Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Alliances discussion + Poll

Poll on enforced alliances  

571 members have voted

  1. 1. Please vote on your choice on the political situation in the Caribbean

    • Keep 11 enemy nations at war with each other
      266
    • Enforce game rule coalitions
      304


Recommended Posts

The fact is that this game needs more players per nation.

However this problem can be fixed.

 

 

Edited by Edward Canway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Marques
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OjK said:

Well, they can't really revoke the nations, as there is plenty of people who paid real money to get the flags of their selected nation.

Therefore, Alliances are probably the only way to go... 

 

Really!!??? Do you truly believe that?? Don't you think there are  more solutions to fix that??  Let's say ... swap that DLC for another one...or even, just give back the money for those players...

Please! it is always better the writing after a bit of thinking!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Marques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Siliexe
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by John Page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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????? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Teutonic
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...