Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
  • 9

New feature proposals - Proposals on too many nations issue?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 17

I dont find it a problem but more a meaningless thing. All it does is lets the same people jump nations,  piss everybody else off and then change nations again. Repeat, recycle over and over. This is easier with more nations. Also no ramifications. If you polish now, u do as you like. Nobody can touch you for it is not a nation. This also stems from issue we have no real pirates in game 

 

My quick thoughts and i suppose they will not be very popular with many, including you

- Make pirates pirate again. Pirates in line ships? A joke. Pirates cannot craft bigger than 5th rate. Even that a stretch. Pirates become clan based. Yes no pirate nation, just pirate clans. Pirate clan can attack other pirate clan/player of other clan. 

- Remove poland. Dead for long time.

- Remove china. Alt nation made up of other nations alts. 

Start here, see what happens. 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9

I think the problem is not the number of nations, but the positive feedback mechanics in the game. My point of view comes from many years of complex system analysis. If you want to have a self-balanced system you cannot only have positive feedbacks, but you need negative ones. Otherwise, you quickly spin into very homogeneous -and boring- systems. I don't really think there are too many nations, or that @admin should re-balance players/nations. The system should be self-balanced, and let players pick their colors as they find interesting, with a more sophisticated rewards system.

The problem, as I see it, is that the reward system favours a "winner takes all" result. This seems, on a glance, both historically accurate, and a reasonable reward system for a game which, stripped down to its minimum, is about combat and conquest. In a nutshell, if you are playing nation X, and conquer as many ports as possible, your chances of success are way higher than nation Y with only 2 ports, given the same number of players in both nations. However, as many have commented, large nations will concentrate more players (homogeneous, boring system) because no one wants to spend their playtime struggling just to collect a few resources. Of course, once you are in the large nation, you have access to a number of interesting ports, with a reasonable safety, which allow you to develop your economy with very little risk. It allows for clans to develop ports with very little risk, thus creating a positive feedback, of better access to resources, ships, etc. This in turn further attracts players fed up with struggling in their small nation, etc, etc. 

The solution, in my opinion, follows the implementation of negative feedbacks. The only negative feedback that I can clearly identify in the game is that trade is riskier the further away a port is, but of course the reward is also higher. This is very reasonable. I propose that some negative feedbacks, that is mechanisms in the game that will counter the "winner takes all" result, will help counter the zerg nation, and the unbalanced player base each nation has, regardless of how many (or which, historically accurate or not) nations there are in the game. This will introduce heterogeneity and self-balancing.

Examples: 

Large range empires fail at logistics, governance and coordination. As the central power is further away, and less capable of acting on its territories, inefficiencies and corruption appears. This matters, as it makes a large nation difficult to sustain. That means that the further a nation holds ports from its capital, more inefficiencies appear, e.g., the cost of port upgrades spikes, cost of building is higher, labour hours are less efficient. Corruption may appear in the form of an elevated tax that is lost from the port.

Another issues it that a large extension of a nation in the game does not necessarily imply that it is more at risk of attacks, which it should be both for realism and to generate complexity and difficulty for large nations (which is a negative feedback). Because hostility missions can only be gained from a neighboring port, you can have vast areas of your nation which are effectively 100% safe, absolutely no risk in the forseeable future. The currently russian ports in the gulf of Mexico are good example... I think it is something like 58 ports, with maybe 5 or 6 (not sure of this number) being able to gain hostility. Compare to China, with 6 ports, with, I guess around 4 able to gain hostility (unsure of number again). Like mexican russia, the northern ports along the Atlantic coast of the US are essentially risk-free if the entire coastline is held (as it is right now) by a single nation. The islands are of course not the case (Hispaniola, Cuba, the Antilles and the Bahamas), which are prone to be attacked from multiple fronts, which favours that they are held by different nations. Although I think these mechanics make a lot of sense (you don't attack stuff that is very far away from the territory you control), they create a very powerful positive feedback in the game. This could be broken by enabling long-range raid missions (high-risk, high gain) so that those "safe ports", which is usually not where players are lurking are no longer safe. I don't really see long-range hostility and conquest, since it is very impractical (sailing long distance for a RvR, although with the proposed teleport, it might become interesting). 

Another way of introducing a negative feedback is that once a nation exceeds a certain power (number of ports, normalised by number of front lines and number of players or something like that), additional rewards spawn for players who take against that nation. For example, missions targeted against that nation, with unusual rewards. This is high risk / high gain for attackers, and a big annoyance on defenders. Thus, if you don't like being the target of a manhunt, you might not be that enticed to play in the overpowered zerg nation. This is also interesting for solo players, who are not deeply involved in the RvR and clan dynamics, as you can still fly your colors proudly, and help out your nation.
Many people have suggested official alliances, which would also help in this direction. These alliances could be brokered in the game interface, with specific goals in mind. That is, two nations could ally until ports X and Y are captured, negotiate temporary truces -enforced by the game, not by the goodwill of clans and players-. Allying your nation/clan with the superpower should have a certain danger, for example, additional rewards appear for attacking you (as you are a superpower ally) as well.

I think that @admin has always had in mind to implement mechanics that favour PvP and RvR, which is great... that is what the game is about. However, if you actually engage and win in PvP and RvR as a nation, the winner does take it all, and everyone else struggles. These negative feedback mechanics still favour PvP and RvR, but create discomfort for superpowers, which in turn favours self-balancing of the game.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to argue properly.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3

Changing the number of nations would be a dramatic change anyway, this could result in no change...

  • Corruption to give a negative impact to bigger economies is a way (see @rediii's proposal). This is historical. Corruption was the worsed in Spain for instance when gold rivers began to flow from West Indias.
  • Impact on ship quality. This is historical, well described by Patrick O'Brian in Desloation Island (HMS Leopard builders, and woods). This would impact battle results for big factions, with auto balancing effect.
  • Impact on RVR. Balance the 1000 point target. Small nations should win at 500, big nation needing 1500. Big means 50 ports or more.

The port bonus repartition can also be reworked.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3
On 4/28/2020 at 4:44 PM, admin said:

Captains. 

Captains if you think too many nations is a problem. Please propose logical, elegant solutions to too many nations issue. 

 

my suggestion would be the following:

Base (original) Nations:
British
France
Spain
Dutch
US (American)
Kalmar Union (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) - or we let them be separated - but I think that would fit better.

Pirates  - located in Mortimer Town only ( I would see them as Part of the Base Nations too). 
They (Pirates) can attack (loot/raid - what we already have) but not conquer an other Nations Ports - they can anchor in any town - they can't be conquered.  

Additional (Child) Nations: ( they don't start in free Towns but in Capitol Towns based on historical events)
China - base location is the US Nation - Harbor is Charleston - they can attack and conquer any other Nations Port or Player.
Germany (Prussia) - base location is the British Nation  - Harbor is Port Royal  - they can attack and conquer any other Nations Port or Player.
Portuguese - base location is Spain - Harbor is La Habana -  they can attack and conquer any other Nations Port or Player.
Russia - base location is the Kalmar Union - Harbor is Christiansted and or Gustavia - they can attack and conquer any other Nations Port or Player.
All those (Child)Nations have access to their Base Nations Ports and vice versa. They can't attack each other (Flip) Ports or Player.

If you want to add another Nation then you can add them easily to the other Nations.
for instance as an example:
Austria - base location is the Dutch Nation (because there is a historical background) - Harbor is Willemstad - they can attack an conquer any other Nations Port
Poland - could be the the French Nation

and it should not be a problem when several small nations are located in a Base Nations capitol city. for instances Australian Players (Nation) can the be also in Port Royal.

Flags:
Every Country will sail their own Flag as ensign (war flag) on the Ship - the Base Nation flag on top Mast

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

La Tortue False Admiralty:

For me nation is not a problem , but the fact you need port for have access to full content (combat medal rewards/perk reset/ect), make player can't enjoy smaller nation without alt

Add a Contrebande admiralty in La Tortue port ( everyone have this port), for access full admiralty content with price maybe 10% more expensive (like this national admiralty still better)

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

Greetings Sir! 

I will gladly try to help you answering your question.

First, a bit of brotherhood's history. When we created the brotherhood and started playing together we had a very hard time setting up everything (the shipyard, academy, forge, mines, forests, workshop) as other players didn't want to play with us because we were using capped ships. May sound weird but it took us weeks of work. Back in those days I suffered from stress (my heart isn't young anymore) cause we were always short of gold coins, silver coins, tools and medallions.

I can't figured it out how would it be losing my cities. The most pausible outcome would be losing  all my peps, my friends, my second family too. We have been lucky so far although when we were under attack a few proposed moving the brotherhood to russia, a place where our brotherhood was going to be safe.

Some of the aforementioned members moved to russia as they lost the ports where they had invested tools and gold coins in the forests. 

Nowadays, our brotherhoods are so short of players that we don't have the means to defend our cities. However, my biggest pain is I can not longer play with those  who moved to other countries. I keep me in touch with them but it is not the same.

Losing cities is not good, losing friends and family is a tragedy.

 

Cheers,

Salazar

 

 

 

 

Edited by Capitan Salazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

I don't think that the number of nations is a problem. The problem are big nations, that are joined by many more and grow even bigger. Right now it is Russia, tomorrow maybe some other nation.

The problem I see it that a strong nation owning the whole gulf of Mexico has a very comfortable position of trading and crafting with only a few raiders in their waters.

On the other hand people sailing around Mortimer or KPR are constantly raided, even the capitals of Denmark, Sweden and France are close enough together to have daily visitors and with them battles. 

My suggestion is to give the impossible Nations some uncapturable capitals in places on the map that are far away from the existing capitals. There might be two or three capitals in the gulf then.

To have fighting content, we need a good mixture of different nations around the whole map.

To avoid nations growing too big, the price of expansion should rise with the number of owned ports, maybe higher hostility costs,  maybe higher upkeep for ports, maybe something else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

I share the opinion that @rediii and a few others have expressed. The problem is not too many nations but that problems inherent to unlimited colonial expansion are not simulated in game. Expansion has only positives and none of the real life negatives. I’d love to see such elements in game such as corruption, native unrest, additional expense to control a far away empire, and town needs. But I am not proposing that because I just don’t think such a rework is going to happen in this version of Naval Action. So....

There should be a way for Devs to measure actual national power. It would be some sort of formula involving PVP xp earned, PVE xp earned, reals earned, ports owned, tax income, etc. per national captain hour in game.

My proposal:

We don’t know yet the mechanism for setting port battles under the upcoming flag system but use this national power number to determine how difficult it is to set a port battle. For example, it might take 4 times the effort/time/resources for Russia (assuming they are the strongest) to create a port battle than it does the weakest nation.

Scale effort required for port battles to national power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would propose that we only have the nation's that we're really in the Carribiean Historically! 

Everyone who loves the game would keep playing it no matter what nation! And you mabey resolve the issue with the Overpopulated Russian nation since ATM of course if u are Russian Player you like Playing in Russian Nation Pirates are Fine they where in the Carribiean Sweden, Denmark, etc etc were Small but still they were there! Poland Prussia Russia China etc etc not really a historical...... 

It would be Hard though since the game is no longer in Beta and I don't think it is possible without a partial port wipe for some sort..... 

Best Regards from Germany 

Stay Safe stay Healthy everyone 

Edited by Swedish Berserker
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No map reset.

What do people think will happen??? That nations like Spain, US, Dutch... will grow? The playerbase is the problem, not the map. Russia might still sit on 20% or more of the playerbase, they will still have more players. Then in about 6 months people will start saying we need a new map reset...

Edited by Nixolai
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

IMO the bigger issue isn't that there are necessarily too many nations, but that there are too many in 1 nation. Part of that problem stems from the fact that ports and their investments (Shipyards, port bonuses, etc.) are mandatory if you really want to be competitive. This results in people choosing to join the larger factions more than the smaller factions because they want the security of those investments. Speaking from experience, losing level 3 shipyards + production (academies, workshops, sheds, fams etc.) can result in losses of over 100k doubloons and 20M reals (depending on the buildings) and is really not enjoyable. For the average individual that is just not tenable. I still have yet to rebuild my L3 shipyard after Truxillo fell to Sweden all those months ago.

 

In order for the nations to really be balanced out, there needs to not only be an incentive to join smaller nations, but also decrease the costs of investments and buildings significantly so investment security is not as much of an issue. The average player could spend weeks and months gathering materials for 1 level 3 shipyard. Multiply that cost over a 30-40 person clan, and you can see why going to the larger nations at some point becomes a popular decision. Almost never does anyone go from a large to a small nation. Reducing investments down to around 10% of their current costs (including shipyards, buildings, port bonuses etc.) would alleviate a lot of the problems, with people being able to spin up more crafting ports anywhere if they lose one and continuing the fight.

 

Perhaps also there can be penalties for larger nations, for example Nations that get really large could have provincial revolts in ports/counties that don't get much traffic/make much money with the percentage increasing the more ports they have (make it harder to dominate the map as 1 nation).

 

Potential changes to reducing nations, or removing nations entirely, are too late IMO to implement into NA as it exists (perhaps a lesson to be learned if/when a future NA 2 comes out) without pissing off the entire community of 1 nation (or everyone with a map wipe). The best time to address this was before release when the same comments were being made.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I like the game.  But I'm easy to please.  I've aways been Great Britain.  We are currently a shadow of our former strength on the War server, but I still like playing.

I hear lots of players complaining that Russia is too large.  There seems to be a belief that a huge overpowered nation dwarfs all others and all the other nations don't have a chance.    The huge verses small nations is not a issue of too many nations.  Also as Great Britain it seems that Russia is not our primary foe.  Seemed like Sweden, Spain, rats and Prussia have a greater influence on our demise than Russia has.

The other complaint is  that players can change nations just to cause grief.  I can't see how reducing the number of nations will solve this.  Even with only a few nations players could still switch sides.   The Forger Papers are a moot point, because if a player has multiple accounts he can change nations at any time, and he doesn't even have to wait 30 days, he can particpate in another nation without leaving his current one.

Perhaps the game mechanics could involve some sort of economy so that taxes increase, or expenses grow, as a nation increases in size and population.  Create a balance where maintaining a massive number of; ports, and active players, becomes increasing difficult to sustain.  Other wise it doesn't matter if there are only 2 nations.  Not if the issue is that one nation is huge and the other is small.  Creating a house of cards structure where if a single nation becomes a monster it also risks sliding off a point of no return where production and port finances crash, at least temporarily.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You have already taken it too far with the original build including Dane, Swede and even the US really, should have kept it simple and had just the main GB, France, Spain, Dutch then a pirate pop outta neutral ports with some build restrictions on rate ships as that isnt accurate for them to have SOL, but in all honesty the game population is no where near big enough to support the amount of nations we have, maybe if u had 20k players and a pop balance feature then it might be better but where the game is at is u have big nations and other nations having alliances with those nation making them even bigger so its just no need to have these extra nations, POTBS had far better examples on how a game should be structured, im pretty sure u devs used to play it, so take some more ideas from their research and apply it in better way if need be as that game worked well just this has far better combat but that game wins hands down on overall structured RvR, Crafting and Economy.

But unfortunately u have gone too far and i fear removing nations now will hurt the already small player base of the game and those who have put in all the work to get where they are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Additional tax on ports

Like many others I think the number of nations is less a problem than so many of the players being part of only one nation. Most players won't like it, actually, but taxes are a proven possibility to steer people's behaviour.

So, I propose an additional tax on ports.

  • Tax to be paid by every player in reals
  • Tax is progressive: the more ports a nation owns, the higher the tax per port.
  • Tax is only due on days the player logs in. (So, you don't get broke during vacation.)

Just an example with arbitrary numbers:

Nation owning 0 ports: no tax for players of that nation

Nation owning 1 - 5 ports: 1 real/port and day for each player of that nation

5 - 10 ports: 2 reals

11-20 ports: 4 reals

21-40 ports: 8 reals

41-70 ports: 16 reals

71-110 ports: 32 reals

111-160 ports 64 reals

These numbers would mean for Poland: tax oasis, China: 12 reals/day, GB: 80 reals/day, SE: 320 reals/day, and RU: 7.680 reals/day.

(RU owning thrice the ports of the second placed nation)

 

cons:

players joining the zerg for easy game will probably hate it

 

pros:

We have a sink of reals as the tax is lost to players. Should dampen inflation in reals considerably

Players get an incentive to join smaller nations.

Only ports that matter to a nation will be attacked and defended (is that a pro or a con?).

 

As a countermeasure you could reduce the fee for telportation.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Fundamentally, this is not actually about too many nations, or too many people in a nation. The question is actually about national viability without a large player base to maintain required ports for the crafting of ships and guns I understand that we want RvR to have consequences, however if a nation loses its main crafting port, players of that Nation will not be able to compete with a large Nation's ships. If we can disassociate combat capability from having a specific port, we should slowly see an end to the zerg.

One way to do this would be to give each player 45-55 points to customize their shipyard in their national capital and build special forests/farms. This could require investment by the player, or just be given to them. If this was the case then a nation losing its main crafting Port wouldn't hurt as much as they could rebuild their crafting capability in their national capital.

If we want to stop the zerg, we must disassociate owning a crafting port from the ability to effectively fight.

Edited by SwordSmith95
A few typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1

There are only 2 options.  

1 - Do away with nations completely other than 4-5 starter nations that act in a PVP/PVE and light RVR capacity and introduce a Free For All faction that is clan based (each clan can fly one of the current nations flags).  FFA Faction operates in the current climate of port loss/captures and no restrictions on RVR.  Aka make the rest impossible nations.  Operate out of free towns and capture territory.

OR

2 - Fixed alliances that are pre-determined on the map and function in the same capactiy they did back in the fine woods days.  Don't like your current alliance?  leave using the forger DLC.  

For 12 nations and steady player base of 800-900 the game is simply far too diluted to provide content to all factions.  end of story.

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 10
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1

I did like the faction suggestion that @admin made a good while ago as a way to help nations work together and fight other stronger nations.  The only big changes I would make is below.

 

  • IMPOSSIBLE NATIONS:   This is currently Russia, Poland, Prussia and China.  They are just that, the hard core of the hard core.  You get no capital, you have all your ports taken away, you are playing hard core mode and no one likes you.  All factions are at war with you.   These nations are more about PvP and just being a thorn in side of other nations.   Maybe put a cap on the number of ports they can each own so there isn't a zerg like we have right now of them.  I would say no more than 10 ports per nation (could be bumped up to say 20).   This game was suppose to be about the core nations not these nations that honestly never had historical influence in this region during the time period.  Other nations could be added in the future to this group.  

 

  • CORE NATIONS:   This is French, Dutch, Dane, GB, US, Spain, Swede.  You have 7 nations, but only three factions.   The two strongest nations will randomly get one week nation as it's faction member.   The three middle nations will be part of there own faction..   The way you can do this is take the top two nations lets say French and Dutch in that order.  Than take the bottom two Spain and Swede.   French number one will be paired up with Swede the lowest nation.   Dutch would be Paired up with Spin.   Dane, GB, US will be part of there own faction.  This kinda balances nations to be some what equal and we can go off the ports owned (or points since some ports are better than others.)  Main RvR should be about these nations not the others.   I wouldn't do a map wipe, but have every 3-4 months have a winner.  The winner nation gets some prize, I would make it a tier thing like how POTBS did, so winning got 3, middle got 2 and looser got 1 or something of what every it is.  Than switch the nations around for the next 3-4 months.  Maybe give weakest nations a bonus to XP or something.   This will hopefully have nations rotating in and out of the middle group as some get more powerful and others weak.

 

  • Pirates:   Good old pirates.  Lets make them actually like pirates.  Bring back the way to become a pirate is by attacking your own nation.   I would even go as far as removing them from chargen.  If you get tired of being a pirate you can always delete your char or use forge papers (a pardon per say).  every one (nations) hates pirates so they aren't allowed to join any factions.  In fact bring back FFA battles as even other pirates hate each other.  This is suppose to be a hard core faction of it's own mainly for PvPer's of the OW.  I would even go as far as remove them from RvR totally and only give them a few spread out perm ports they can work out of.  While they can still have Mort as a captial they have own not other ports in that area.   The ports they have perm are mainly shallow ports are pirate havens, Rudy Cove, Morgans Bay, etc etc that was traditionally used as such.   We have enough shallow ports spread out all over the map to give them a place all over.  Pirate havens are like free towns but only pirates can set up out post there, do crafting (workshops and maybe forges) and they are limited to only level 2 shipyards (after all it's shallow ports so can always say even limit it to level 1's).   I mean lets be honest lets make pirates what they truely are.  I will jump at a heart beat to return being a pirate if they where changed to this.  Pirates should not be easy, they should gain there goods from OW conflict for the most part.  Yes I know folks will have alts, but who cares let them if they pay for them.   

I think over all a lot of us would like some form of Dev control factions so that there can be a balance made in the game which we do not have currently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1

Nation possibilities are no issue. Crowd control per nation is the issue, a mechanic such as the one Redii suggested with some changes is something that should have been set at release along with the wipe. 

Unfortunately with now established  player bases,  such mechanics will in no way encourage a move from one nation to another. Unless the notion of seasons is implemented and the map along with buildings is wiped every "whatever period you see fit". each player at the beginning of a season must pick a nation again.

Port would go neutral but keep the investment there is in from one season to the next to reduce the grind. that is my two cents on it.

 

 

The real issue requiring to be tackled is alt accounts. Nations, crowd control, alts are all tightly and deeply tied. You cannot fix nation balance if you dont fix alts account. We currently dont even know the real population numbers per nation simply due to the fact you cannot differentiate alt and main accounts. How could you balance nation without real numbers?

Because of a business decision, alt accounts have been allowed and destroy the principe of one player, one nation. the solution would be to force players to declare a steam main account that cannot be changed and to declare alt accounts on this main one. All accounts will be moved to the nation of the main account and cannot be changed unless the main account changes nation. and eventually you could have a single steam account and multiple profiles if you think a little further in this direction.

If a player is caught using an undeclared alt account, the alt account is linked to the main account, alt reset to 0 and moved to main account nation. Plus some penalty on main account like demote 4 ranks and destroy all buildings. This way you control alt population, fix economy ressources and face the real numbers of player in game and per nation.

then and only then, you can tackle nation crowd control. 

Edited by sigh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
On 4/28/2020 at 9:44 AM, admin said:

Captains. 

Captains if you think too many nations is a problem. Please propose logical, elegant solutions to too many nations issue. 

 

admin. After reading all of the forum suggestions I think it might be helpful to hear Game-Labs thoughts on the question. If you have your own solution for shrinking the number of nations, it would be good to know so that we could comment on your ideas. 

One nation proposal that I am definitely on board with is making Pirates the only hardcore faction, with only 4 dedicated map locations to operate out of: One in the Gulf of Mexico, one in the Caribbean Sea, one in the Bahama chain and Kidds Island. That would give them permanent but limited port access to all of the map.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
3 hours ago, admin said:

Captains. 

Captains if you think too many nations is a problem. Please propose logical, elegant solutions to too many nations issue. 

 

1401291293_Prsentation1.png.7190baefe62e67e34ddab03211d86c5e.png

  • Forger DLC allows to switch between the Blocks A,B,C
  • RvR is possible only between the Blocks A,B,C but not within a Block
  • PvP is only possible between the Blocks A,B,C but not within a Block
  • The Block holding most ports/ player numbers is blocked from creating new accounts or joining by forger
  • To solve the "but I want to play with my friend who just created an account" issue the Block at position 3 in conquest competion gets free forger transfers (no dlc) and "invite a friend to the game" allows an account that is created since xxx amount of days and has not used forger since xxx days to invite 1 friend to the Block  at place 1 in the conquest competion

 

 

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2

There is no elegant way out of this. Was adding China to the game profitable at least?

3 ways.

1 - Delete some nations ( that will cause upset among some players and probably its not possible with Flags DLC)

2 - Make it possible for 1 nation to totally conquer another one. Defeated nation cant attack conquerors anymore (that will cause upset among some players and would require seasonal map reset - I dont like seasons but there's nothing else besides RvR to do in NA anyway)

3 - Develop more single player, small group content so loosing nations will still have something to do in game instead of changing nations. Make nations less dependad from crafting ports ( this option require a lot of game developement)

 

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
Answer this question...

×   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...