Event. So this Event will change the Faction alliances each month. With this you get to make an npc leader of each faction that awards Royalty points Ill get to that again in a bit. So the Coalitions theres either 3 or 4 of them but they work as follows. Each month on a specific day the power of ports controlled and players numbers are taken into account the Strongest nation is coalition-ed with the Absolute Weakest. Second strongest with second weakest then the final Coalition is a combination of all those in the middle. What this does is makes the environment for the game change every month. This will in turn make the game more interactive for the players and actually promote the play-ability of the game thus bringing more attention to the game. This will also help to balance things when one Nation gets too powerful they will constantly be hounded by many enemies in alliances against them. 

 

Second are the Royalty points. So the Royalty concept give a promotion to those who Stay in Nation. This will also make each nation have a more unique feel to each one. So look at Historical ideas for this. But make a Special Royal ship of each class so a Royal 7th rate 6th etc up to 1st. For staying in a nation each month you get a small amount of royalty tokens. If the player participates in the Above Coalition battles (which will be to change the shape of the map) they Earn Royalty Points or Marks (which was an actual thing in those days good example was a letter of Marque or distinguished) Then make the Royalty ships expensive but have great statistics. So for example 10 royalty marks a month for staying in nation. Then make the 7th rate alone cost like 100 the 1st like 1k so it will take some time to farm it (put a cap on max earn-able royalty points a month as well to like 50-100) now for each faction make the Royalty ships have significant advantages so for example if a gold 1st rate has the best advantages for a crafted ship Each nation has a specific focus. maneuverability, defensive stats etc and maybe change these from time to time so not everyone goes to the British for the damage bonus. So when you buy a royalty ship it would be alike a gold ship only its Focus stat will be higher than a craft-able bonus but only a little bit, it only take one grain of rice to tip the scale. This way Royalty ships are extremely hard to get but Worth it and it also promotes nationality so staying in nation and gives reason for people to play and grind the coalition fights every month.

In effect this idea would make the game more interactive to players, Help fix the problems caused by unbalanced nations player base and or power, Give a monthly event that will change the game every month which promoted the games interaction with players, and promote the players who stay in one nation instead of nation hopping all the time.

[vazco]

19 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

I see you didn't mention Russia.

Yes, afaik Prussia and Russia weren't there.

It's just strange to hear that Poland, and better yet, Sweden, which both had some colonial episode on Caribbean, should be replaced with Portugal, which wasn't there 

I guess people go by naval powers they know. Following this track, NA could become Japanese, Fenicians, Hansa and Venice, fighting against Portugal, GB, Athens and USA.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

No nation will ever be removed at this point, removing russia will simply put back most of the pop in danmark, would that be better ?

 

Can you be more precise about the forced alliances proposition, would we be able to add allied nation's clans in clan friendlists, and set outposts in allied nation's capital, enter allied nation's pb if in friendlist etc.   all like if we were from a same nation, but with different starting regions ?

 

[PG Monkey]

Enforced coalitions are the only ones that have a chance of working.player made ones were tried and failed.

[Teutonic]

Just now, PG Monkey said:

Enforced coalitions are the only ones that have a chance of working.player made ones were tried and failed.

More People, more options, more RvR = more PvP. it's like everything the RvR community has been complaining about would be solved.

[Sir Texas Sir]

On 5/7/2019 at 4:53 AM, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

If inside a coalition, you can use you allies ports (& bonus if in clan list) like if yours, i think that could work, like a french setting outpost in la Habana  or a dutch in Gustavia ?

By my understanding of what Admin posted yes you will be able to use each other ports.  Spain/US/French would be able to use each other ports.  Since they all ready have that system in place it should be hard to convert.  The Port battles would prob just be extended friendly clan list.  Though I would have to say if they do this they need to make the list bigger than just 15 clans.

On 5/7/2019 at 4:42 PM, van der Decken said:

Portugal would start down by Trinidad/Orinoco area.

Please lets not add any more nations to the list, at least not until after release than maybe they can add more nations to each faction/coalition if needed.   That way if you want to fly a certain flag you just got to join that coalition and the sub nation with that flag.

5 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

No nation will ever be removed at this point, removing russia will simply put back most of the pop in danmark, would that be better ?

 

Can you be more precise about the forced alliances proposition, would we be able to add allied nation's clans in clan friendlists, and set outposts in allied nation's capital, enter allied nation's pb if in friendlist etc.   all like if we were from a same nation, but with different starting regions ?

 

Pretty much the only way to down size the nations is to make them coalitiion, giving us 5 teams to play/fight against each other instead of 11.  I feel they will need to increase the size of the friends list,  15 won't work when you put three nations together.  That are make two list.  Friendly clans for battle and friendly clans for ports or have each port has it's on clan list that you can allow to use the investments.

Using french/US/Spain again as an example.  YOu can start at the capital of each of those nation dependent upon the sub nation you pick in the coalition. Spain and US are next to each other so should be strong protecting each other.  They have to send ships across the map though to help France out.  Other groups/coalition might be split up too.  NOrther poland might be off Cuba while the rest of the coalition is on the east and south east of the map.  

 

[Angus MacDuff]

12 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Using french/US/Spain again as an example.  YOu can start at the capital of each of those nation dependent upon the sub nation you pick in the coalition. Spain and US are next to each other so should be strong protecting each other

See, I would have thought they would position coalition members next to each other...i.e. put France in New Orleans

[LeBoiteux]

27 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

See, I would have thought they would position coalition members next to each other...i.e. put France in New Orleans

Port-au-Prince (or Cap Français) in Saint-Domingue (Haiti), but La Martinique is nice too.

Edited May 9, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

See, I would have thought they would position coalition members next to each other...i.e. put France in New Orleans

I kinda like that one member is spread out a bit.  It gives you reason to fight in those areas to help defend and gain ports.  There is nothing stopping france to use a free port instead of taking ports around them.  Than jump closer, but why would you when you can use the other nations ports too.  In that Group I can see US and Spain closing off certain areas and than going to help France do something.  ARe maybe franc just piss ever one off and US and spain will just ignore them.  Who knows but it would be interesting to see how such an alliance along with the other colalitions would work out.