Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

What am I proposing? 

To reintroduce the alliance system that used to be a core mechanic for creating alliances between nations within the game.

Why am I suggesting this? 

It irritates me knowing people take advantage of the lack of the alliance system by working together in the most unfair of manners. As a player of the United Kingdom I find it especially difficult not noticing the Dutch & Russians working together, especially Pirates at times. Great Britain from my perspective is being unfairly attacked from both sides and many newcomers, especially regulars find little incentive to continue playing.

Furthermore, the lack of a front-line system makes it so KPR (Kingston/Port Royal) is under constant threat regularly by 4th rates and above. How are we meant to combat this? Not to mention it makes little sense for enemy players to constantly attack and blockade the main port of Great Britain.

Do I feel this feature will be reintroduced? 

From the lack of communication between the developers and player-base, it is highly unlikely. And, I mean no disrespect towards the team that worked on Naval Action, it's a beautiful game with the best available naval mechanics to date. However, because of your lack of care towards the players and issues with balance which people continuously mention how do you expect us to respond?

 

This is no attack on the development team nor enemy factions of the game, but this needed to be addressed. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hewlettasha said:

Great Britain from my perspective is being unfairly attacked from both sides and many newcomers, especially regulars find little incentive to continue playing.

How would an alliance System change that? Ok GB is allied with dutch and / or Danes; how does that prevent pirates / russians / anyone else from raiding KPR? 

Even if pirates / russians are not officially allied (e.g. an alliance system with fix alliances set by the game), they still can and will work together

Only real answer / solution to prevent capital camping is a safezone in any Form that actually protects the newbs and not the vets. But how that should be done, I don't know.

Edited by Liq
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Liq said:

How would an alliance System change that? Ok GB is allied with dutch and / or Danes; how does that prevent pirates / russians / anyone else from raiding KPR? 

Even if pirates / russians are not officially allied (e.g. an alliance system with fix alliances set by the game), they still can and will work together

Only real answer / solution to prevent capital camping is a safezone in any Form that actually protects the newbs and not the vets. But how that should be done, I don't know.

Its difficult proposing a solution to a growing cancer that plagues this game. I like the idea which has been suggested multiple times such as the ''Front-line'' system or what you suggested. Understandably, the alliance system would not be perfect and with me being somewhat blind in that regard, might not change much in the long run. But, to implement a system that encourages nations being attacked by the same enemy to work together is what I'd like to see.

Sort of a ''The enemy of my enemy is my friend'' - A coalition system, if you will. Or something that could prevent gankers from continuously targeting people in Capital ports. Giving those who struggle a chance to embrace the game mechanics and get a feel for what PvE and PvP is like would seem to me like the ideal solution.

Edited by Hewlettasha
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

The idea was good, the implementation required some tweaks to make it a fully working feature. 

Unfortunately, it was either black or white for the devs (now they are a bit more patient).

For a return of such feature:

-Very populated nations can not get an ally. To avoid alt exploits the system should be based on several factors (rank, activity, participation on pvp/rvr...(we already have a somewhat clan leaderboard that can help)).

-Pirates and Impossible nations are out of this system. They are hardcore nations after all.

-Players from allied nations can still attack each other. You receive a warning when doing it and maybe a symbol for your "betrayal".

-Max number of allied nation/clan: 1, in order to avoid the formation of much bigger blocks than the nation under attack.

-Alliance chat must return to better coordination.

 

If the alliance system were to utilise all of which you just said, I'd say it could work out. Thank you for providing feedback unlike the user above you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Intrepido said:

The idea was good, the implementation required some tweaks to make it a fully working feature. 

Unfortunately, it was either black or white for the devs (now they are a bit more patient).

For a return of such feature:

-Very populated nations can not get an ally. To avoid alt exploits the system should be based on several factors (rank, activity, participation on pvp/rvr...(we already have a somewhat clan leaderboard that can help)). 

-Pirates and Impossible nations are out of this system. They are hardcore nations after all.

-Players from allied nations can still attack each other. You receive a warning when doing it and maybe a symbol for your "betrayal".

-Max number of allied nation/clan: 1, in order to avoid the formation of much bigger blocks than the nation under attack.

-Alliance chat must return to better coordination.

 

An alliance system may work but how do you avoid the issues that stemmed from the last time it was used.

Pirates constantly complaining that nations were ganging up on them, that they should get the same ability as the nations do?

What is to prevent alts from being moved to a nation that is to be the target of an attack thus preventing them from forming an alliance?

What is to prevent an alliance from being formed and people switching to the nation thus making it the largest?

Players from allied nations being able to still attack each other, if they do what punishment is dealt to the offending party? A warning is not enough to curb such activity. Perhaps the introduction of a nation less group where the offending party can be banished to for 2 weeks after which they are placed back into their original nation or prior to the elapsing of the 2 weeks they can switch to a different nation

There were times that a nation wanted a temporary alliance as a prelude to an actual one (waiting for the vote cycle to come around) and other members of the nation would continue to attack. No real solution to this one except open up communications between nations once again, preferably a mail system that can include any player regardless of nation.

Voting for an alliance, what is to prevent alts from being used to undermine the desired outcome? The only way I see it is that the only votes permitted are by the clan leaders. While this may seem unfair to the casual / solo player not part of a clan, it would prevent alts from being moved into a nation for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of the voting process.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hewlettasha said:

Was schlage ich vor? 

Wiedereinführung des Bündnissystems, das früher ein zentraler Mechanismus für die Schaffung von Bündnissen zwischen Nationen im Spiel war.

Warum schlage ich das vor? 

Es irritiert mich zu wissen, dass Menschen das Fehlen des Bündnissystems ausnutzen, indem sie auf unfaire Weise zusammenarbeiten. Als Spieler des Vereinigten Königreichs fällt es mir besonders schwer, nicht zu bemerken, dass die Holländer und Russen zusammenarbeiten, besonders manchmal die Piraten. Aus meiner Sicht wird Großbritannien von beiden Seiten unfair angegriffen, und viele Neulinge, insbesondere Stammgäste, finden wenig Anreiz, weiterzuspielen.

Darüber hinaus ist KPR (Kingston / Port Royal) aufgrund des Fehlens eines Front-Line-Systems regelmäßig von 4. Raten und höher bedroht. Wie sollen wir das bekämpfen? Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass es für feindliche Spieler wenig sinnvoll ist, den Haupthafen Großbritanniens ständig anzugreifen und zu blockieren.

Habe ich das Gefühl, dass diese Funktion wieder eingeführt wird? 

Aufgrund der mangelnden Kommunikation zwischen den Entwicklern und der Spielerbasis ist dies höchst unwahrscheinlich. Und ich meine, keine Respektlosigkeit gegenüber dem Team, das an Naval Action gearbeitet hat. Es ist ein wunderschönes Spiel mit den besten verfügbaren Marinemechaniken, die es bisher gab. Aufgrund Ihrer mangelnden Sorgfalt gegenüber den Spielern und Problemen mit dem Gleichgewicht, die ständig erwähnt werden, wie erwarten Sie von uns, dass wir darauf reagieren?

 

Dies ist kein Angriff auf das Entwicklerteam oder feindliche Fraktionen des Spiels, aber dies musste behoben werden. 

771/5000
 
 
 
That's exactly how we should do it. One or more nation does not fit in the game, so we change the game mechanics. The Russians are too strong, let's reduce the game to 5 nations and simply delete the Russian nation. How, all Russians go to Spain afterwards? We should just delete the Spaniards, who needs Spain ... and so on. Maybe people should get their asses up and make an alliance without any game mechanics compelling them to do it. But you would have to talk to people sometimes, maybe even with former / current enemies.

It may be some very great clan leaders and fleet commanders, good politicians seems verry rare in the game.
Edited by Georg Fromm
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Liq said:

How would an alliance System change that? Ok GB is allied with dutch and / or Danes; how does that prevent pirates / russians / anyone else from raiding KPR? 

Even if pirates / russians are not officially allied (e.g. an alliance system with fix alliances set by the game), they still can and will work together

Only real answer / solution to prevent capital camping is a safezone in any Form that actually protects the newbs and not the vets. But how that should be done, I don't know.

The alliance system would prevent non-allied nations from joining a battle against GB, maybe?

Another real solution would be to deny PvP and leaderboard points if the enemy player is too low a rank, like no points given for killing anyone within the first 3 ranks. In fact, maybe give nothing, no reals, no dbls, no leaderboard points. That would give gankers incentive to let newbs free. Once a player reaches Rank 4 they're fair play. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, van der Clam said:

The alliance system would prevent non-allied nations from joining a battle against GB, maybe?

Another real solution would be to deny PvP and leaderboard points if the enemy player is too low a rank, like no points given for killing anyone within the first 3 ranks. In fact, maybe give nothing, no reals, no dbls, no leaderboard points. That would give gankers incentive to let newbs free. Once a player reaches Rank 4 they're fair play

Im sailing in OW. I see Enemy Player. I don't know his name/rank/clan. I tag him and sink him, why should I be denied from spoils I deserve?

Edited by Beeekonda
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a full alliance system but something like this:

clan A from nation Aland adds clan B from nation Bland  to its friends list. Clan B can help defend Clan A's port despite the fact they're in a different nation. Attacking is trickier it would require some clan/clan alliance lists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired of ships raiding your players? Get a coast guard together and sink 'em. If they know they will lose their ships, they are less likely to roll out in Lineships. From the sounds of it, you have a large amount of content that is coming to you but I guess you don't want to fight? Start taking ports and start sinking raiders. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raf Van Boom said:

Not a full alliance system but something like this:

clan A from nation Aland adds clan B from nation Bland  to its friends list. Clan B can help defend Clan A's port despite the fact they're in a different nation. Attacking is trickier it would require some clan/clan alliance lists.

So, nations become meaningless? No nation hopping required. You just stay where you are and fight for someone else. Great idea! VCO/VC0 MONX/MONK and others will really love this! More content for alt clans! 

And the best part is that it makes Prolific Forger obsolete! Those who bought the DLC will really love this idea. For sure they will get their money back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, van Veen said:

So, nations become meaningless? No nation hopping required. You just stay where you are and fight for someone else. Great idea! VCO/VC0 MONX/MONK and others will really love this! More content for alt clans! 

And the best part is that it makes Prolific Forger obsolete! Those who bought the DLC will really love this idea. For sure they will get their money back. 

That's why I've always said if you have clan alliances you need clan wars with it. The counterbalance has to be there.
Non-cosmetic DLC shouldn't exist in the first place, if it comes down to DLC vs Core Mechanics I pick core mechanics every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Galt said:

Tired of ships raiding your players? Get a coast guard together and sink 'em. If they know they will lose their ships, they are less likely to roll out in Lineships. From the sounds of it, you have a large amount of content that is coming to you but I guess you don't want to fight? Start taking ports and start sinking raiders. 

While this is what should happen you are forgetting one thing, you cant build ships when any attempts to move materials to the shipyard are intercepted and sunk by 14.2 speed raiders. Chasing them also is a gamble as they just run until any heavy hitters are so far away that they will be unable to join any engagement and that is IF they even find it. It is rather difficult to turn away raiders that have consistently shown up in ships that are at least one rank higher and are able to assault 3 different areas at the same time in ships that far exceed the capabilities of the defending forces. The only good thing is that over time the advantages that the raiders have will slowly diminish as the defenders slowly increase their capabilities. But this process is costly due to losses sustained while trying to achieve any advancements. Russia vs Britain right now is a losing battle for Britain simply due to economics. One of russia's ports alone generates over 10 million on a daily basis and it is done when the server is quiet and there are few on that can intercept their traders. British traders are on during times that the russian, danish, swede, pirate, and even spanish raiders seem to be online and are hunting running the entire coastline from tumbado all the way to great corn.

So your solution of just run out and attack them seems like a good concept, it is in fact doing exactly what they want. It is expending ships that are now hard to replace vs a nation that can easily replace any losses in seconds. So the only way to actually protect british traders would be to start having a large number of escorts to each trader. While this is true in a tactical sense it is not exactly the way most want to play the game spending HOURS just sailing along and accomplishing NOTHING for their own characters advancement. Add to that the question of how many escorts do you assign to each trader that happens to be going different directions? Since the raiders have shown up in fleets of 7 wasa's and a herc, what do you send with each trader to combat that when as a nation you might barely have that number and are very reluctant to commit what would be your port battle fleet to the lowly task of escort. How do you convince about 10 to 15 players to stop playing the game how they want to escort some traders for a few hours, then multiply that by maybe 6 as you have resources that need to be moved to different locations. It is not as easy a task as you seem to imply. Right now what you have is players logging in, checking combat news and then logging off to go do something else. This will continue until the population either drops to pre release levels and lower or players will simply accelerate the issue by changing nation to the stronger side. 

If the devs wish to stop doing their best impressions of Bethesda and actually think of the game tactically, MOVE the damn capitals to locations that open up the map instead of crowding multiple nations into a cluster leaving  about 30-40 ports wide open for whoever can get their first (which every time will be the impossible nations since they do not have a core location to protect) and instead place capitals evenly across the map and drop the pathetic excuse of "well this is how it was historically". History may have been how it was, but history shows there were a hell of a lot more than 100 people defending a region. While it may not solve the core issue of A-Holes who love to seal club, it will at least lessen the frequency of it occurring.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Galt said:

Tired of ships raiding your players? Get a coast guard together and sink 'em. If they know they will lose their ships, they are less likely to roll out in Lineships. From the sounds of it, you have a large amount of content that is coming to you but I guess you don't want to fight? Start taking ports and start sinking raiders. 

I took the initiative by assembling a KPR coast-guard that is steadily growing. We have a discord and coordinate our defences accordingly. We are there to defend new and recurring players because we're tired of the ganking. But, the effort of a small group is nothing compared to a full-fledged clan. You expect too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Beeekonda said:

r u retarded? They even did poll for Alliance system. 

The whole ''Lack of communication'' was referring to the general lack of communication between the developers and player-base. I do not know as to whether it's because they're busy with the amount of games they are developing or just lack of concern. However, from what I have observed it's 50/50.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Alliances can happen only for port battles.

Many nations would benefit of alliances as some lack leadership-pb commander and others, the players to fill the slots.

If I remember correctly, the old alliance system limited open world PvP as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances were also a good way for smaller nations to take part in some PB's outside of their main population's play window. IE, PB's involving France outside of EU prime time are extremly rare. WIth the correct alliances, I could take part in the PB'S triggered by an allied nation that has a decent US playerbase.

For exemple, a France- Sweden alliance could allow the few French USTZ stragglers to join their forces with Bork to take part in a real PB here and there (but lower BRs for PB would surely still be needed). Right now, None of em can aspire to do so, unless I'm underestimating Bork's numbers ^^

Edited by Serk
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Raekur said:

While this is what should happen you are forgetting one thing, you cant build ships when any attempts to move materials to the shipyard are intercepted and sunk by 14.2 speed raiders. Chasing them also is a gamble as they just run until any heavy hitters are so far away that they will be unable to join any engagement and that is IF they even find it. It is rather difficult to turn away raiders that have consistently shown up in ships that are at least one rank higher and are able to assault 3 different areas at the same time in ships that far exceed the capabilities of the defending forces. The only good thing is that over time the advantages that the raiders have will slowly diminish as the defenders slowly increase their capabilities. But this process is costly due to losses sustained while trying to achieve any advancements. Russia vs Britain right now is a losing battle for Britain simply due to economics. One of russia's ports alone generates over 10 million on a daily basis and it is done when the server is quiet and there are few on that can intercept their traders. British traders are on during times that the russian, danish, swede, pirate, and even spanish raiders seem to be online and are hunting running the entire coastline from tumbado all the way to great corn.

So your solution of just run out and attack them seems like a good concept, it is in fact doing exactly what they want. It is expending ships that are now hard to replace vs a nation that can easily replace any losses in seconds. So the only way to actually protect british traders would be to start having a large number of escorts to each trader. While this is true in a tactical sense it is not exactly the way most want to play the game spending HOURS just sailing along and accomplishing NOTHING for their own characters advancement. Add to that the question of how many escorts do you assign to each trader that happens to be going different directions? Since the raiders have shown up in fleets of 7 wasa's and a herc, what do you send with each trader to combat that when as a nation you might barely have that number and are very reluctant to commit what would be your port battle fleet to the lowly task of escort. How do you convince about 10 to 15 players to stop playing the game how they want to escort some traders for a few hours, then multiply that by maybe 6 as you have resources that need to be moved to different locations. It is not as easy a task as you seem to imply. Right now what you have is players logging in, checking combat news and then logging off to go do something else. This will continue until the population either drops to pre release levels and lower or players will simply accelerate the issue by changing nation to the stronger side. 

If the devs wish to stop doing their best impressions of Bethesda and actually think of the game tactically, MOVE the damn capitals to locations that open up the map instead of crowding multiple nations into a cluster leaving  about 30-40 ports wide open for whoever can get their first (which every time will be the impossible nations since they do not have a core location to protect) and instead place capitals evenly across the map and drop the pathetic excuse of "well this is how it was historically". History may have been how it was, but history shows there were a hell of a lot more than 100 people defending a region. While it may not solve the core issue of A-Holes who love to seal club, it will at least lessen the frequency of it occurring.

 

I was British for a long time, I was on the global server when rats blockaded KPR nearly 24/7, I am aware of how hard it can be when people crowd your capital like that. To start, you shouldn't be crafting ships in your capital to begin with. I am pretty sure most brits have their crafting hub down near Truxillo. If it get's too hot, move somewhere else. How I play, since you asked, is I run my main all over the map for PvP and I keep my alt trading at the same time. As soon as I hear there are hunters around I dock up and wait it out. Even if I am caught, three indianmen with 68lbs on their stern can be hard for most 5th rates to handle. People raid KPR because it's in the center of the map, which brings me to my next point. 

KPR is only close to one other capital; MT. People have set up there because that's where the players are. People run down to Truxillo because they know that is where the players are. We ran up and down the North coast of Cuba last night sinking rats because that is where the players were. Russia has Britain beat in organization and in PvP following. The strong prey on the weak until it becomes too costly for them. I get that what I am saying isn't easy but it's how you solve this problem. 

Anytime hunters are called out near Dutchlands we get a few people together to get them out of there. They usually lose their ships or they only get a couple of kills before being pushed out. Because of that, I haven't seen anyone down there in a long time. Get set up in Tumbado, El Rancho, or La Mona. Go take the fight to them, even if you're just one man. Don't worry about losing your ship, don't worry about your upgrades, just get out there and mix things up. The daytime is filled with Russians around New Orleans and Vera Cruz. You know where they are, go get 'em. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not get how the alliances feature would help the OP issue (he needs safe zone or aggressive AI), but anyway:  

I would like to have the alliance feature reintroduced to the game, in a modified and limited way. So nations can only ally to one other nation. And we avoid the big chain/blob alliances we had (server basically had 2 nations because of the previous alliance system).  

Anti Zerg measures is also needed. So the nations with the most ports and the nation with the most players should be excluded form entering into alliances with other nations. If a nation that is in an alliance become the biggest port owner or gets the most players, that nations should be forced to leave it's alliance.

  • Like 3
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...