Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Poll on enforced alliances  

522 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
      252
    • Enforce game rule coalitions
      269


Recommended Posts

I keep thinking of this in the context of the front lines discussion.  With coalitions spread out like that and hostility from free ports, there are effectively no front lines.  This all has to work together or else just give up on the concept.  I don't think I was ever a fan of front lines anyway.  Bring on the chaos!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I keep thinking of this in the context of the front lines discussion.  With coalitions spread out like that and hostility from free ports, there are effectively no front lines.  This all has to work together or else just give up on the concept.  I don't think I was ever a fan of front lines anyway.  Bring on the chaos!

As they're implemented they've hugely cut down on the number of possible RvR targets and viable pathways for RvR participation, especially for clans that can't field full 25+ screener fleets.  It's really sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wraith said:

As they're implemented they've hugely cut down on the number of possible RvR targets and viable pathways for RvR participation, especially for clans that can't field full 25+ screener fleets.  It's really sad.

If they were to be implemented properly they would be even more limiting.  What it would do is make several very safe backwaters for peaceful crafting and PVE.  The problem with that is that there would be only a few areas of focus for RVR and they could become stalemates...…..I'm trying to think where else in history there were stalemates due to front lines being tough to penetrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see french submerged by the northern alliance  + aves freetown threat, french clans setting outposts in florida or cuba on allied ports, then building & spreading in conquered ports around with mutual support from us & spanish, all of that could work, then clan diplomacy will still be an option to rally another  coalition or britain to fight another enemy..

At first i was more than sceptical, but i more and more think that could work and enhance rvr, but i understand how so many people could fear from such a reduction in potential ow targets.. But we should not think with the current population number in mind, but more how you make them come back, grow & stay. 

 

I've never seen such a close vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

I can see french submerged by the northern alliance  + aves freetown threat, french clans setting outposts in florida or cuba on allied ports, then building & spreading in conquered ports around with mutual support from us & spanish, all of that could work, then clan diplomacy will still be an option to rally another  coalition or britain to fight another enemy..

At first i was more than sceptical, but i more and more think that could work and enhance rvr, but i understand how so many people could fear from such a reduction in potential ow targets.. But we should not think with the current population number in mind, but more how you make them come back, grow & stay. 

 

I've never seen such a close vote.

It also will be interesting cause you will have to big EU based Nations and than US has a very big US prime time.  Cause i'll be honest WO/BLANC prob won't stay if they can't farm US players.  They prob will go GB or Pirates.   Which will still keep 2-3 US Prime time nations and the rest are all EU mix.  Would allow for some more balance play for certain nations/coalition around the clock.

Nothern might still be a little weak on the US prime time, but both Swedes and Dutch has players in that window, by helping each other they could fill more port battles.  

Even the Holy Alliance has players in all time zone and having them help each other means they can field bigger fleets.

For guys like me that have mulit alts.  While I keep most of them in one nation (3 out of 5) I would prob put the extra guys in the coalition nations to have some one close that can fight and not have travel across the map all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PG Monkey said:

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

Actually player coalitions have succeeded for periods of time, haven’t they? They just don’t last forever like they did with the voted alliances which tended to be stagnant.

Shouldn't alliances be made when mutually beneficial and fall apart when they don’t work for one side or the other?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Actually player coalitions have succeeded for periods of time, haven’t they? They just don’t last forever like they did with the voted alliances which tended to be stagnant.

Shouldn't alliances be made when mutually beneficial and fall apart when they don’t work for one side or the other?

In my experience, player made alliances can be as stagnant as the forced ones.

When was the last time you saw a contested PB between france-spain-US-russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Liq said:

im amazed by how even the poll is

It is easy to understand why.

Around 1/3 of the nations are dead in RvR due to the lack of players.

Another big % cant do anything to counter the top RvR nations.

 

Also, the new BR for port battles makes things way worse except for the guys with nostalgia.

Edited by Intrepido
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

It is easy to understand why.

Around 1/3 of the nations are dead in RvR due to the lack of players.

Another big % cant do anything to counter the top RvR nations.

This is more related with BR increase. Only Russia can fill 20k-25k BR with ease. For the rest is huge effort or impossible.

 

21 minutes ago, Liq said:

m amazed by how even the poll is

Forum is full with people who can't spend much time playing since their opinions are needed here. They need less enemy for their peace of mind to  better serve the game. :)  

Edited by Barbarosa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

It is easy to understand why.

Around 1/3 of the nations are dead in RvR due to the lack of players.

Another big % cant do anything to counter the top RvR nations.

 

Also, the new BR for port battles makes things way worse except for the guys with nostalgia.

High BR PB's for every port just means that zergs gets even more of an advantage.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barbarosa said:

They need less enemy for their peace of mind to  better serve the game.

That chinese wisdom is above my capabilities of understanding :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gregory Rainsborough said:

High BR PB's for every port just means that zergs gets even more of an advantage.

Im fully aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

In my experience, player made alliances can be as stagnant as the forced ones.

When was the last time you saw a contested PB between france-spain-US-russia?

[shrug] I don’t know. I assume the last time one of those nation’s clans found it advantageous to fight another one. I’m just saying that locked in by voting they never change and are highly susceptible to manipulation by Alts. And if a King (the Devs) are deciding on alliances, we’d either have pissed off folks when the alliances are arbitrarily changed or if they don’t changed, captains will flock to the winning side. (In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)

Anyway, speaking of Alts, although I have no knowledge of it, I highly suspect that some RVR clans have equally powerful Alt RVR clans in other nations. That may contribute to the stagnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Farrago said:

...(In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)...

I couldn't agree more.

IMHO the best option would be to not have that particular DLC, and reset the map every 3 to 6 months, and give the option only then to change nations.  It wouldn't stop alts, but would at least hamper the mass clan moves to more advantageous nation locations on a whim.

But I guess we are too far down the road for such actions. :(

Edited by Papillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Farrago said:

. (In my opinion, the forged paper DLC is the worst DLC.)

Awwww, some of us like a change of scenery now and then.  🕴️

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NA map is the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.

There should only be the historical nations, those that actually showed they were able to be there.

Adding any other nations, especially future 20-21st century world powers, is a lie.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Rulers of the clans make alliances and the power of negotiation is on the clans not in the predefinition of the game. It is a mistake to force by game mechanics to play with "natural" enemies or aganist "friends or mates".

 

Talking about the nations... honestly in the caribbean on the 18th Century were a few powerful nations. Now in game there are nations that in that time are not, and to keep adding "fake nations" in order to catch new players "new customers" is a lie an a dishonour to the history.

Edited by Gijon de Ruz y Molina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I would hope is not the case, based on past issues the deciding factor may well rest with what the "trusted friends" think.

Just waiting to see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to have enforced coalitions then Portugal should be added to the game as a Nation.

They should be allied with GB as per Napoleonic War alignment.

They could have their Capital base at Santo Tome de Guayana in the southeast corner of the map that would be nearest to northern Brazil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sir Loorkon said:

Lower the BR for PB. No game set coalitions.

The BR of ports must be lowered no matter if we have coalitions or not.

Current BRs are gamebreaking.

  • Like 2

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...