Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Game should just have Historically accurate nations


Recommended Posts

I guess some questions that some of us have is...

Beside having people coming from a particular country, did they or did they not come with their ships and some kind of mandate? (which would make that nation relevant to the historical part of the game).
And if they did is in the time scope and geography of the game?

So yeah sure there was some Russian presence on the West Coast... but what about them in the Caribbean?
Yeah sure there was some Chinese migrants but what of them having a military fleet?

etc...

If the main goal is to attract more players, why not. But then let's go all the way and make the game Clan based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, admin said:

Thinking about Tuscany and Venice and Italy in general

  • Columbus
  • Amerigo Vespucci 
  • John Cabot 
  • Verrazzano

Were all italians


 

I'm Italian. I wouldn't join italian nation or pre-unification states in this game.. server population is too low. Would be cool if you could let us sail with the italian flags in one of the masts (mid mast for instance). Same reason why a portuguese wouldn't join Portuguese nation, so far I found two or three in total playing with/against me. I have many polish clan mates, but why aren't they in Poland currently? Because it's DEAD. Don't add new nations please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont think nations are problems its more the entire server is owned by one called russia and people just join the easiest nation so they dont lose their ships so 1 nation owns the game and any one that wants to step up gets multiflipped by their vassals or screened before they even leave port 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, admin said:

Its really simple.. Original choice in 2013 was 3 nations but then we researched the subject.

You should learn to keep on first come - simple ideas. It would be great to have 3 nations only, like Dark Age of Camelot and some other well made RvR games. Once you start overthinking about something, almost always you turn it to a mess.

Edited by Barbarosa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mexicanbatman said:

dont think nations are problems its more the entire server is owned by one called russia and people just join the easiest nation so they dont lose their ships so 1 nation owns the game and any one that wants to step up gets multiflipped by their vassals or screened before they even leave port 

No one is owning the server besides Admin.... Russia made friends, cus others like sweden, pirates and spanish hated them... this is self inflicted damage that you all are blaming russia for... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, admin said:

We are deliberatly stating North Americas. If you could get to Americas you could get to Caribbean. Read up about Russian adventures on the west coast and alaska. 

Its really simple.. Original choice in 2013 was 3 nations but then we researched the subject. First addition was United States, because we wanted USS constitution in game. If United States (did not exist before 1775) get in - all nations who were present get in. 

I'm sure ya'll will change this any way, but wasn't the game time period for ships 1700 to 1820 as the cut off.  Since US was a nation dureing that time it makes since.  Not 1600 colonies that only lasted 4 years.

I honestly don't give a fact about adding more nations in game, but I do think we need a faction system so that it's only like 4 major factions fighting against each other (made up of multi nations) with a few sub factions (Impossible nations and Pirates).   This way you can bring all the flags and nations you want into the game and folks can play what ever nation they want, but you still have to fight for your factions.  Just change the factions make up every 3-4 months and it will not grow boring and stale.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, admin said:

Nations come and go - whiners remain. 

Just the kind of professionalism you’d expect from some one responsible for the game. Dear lord... (facepalm)

 

The simple FACT is that the game does not have enough player base to have the amount of nations it does already, some irrelevant to the period, Russia, Poland, China should be deleted. Condense the nations, and give less nations more players. Make it more probable that 2 large nations could join up to take out one stagnant nation. Rather than currently needing every nation to work together to have any chance at all of fighting against Russia. It’s rediculious.
I could say a UFO landed in the Caribbean in the period this is set, doesn’t mean we need to add a UFO nation lol. 
Less is more.

If you want to add more nations, then you need to do a tonne more work to publicise the game to get a larger player base. Other wise adding more nations will cause an even greater divide of a few strong nations, and the rest are nations of a handful of players each. And that is sad. This game has great promise, if you put the work in and do PR for more players, do your best to inform and keep your word to time frames then the game could achieve what it should have.

Edited by ChineseBatman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason why we have so many nations is to make game diverse with as many sides as possible. Trouble is... we dont have enough people to fill in those sides.

Diversity of the sides is easily achieved with clan wars. Clans can go on their own or form alliances. Diversity will never be achieved by nation wars. No matter what you do, players will jump between nations and some nations will stay deserted.

An argument about non-historical nations present is irrelevant due to lots of other non-historical aspects in the game.

The argument that Portugal will be an empty nation is also irrelevant. China nation is populated by everyone’s alt but not the actual chinese (some of which remain in RE and some moved to France - I got this from my Chinese friend). I wasnt born a pirate, yet here I’m. Russian Empire has actual russians, usa, european, chinese players. Same will be in the Portugal. To me - having Portugal is more logic than having Poland or China or Russia in this game if you must cut out some of the nations.

In my humble opinion in order to fix RVR of this game and bring the balance we must walk away from nations. Keep nations as your flag and your character nationality. Introduce clan wars and player made alliances which clans can join or leave. Any one clan may only own one county at any given time. Make twO sides of RVR 1. Conquest (become an owner of the port); 2. Raid (if you already own the county you may still attack other ports for raiding them for resources, but you will have to leave after 2-3 days). Sorted. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Koltes said:

The only reason why we have so many nations is to make game diverse with as many sides as possible. Trouble is... we dont have enough people to fill in those sides.

Diversity of the sides is easily achieved with clan wars. Clans can go on their own or form alliances. Diversity will never be achieved by nation wars. No matter what you do, players will jump between nations and some nations will stay deserted.

An argument about non-historical nations present is irrelevant due to lots of other non-historical aspects in the game.

The argument that Portugal will be an empty nation is also irrelevant. China nation is populated by everyone’s alt but not the actual chinese (some of which remain in RE and some moved to France - I got this from my Chinese friend). I wasnt born a pirate, yet here I’m. Russian Empire has actual russians, usa, european, chinese players. Same will be in the Portugal. To me - having Portugal is more logic than having Poland or China or Russia in this game if you must cut out some of the nations.

In my humble opinion in order to fix RVR of this game and bring the balance we must walk away from nations. Keep nations as your flag and your character nationality. Introduce clan wars and player made alliances which clans can join or leave. Any one clan may only own one county at any given time. Make twO sides of RVR 1. Conquest (become an owner of the port); 2. Raid (if you already own the county you may still attack other ports for raiding them for resources, but you will have to leave after 2-3 days). Sorted. 

 

Some good ideas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Koltes said:

 

In my humble opinion in order to fix RVR of this game and bring the balance we must walk away from nations.

 

We are not planning to change national mechanics or number of nations, until current priorities are done - they may never get on the list as there is always something more important than this. 

Meanwhile
There IS an example of the flag without ports in the game already. This means the number of nations is in the hands of the players. This is not 2020, we dont have guaranteed borders or NATO.

Don't like how someone has colonies in the Americas? You are already at war! Destroy their investments, capture ALL their ports, burn their ships and hear lamentation of their clan leaders in chat. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, admin said:

To rephrase.. if we opened a subscription based server with just 3 nations next moth - it would start well and will then will have to be closed down, for being unpopular. 

Making changes to satisfy vocal people who claim that they speak for the majority is risky.  I suspect such changes would do little to improve the game, because there are lots of players who are not vocal.  The opposition to having a variety of nations sounds narrow minded. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it would be a different game at that point. You would need to start new developments to accommodate hundreds of players per side. Also subscription based games aren't really the norm anymore, so it probably would be unpopular.

The reason 3 nations is favorable to 10+ is because 3 is a naturally balanced number. Higher number has higher points of failure, if one nation adances 50% of the map, that means at least 4 of the smallest nations fall out completely. In a way you always end up with 3 nations while the rest become too small to compete effectively.

In 3 nation system, one nation owns 50% of the map, the other two still hold at least 25% which is plenty of stake to remain in the fight AND overthrow the leader because alliance between two is much more accomplishable than alliance between 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, admin said:

We are not planning to change national mechanics or number of nations, until current priorities are done - they may never get on the list as there is always something more important than this. 

Meanwhile
There IS an example of the flag without ports in the game already. This means the number of nations is in the hands of the players. This is not 2020, we dont have guaranteed borders or NATO.

Don't like how someone has colonies in the Americas? You are already at war! Destroy their investments, capture ALL their ports, burn their ships and hear lamentation of their clan leaders in chat. 

I get your priorities and not argue about them. I just pointed and do think that both side of the argument use irrelevant arguments.

I dont know how much you have played your own game, but I can tell you this that I have truly tried what you have suggested. Probably no one else in the pirate nation (at least I’m not aware of those) have done as much diplomacy and “lets work together” amongst pirate clans and with other nations as I did. Probably the only nation I didnt talk to is Poland. I have tried your suggestion (as others before and after me) but we failed due to two reasons:

1. The over populated Russian nation have much larger player resources. This reflects in every aspect of the game. Trading and resource gathering, ability to have immunity for their home crafting port, ability to bring large screening fleets, ability to control other nations by buying their loyalty or holding them at ransom. When they destroy smaller nations those nations do two things. They either leave the nation and go to other nation that is not at war with RE or join them making their numbers even stronger. Or they leave the game. I know this for a fact as I talk to a lot of them. Either or, this is further cripples the nation and makes the game further unbalanced and therefore less attractive to your players and hence why we have 600 online in average;

2. When you DO find allies from other nations we cant work together. Yes we can screen, but relying on screening a large nation you are going to fail at the heart of the problem solving. To be competitive you must be competitive inside the PB. With lack of human resources and small online population that plays the game smaller nations experience real struggle to bring decent PB fleet. So the second problem is when you DO create an ally the game mechanic prevents you to work together with that ally. We cant enter their ports from which we can launch screening. We cant join their PBs... Hard coded mechanic holds tight your players from toes to arms.

We can discuss all we want why players cant do what Russia is doing, but the fact remains an inconvenient thing - when players dont want to join RE and they cant fight them they leave the game.

In my view if you constantly have to wipe the map then there is something wrong with the game mechanic balance and your approach. I’m not a troll mate, as you know. I only speak from my heart. I have purchased your game 12 times and between my accounts clocking about 10k hours. I own all of your DLC. I have played since 2016 and during all that time it pains me to watch people leaving for exact same reasons.

While the answer is so close... in fact right there in front of you. Just reach for it and take it.

Doing the mechanic right I believe with all my heart that this game can easily have over populated servers. And not one. But for this you must start seeing NA differently.

Hire me to be your game designer, content and community manager. I guarantee you triple average server population number by the end of the year. By end of next year I guarantee you will have 3 over populated servers. You can pay me on commission basis paid on anything above your current figures.

Consider it an official offer ☺️

o7

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

well it would be a different game at that point. You would need to start new developments to accommodate hundreds of players per side. Also subscription based games aren't really the norm anymore, so it probably would be unpopular.

The reason 3 nations is favorable to 10+ is because 3 is a naturally balanced number. Higher number has higher points of failure, if one nation adances 50% of the map, that means at least 4 of the smallest nations fall out completely. In a way you always end up with 3 nations while the rest become too small to compete effectively.

In 3 nation system, one nation owns 50% of the map, the other two still hold at least 25% which is plenty of stake to remain in the fight AND overthrow the leader because alliance between two is much more accomplishable than alliance between 5.

With what ive seen 3 nations would mean 2 of them hugbox, destroy the third, go inactive, then bitch on the forums.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Potemkin said:

With what ive seen 3 nations would mean 2 of them hugbox, destroy the third, go inactive, then bitch on the forums.

eventually it would stabalize, if pop numbers were even there may be no need for alliances or treatise. Even if one nation takes the hit, they can still recover if they hold 33.3% (repeating of course) of the server population.

That's idealic conditions, un-ideal conditions is 12 nations where half hold only single digit population percentage. Those nations will not recover, as their stake is too low. Pareto distribution, most of the 12 nations will be absorbed by the top 3, and those top 3 will always check and balance themselves to prevent 1 nation dominating.

Reason being, because out of 3 nations each are competitive, but out of 12 nations only a handful are competitive, the rest get absorbed but not destroyed, leaving smallest nations in limbo. The idea is not to allow this (because it's self harm) and keep everyone within the top 3 so the war continues in it's most ideal conditions.

Edited by Slim McSauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

eventually it would stabalize, if pop numbers were even there may be no need for alliances or treatise. Even if one nation takes the hit, they can still recover if they hold 33.3% (repeating of course) of the server population

We had alliances. Biggest nations signed an alliance controlled large portions of the map - there is no difference with what it is now. 

The only natural limiter of large nations is crew recruitment and conversion times (you cant recruit crew in a port you just captured and 50 in game years must pass before you can recruit or repopulate with immigrants)
The second best limiter is forced alliances. But forced alliances while increasing RVR options, drastically reduce global pvp 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...