PVE Server and PVE zones - Preliminary announcement.

[AngryPanCake]

23 minutes ago, Hagen v Martius said:

1. If they do not include all resources in the PvE zone it'll be impossible for PvE players to play the game.

And that's something they likely want to avoid. So they will have to have all resources in there. Thus the zone becomes self-sustaining and thus it's a care-bear zone of perfect security.

LeBoiteux explained some of the issues with that that I see as well after your post in way better detail than I can be bothered to go into right now.

The worst is, that if they keep the towing mechanic you can literally have a perfectly 100% secure shipyard and trading area and then just send the ships over to where you want to sell them with absolutely no risk. Yay...

And let's not forget that all this really does is promote the use of Economy alts that sit snug and save in the Gulf to supply the PvP area/your clan/your main character with ships and no way for your enemies to stop you from doing so.

Again, some people will probably like that this will increase the amount of "organised" PvP, I realise that and I can respect that. But that's not what I for one want from the game. Which, again, is fine and all, I'm neither whining nor demanding anything, but in the end it would simply mean I would get bored and leave. That's just a fact of life.

 

2. Again, if they want a PvE zone that is viable for PvE players that means it'll have to be self-sustaining, making your point moot. And geez, imagine what will happen on this forum and in the reviews and with the player numbers if one of the two zones has a set of resources the other won't. A weapon shitstorm to surpass Metal Gear. 

 

3. It's massively different, mate. As in I can still attack players next to towers. If I am willing and able to pull it off they're an added factor of danger not a 100% protection. They do not make it utterly impossible to attack. I mean if I wanted to I could do a suicide run with a fireship then the towers would actually be helping me.

What you can compare it with is running for the Green zone around the capitals, which represent a total protection from attackers and are equally as annoying from a gameplay perspective.

Well then again they buffed the towers and forts on testbed so I guess they want them to be total ship interdiction systems after all...

 

4. That's amiable and I salute your ability to like things you don't like, but I don't see how or why I should force myself to like proposed changes when I see major issues with them to be honest. I will try the game after the changes, but I don't see how this will create an enjoyable environment.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns in detail, that is exactly what is needed to troubleshoot and figure out solutions, instead of just posting one liners that say "this is not going to work" or "this is going to kill the game" or the commonly used useless threat "I'm outta here, not playing anymore" and so forth. By providing such details, especially from long time experienced players, developers will hopefully take them into account and try to come up with something that is workable.

When I purchased this game, I knew it was an Early Access, prone to wipes and major changes! so, I'm resigned to accept things more easily. If I go on and split hairs, I actually don't "like things I don't like", rather I accept them as long as there is some sort of compromise. It sucks for me and the rest of PvE players to lose the dedicated server, but, for the good of game improvement, I will accept the fact of being merged into one server to try different things until the game is good enough for release. I say good enough cause it will never be perfect and will never please every single customer/player.

1- Self sustaining PvE economy: As far as I am concerned, I am fine with not having a self sustained economy if it will cause a "care-bear" area or promote care-bears. It seems like "care-bearing" (if this is a correct term) is disliked by the community in general. Not sure how PvE'rs feel about care-bears, I had not gotten any signal one way or the other from my extensive chats on the PvE server. Towing mechanic: I don't believe I have tried this option before, but if the towing crosses into the PvP area, shouldn't it lose it's protection and be subject to player's attacks? That would prevent safe travel outside the PvE zone. Use of Economy alts: this had come up in the chat and what I "speculated" was that if the economy is bilateral, then those Alts are at the same risk of being targeted as any other player leaving the "safe zone", be it PvE or PvP player. The only issue I see is the crafting of ships in PvE zones then TP'ing them into outposts in the PvP zone, thus being immune to capture during transit. Therefore, the question is: would people be OK with limiting TP to only within zones and no TP from one zone to the other? This will bring an issue of distance from the GoM to the rest of the OW, as raised by another player earlier. So what would be an acceptable solution for the distance issue, a different layout of the PvE/PvP zones?

Rebel Witch, I believe had talked a little about the way it was done in EVE online (which I have never played), Maybe she can elaborate a little more and see what we can learn from a game that seems to have been successful.

3- It's massively different: I guess it's all relative to skill. Some players are more skilled than others. Some can capture ships right under the noses of coastal batteries and before they reach safe harbor or green zones you mentioned, others are not that good. Depending on the distance from a port/capital, one can successfully chase a prize and others not so much. Knowing there is a green zone or for that matter a safe border, one needs to make sure he/she captures the prize before entering the green zone or crossing the border into the PvE.

Being very detailed in your post about the concerns you expressed, what do you think would be acceptable workarounds/troubleshoots to alleviate them (your concerns)?

 

[AngryPanCake]

27 minutes ago, Casmund said:

...not the criminal element of the PvP side that choose to have a second account for disreputable purposes.  Again It feels odd using labels because I bet most people are part  PvE minded and part PvP  not all or nothing.

Cheers

You lost me at using labels, which is neither helpful no constructive.

As far as using Alts, I do not think it being "criminal", if someone can afford to spend money and buy more than one copy of the game, then more power to him/her. This is more revenue for Game Labs and they will do nothing to prevent that, no matter how many people dislike or frown upon it.

[Hagen v Martius]

This horrible forum software is stopping me from structuring this post the way I like it. I could never get used to how it handles quoting.

Sorry if it looks wonky in places.

Quote

When I purchased this game, I knew it was an Early Access, prone to wipes and major changes! so, I'm resigned to accept things more easily.

I'm all for the wipe. Don't get me wrong.

In fact I was one of the people that was asking for a full wipe along with the economy changes late last year.

 

Quote

1- Self sustaining PvE economy:

Exactly 

It shouldn't be, or the things that have been mentioned multiple times here will likely break it for the rest of the game world. But from all the info we have and from what we have in this thread it seems - to me at least - they want to set it up in such a way that as someone only interested in PvE I can play in the Gulf bubble and be fine. Which then leads back to all the things that have been mentioned over and over again.

 

As for towing ships, that's simply a paid teleport. Kinda like you can send resources from one Freeport to another for a fee, only it works with every single port as long as the destination has an outpost and that isn't hostile. For towing to not be gamebreaking with a self-sustaining bubble in the world, they'd need to disable the towing thing from PvE-to-PvP (and vice versa) and, l like you said, the TP as well.

But that still leaves us with a bubble that is either not really viable for solely PvE players to use or the only viable place to do any economy stuff, thus essentially wiping the rest of the world clear of any normal shipping.

 

Quick edit.

Slingshotting, as in sending ships to outposts after a battle, on the other side of the divide between the two modes needs to be disabled as well obviously.

Quick edit over.

 

As for EvE. 

Every single thing in the game (goods, money, game-time, ships, clothing for your toon, corpses, you name it) is an actual thing that has to be shipped. Period.

There is no teleporting of any goods whatsoever.

 

And you can get attacked and destroyed anywhere at any time. Literally. Sure, your attacker will die as well if he attacks you in the NPC protected areas in the centre of the gameworld, but you will be dead and your goods floating in space to be picked up the friends of the guy that just blew you to pieces.

Fantastic system as far as I am concerned, but not really for everyone. Also has the massive boon of being fairly unique as far as MMOs go so that helps it make seem more magical than it really is.

 

And if you think people use words "care-bear" or "PvE" with scorn or disdain here, you really never did come across an EvE discussion, eh? 

 

Quote

Being very detailed in your post about the concerns you expressed, what do you think would be acceptable workarounds/troubleshoots to alleviate them (your concerns)?

Separated servers would be the only way, IMO. Which clearly they no longer want to.

Any combination of forced PvE zones with PvP in the rest of the world surrounding can only end with both sides on the matter being unhappy unfortunately, I think. Heck, the Greenzone around the capital was a mistake already.

I mean, assuming I would only be into PvE and really not like the idea of other people being able to disrupt me, I'd hate that I could "only" do so in the Gulf and not see the rest of the map. So even with this weird bubble on the map PvE players will be limited in their enjoyment even if they have all the resources in there. Especially since the Gulf is really boring for sailing, what's with the continuous coast and endless stretches of water with absolutely nothing in them in the middle.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Hagen v Martius

[Casmund]

1 hour ago, AngryPanCake said:

1. You lost me at using labels, which is neither helpful no constructive.

2.As far as using Alts, I do not think it being "criminal", if someone can afford to spend money and buy more than one copy of the game, then more power to him/her. This is more revenue for Game Labs and they will do nothing to prevent that, no matter how many people dislike or frown upon it.

 

1. Anyways the label thing was people seem to be  grouping people into you are a 100 percent pvper or pve person wich isn't the case in most instances.

 

2. Hagen v Marti  was the one suggesting that people would be abusing Alt accounts so my phrasing was in reference to that reply.  I don't have a problem with alts. I know I won't abuse it but of course I  have a sense of ethics and tend to just PvE and craft and do organized PvP (port battles etc)... and according to others some of the  the more freelance PvP minded among us do not.  

3 I also like some of witch's ideas.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Casmund
maybe it would be misunderstood as pointed at someone when it was a general comment

[AngryPanCake]

14 minutes ago, Hagen v Martius said:

Separated servers would be the only way, IMO. Which clearly they no longer want to.

I know, my thought exactly!

I am still hopeful this is just a "work in progress/troubleshooting" period and a dedicated PvE server will be available at release. Sir Texas (not sure if he has some type of connections) mentioned it once or twice. Not knowing the economics of separate servers, it would be a great disappointment if Game Labs gave up on a promising PvE type game play. I would have thought this would be the icing on the cake as far as revenue is concerned in addition to the larger revenue from PvP MMO style gaming.

Anyway, this is all wishful thinking and again, thanks for all the players who have contributed so far.

PS:

Quote

And if you think people use words "care-bear" or "PvE" with scorn or disdain here, you really never did come across an EvE discussion, eh?

No I didn't think they were used with scorn, just terms of endearment used to describe people with different play styles...

You should check out World of Tanks, especially in-game chat!

[Raekur]

59 minutes ago, Hagen v Martius said:

And if you think people use words "care-bear" or "PvE" with scorn or disdain here, you really never did come across an EvE discussion, eh? 

 

Actually in a majority of the comments here the term Carebear has been in a negative manner. It would seem that the greater part of the population here are strictly combat orientated and look down on those that prefer trade or crafting. The part I find amusing is when the players who do no craft go looking for something that needs to be crafting and get upset at the price to produce it.

[Genma Saotome]

1 hour ago, Hagen v Martius said:

Separated servers would be the only way, IMO. Which clearly they no longer want to.

Assuming server = 1 computer, yes, they want to reduce the number of servers.

But they do not have to go with 1 server = 1 virtual world.  They can overlay PvE and PvP on one machine keeping each wholly invisible to the other.  Tag each ship with a label for PvE or PvP and make some changes to the .json files so the data lines are grouped by the same tag and bingo, you can have n virtual worlds on 1 machine and nobody would know beans about anything that wasn't tagged the same way as they were presently playing.

All of the virtual worlds running on one machine would be full world environments. There are no exploits -- ships, stores, warehouses, everything, would be limited to the virtual world they have been tagged for.  What that does mean for PvP people is they've have to do the occasional trade mission to get raw materials for ship building -- all of the other goods could be dropped.

[Hagen v Martius]

45 minutes ago, Raekur said:

Actually in a majority of the comments here the term Carebear has been in a negative manner. It would seem that the greater part of the population here are strictly combat orientated and look down on those that prefer trade or crafting. The part I find amusing is when the players who do no craft go looking for something that needs to be crafting and get upset at the price to produce it.

A care-bear isn't necessarily a crafter though. In fact I know plenty of crafters on PvP1 that do a lot of PvP.

Which is to say that you entirely missed the point of that statement, but please continue to be offended.

 

38 minutes ago, Genma Saotome said:

Assuming server = 1 computer, yes, they want to reduce the number of servers.

But they do not have to go with 1 server = 1 virtual world.  They can overlay PvE and PvP on one machine keeping each wholly invisible to the other.  Tag each ship with a label for PvE or PvP and make some changes to the .json files so the data lines are grouped by the same tag and bingo, you can have n virtual worlds on 1 machine and nobody would know beans about anything that wasn't tagged the same way as they were presently playing.

All of the virtual worlds running on one machine would be full world environments. There are no exploits -- ships, stores, warehouses, everything, would be limited to the virtual world they have been tagged for.  What that does mean for PvP people is they've have to do the occasional trade mission to get raw materials for ship building -- all of the other goods could be dropped.

I think it's primarily about the number of players per server.

And like admin wrote in the OP, the hope is to maybe get some PvE people to eventually dare to do PvP as well. At least on some level.

[Raekur]

1 hour ago, Hagen v Martius said:

A care-bear isn't necessarily a crafter though. In fact I know plenty of crafters on PvP1 that do a lot of PvP.

Which is to say that you entirely missed the point of that statement, but please continue to be offended.

 

I think it's primarily about the number of players per server.

And like admin wrote in the OP, the hope is to maybe get some PvE people to eventually dare to do PvP as well. At least on some level.

Carebear is a slang term that is used to refer to a video gamer who avoids violence and competition, or a video came that has very few violent elements. In the context of game design, a carebear is usually aimed at a younger audience.

Perhaps you should read what i wrote instead of just half of it. The 'Prefers" crafting or trading implies that they chose to avoid combat due to it interrupting or disrupting the primary goal. By avoiding combat they are by definition placed within the above description. Furthermore, on this forum I have yet to see any reference to Carebear in anything other then a negative light and as been directed towards traders. So in comparison to the person who i was directing my answer towards it informs him of the the general viewpoint within this game as opposed to Eve.

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 hours ago, Bart Smith said:

Why just no follow PotBS system in this with tweak a bit. Map is PvE - PvP zones are created by players attacking ports (this zones could be bigger in terms of NA map size) and there is option for hardcore PvP players - rise voluntary PvP flag (so you can be attack anywhere) We got normal ports and region capitals in NA so size of PvP zone could depend of port - instead of fight only for regional capitals we can get more smaller battles for normal ports as well - bonus for all - more fun and more ship variety for example.

Here is how map look like in PotBS:

And here how this could look like in NA:

I think that better idea than "packing" half of or even more population into Mexican Bay - this working fine in PotBS why can`t here? Lets make this game for all...if you decided to close PvE let them play on whole map instead lock in "cage". And hardcore PvP players will be happy as well and more motivated to attack ports to make PvP zones. Benefits for all again.

While I'm not big on making PvP zones like this as I like the fact most of the map you can fight in no matter what, but I do think we need the red ping spots for hotzones.  Agro doesn't update very good in game so you have to log out and  back in some times to get the current agro and some times folks don't eve notice what is giong on until after the port is flipped for a port battle.  Not to mention hunting for these guys is a pain in the ass specially when the battle only stays open for 5 mins in the missions.  They are closed by time you find them.  If it showed where most of the agro is being done for that region it would make it easier to hunt and get PvP that way, but than aren't the devs changing the system soon and taking away the missions?   Even with the flag system would be nice if the port a flag is bought for become a red zone to let folks know it's a hot zone for PvP.   

Oh and thanks for reminding me what POTBS looked like...man that was ages ago, while loved the game (before it went F2P) but it had some really good things and some really bad things about it.   

Like the redzone pings where awesome.  The fact you can get a fallback version of ships up to a certain level basic cutter, Basic brig, basic Cerberus would be a way to do it on NA.   Cause with the 1 dura system if you get sunk a lot your basically stuck in a basic cutter until you can get a new ship.  I also wish we had some type of reputation system in game like POTBS had.   There is no story content in NA either, POTBS had stories and missions that you could do as you level up.    While I'm fine with the way NA is as it's more about the action, but this would be nice for the solo players to have some more content.  The other thing that POTBS has that NA needs is map resets every couple of months.   If they reset the maps and allainces every couple of months it keeps it fresh so it doesn't grow stale in game.  I would go as far as allow you to have more than one char on a server but at this time is when you can switch.  So if you want to play a french one map cycle you can and than change it to a Pirate the next map cycle you can.  Though I would prefer a more in game means like how I brought up bring back the going pirate old system in game and than make a system (needs a reputation system) that allows you to change nations once your a pirate by being a Privateer for that nation.  If a player wants to just stay a privateer and work for higher they never have to accept the national status.  Or folks can just stay true pirate and work for them selves.  If you have a bad rep with a nation you can't join them (sinking to many ships from that nation).  Your reputation should go up and down for nations that you sink ships of.  If I sink a lot of british ships as a pirate I can get US reputation cause they are at war with each other if i never attack US ships, but if I attack I would get low reputation for both of them but maybe my pirate reputation would go up.  Higher reputation might mean bigger rewards (bounty) when some one sinks you too.  

The old kill missions on POTBS was good way to get rewards for being PvPer.  Right now the PvPers get nothing special over the PvEers in fact we do all the hard work (RvR and PvP) while the none PvErs/traders get all the rewards for the most part.  That is why I don't want to go ot a flag system of turning PvE/PvP on or off.  Lets try out these new zones and see how it work.s  It might be great or it might be a complete train wreck. Though the new Admirality Shop is going to help on the reward part, but I still not a fan that folks can turn in there PvE marks for PvP marks.  Even if it's costly...I could easly grind fleets and get ton of PvE marks by what I been testing.

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Hagen v Martius said:

Slingshotting, as in sending ships to outposts after a battle, on the other side of the divide between the two modes needs to be disabled as well obviously.

If you been on the test server this has been removed.  You can't even keep a ship you captured unless you have the fleet perks and you can't send back to port ships now.  You can still exit to friendly, but if you want to keep a ship than you need the fleet perks and you need to sail the ship back or keep it in your fleet until you get back to a friendly port and you can't have it tow unless you have an outpost in that friendly port.

[Hagen v Martius]

I haven't and I don't really plan on doing so, but that's good to know.

[AngryPanCake]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

 ...Right now the PvPers get nothing special over the PvEers in fact we do all the hard work (RvR and PvP)...

If you don't mind my ignorance, what is RvR?

[Anne Wildcat]

Realm vs Realm, fighting for regions, port battles

[Axel]

I really dont feel like reading 18 pages to see if this might have been mentioned so ill just ask and hopefully someone can answer me.

Why is it that France Spain and Great Britain get places in the PvE zone but nobody else does? I saw the admin mention that the PvE people would be the economic backbone of the nations and PvPers would be the ones taking ports and things. So does this mean the remaining nations are SOL? Do we not need an economic backbone? Do we not need PvE players (who may at some point decide to start PvPing) to be in the smaller populated nations as well instead of just the large nations?

I feel like this needs to be addressed with a reasonable correction if it has not been brought up yet. 

[Hagen v Martius]

I guess they're unwilling to put in fantasy ports for the other nations.

 

And yes, if the idea is to have the PvE bubble as the "economic backbone" then I'd like to add that to the top of my worries about this being a bad change to the game.

[Justme]

21 hours ago, Raekur said:

Actually in a majority of the comments here the term Carebear has been in a negative manner. It would seem that the greater part of the population here are strictly combat orientated and look down on those that prefer trade or crafting. The part I find amusing is when the players who do no craft go looking for something that needs to be crafting and get upset at the price to produce it.

My understanding, and I believe that of at least a few others is that this was to be primarily focused on combat. PVE content is needed for obvious reasons but the main focus is/was combat.

i think the reason so many PVE only guys are looked down on is they give the impression that they want a PVE only game. I seen a few say this should be a trading sim. And that's why they bought it. Then they get confused/angry when the majority gets upset with them.

[Captain Bonny]

28 minutes ago, Justme said:

My understanding, and I believe that of at least a few others is that this was to be primarily focused on combat. PVE content is needed for obvious reasons but the main focus is/was combat.

i think the reason so many PVE only guys are looked down on is they give the impression that they want a PVE only game. I seen a few say this should be a trading sim. And that's why they bought it. Then they get confused/angry when the majority gets upset with them.

I personally want a PvE server because after a day's work I sometimes want to play without looking over my shoulder all the time. Also some battles can be very lengthy and I not always have the time to cater all the gankers.

[Justme]

16 minutes ago, Captain Bonny said:

I personally want a PvE server because after a day's work I sometimes want to play without looking over my shoulder all the time. Also some battles can be very lengthy and I not always have the time to cater all the gankers.

Why are you assuming PVP is all gankers?

Its rare that I see anyone get ganked, but it seems you might be one of the" I want the game to play itself types"

Your not really playing a game is if all you do is point your ship in a direction and check on it after 40 mins of doing something else.

 

If we are to have a PVE only server, than we need aggressive AI to make it more than a walk away game.

 

[LeBoiteux]

27 minutes ago, Captain Bonny said:

I personally want a PvE server because after a day's work I sometimes want to play without looking over my shoulder all the time. Also some battles can be very lengthy and I not always have the time to cater all the gankers.

You know when you'll be along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the PvE zone on the PvP server, you'll be far, far away from any PvP-ers .

Actually maybe too far away... But we'll see how devs implement the PvE zones and link the PvE and PvP zones together.

Edited March 27, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[Captain Bonny]

1 minute ago, Justme said:

Why are you assuming PVP is all gankers?

Its rare that I see anyone get ganked, but it seems you might be one of the" I want the game to play itself types"

Your not really playing a game is if all you do is point your ship in a direction and check on it after 40 mins of doing something else.

 

If we are to have a PVE only server, than we need aggressive AI to make it more than a walk away game.

 

I sail the ocean, not just the coast. My trips from Bermuda to Hat Island take several hours. I do that to trade and for exp.

Anyway, I am a newbie. As low ranked captain I haven't had a battle with a remote chance of winning. Before targeting me, it shows my rank, and even seeing that they are 5 or 6 ranks higher, they still attack me. I don't expect fair fights, but I keep the freedom to call that "ganking". I don't care that it never happens to you, but it happens to me, okay?!

[Remus]

8 minutes ago, Justme said:

Why are you assuming PVP is all gankers?

Its rare that I see anyone get ganked, but it seems you might be one of the" I want the game to play itself types"

Your not really playing a game is if all you do is point your ship in a direction and check on it after 40 mins of doing something else.

 

If we are to have a PVE only server, than we need aggressive AI to make it more than a walk away game.

I'd like to find the player who contends that no PvP is ganking, and even if just a few are this is enough to ruin the enjoyment for a number of players. Or perhaps I should say potential players, for I suspect that having been ganked once many people decide to be players no longer.

I very strongly disagree with your 'not really playing a game' comment. What gives you the right to say how the game should be played? I don't recall a rulebook saying the game has to be played in a certain way, the way you yourself happen to enjoy, The devs clearly think there should be an element of PvE for players who like it. Why else set up an elaborate trade system with - by my count - 86 different trade goods and special trading missions? They set up a PvE server and now are introducing a large PvE area to PvP servers. It seems to me the devs think PvE players are 'really playing the game' and want them to continue. Whether they are going about it the right way is a different matter.

[Pad Seayew]

I'm actually thinking of switching to the PvE area after the Wipening.  I just don't have the time for PvP.

I love the game, it's just the most phenomenal time suck I've ever experienced. 

[Farrago]

I've only played on PVP2 and when I first started PVE so I don't know how it is on PVP1.

But I wonder...

Are there so many "gankers" or are some  folks just so starved for PVP from the low pop, they pounce when they see a live body no matter how skinny the prey.

Get this thing released!

[Hethwill]

@Farrago

Most is propaganda but being a probability the possibility of falling prey is always there.´

Gank squads do more to make players to port and TP somewhere else than actually bump into organized defense BUT when it happens everyone has fun.

Smaller groups of rovers, of 2 or 3, using snakes and pickles are less prone to light alarms and will be more dangerous to trade if not to single frigates.