Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

POLL - Reformation of Servers. Hardcore PVP test server


Express your opinion on turning PVP2 into hardcore pvp test server  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. How much do you think this will help to create well balanced PVP in NA?

    • This is an awesome idea! You have my full support!
      7
    • I think it has some potential
      10
    • Not sure... I want to wait and see what the community thinks
      2
    • I'm quite skeptical... I don't think this is needed.
      6
    • Please just NO!
      12


Recommended Posts

Ahoy captains,

It is safe to say that NA has at least two types of PVP players. Those who want immediate PVP action even if it is a lobby match and those who like the opportunistic OW PVP.

What do you think on the idea of reforming the servers?

PVP1 - remain as it is. A stable server.
PVP2 - is a hardcore pvp testing server. When new features implemented such as less coastal defenses, easier tagging ROE, less restrictions to get into PVP, but also less hand holding features like short battle closing times, BR limits etc. PVP2 will be dedicated to design, test and balance all those hardcore PVP mechanics and if approved by the community implemented on PVP1.

I dont want to go through millions of benefits of this system. Instead I invite you to vote and express your opinion on the matter so it is clear how this community feels about it.

Appreciate your attention and time!

 

Koltes

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dunno... i voted for the potential choice ; but at current state of the game, with all the well-known problems it got, i dont think it would be possible to happen: low player base, merge/notmerge war, pvp2 players upset about timers, pve server situation, test-bed server opened now...

i mean this could be a good idea when we will got more players and a solution to make EU/US/SEA players play togheter or atleast a solve to nightflips...

only mt 2 cents

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Wraith said:

If all you want is PvP then just do Duels or Small/Large battles? Skip the OW all together and certainly don't dedicate an entire server to it... I certainly don't want to discount your idea but I'd lean towards the "use the tools you already have," camp.

No, lobby is just an arena based session combat. PVP in my view is the opportunistic world that has lots of gameplay content that eventually leads to battles and is also continuation of the battles.

You must recognise the fact that there seems to be two main camps of people. Some want softcore PVP, timers, circles, lots of ROE mechanics. Another that likes freedom to act as they will, but also suffer the consequences.

Hardcore PVP dedicated test server will also allow to test these desires. In fact the mere population numbers might tell us exactly where people want to play, finally doing things, not just talking about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, koltes said:

Yet every patch seem to nerf pvp one way or another.

Yeah well the problem with that is that PvE hasn't seen much of a change for easily a year now. Fleets was the last big one. I play both PvP and PvE and I find less joy in both lately... I'm pretty much just crafting for the enthusiastic guys these days as I will still support those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need to put all ppl in 1 server atm, pvp1,pvp2,pve,carebear,hardcore,ecc

if we found a way to make all type of players live in the same server and every1 with his space and objective then we solve the majority of player base problems. maybe in this way some pvers could also tourn to do pvp.

i was thinking about an area PVE in the Global Server maybe in the gulf of mexico in which attack command is disabled and also rvr and roe. so we merge the player base and maybe we gain some pvp more. suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need more pvp and also some kind of way to get into large battles. I have tried to say that prolonged joining timers was one way to achieve this. The game was more living back then. Also less alliances and maybe som rethinking of Port Battles. Maybe we should drop PBs and the idea of conquest altogether and make fights count in other ways. Many players like to go into huge fights but the PBs seems rather heavy. And map conquest seems to cause some stress and frustration among clanleaders and players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the proposal for it to be implemented on the test bed.

It's unlikely for there to be any headway in changing anything on the permanent servers with the current mentality of focusing on the current state of the game rather than what's best for its release, preserving each server community at all costs, unfair for players who want a low ping e.t.c.

As for what players want what, it's not so cut and dry, plenty of 'em want both (including myself) and trying to split them into distinct camps is strongly reminiscent of calling people either pure PvErs or pure PvPers, hardcore or casual and so on when there's plenty inbetween.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how there is a spread of opinions on this subject. Players come from all walks of life, with different ideas of what is fun to them in the game, some are builders, gatherers, others hard core pvp, some in between.

This is why i keep saying this game needs an entire refresh that models after EVE Online and how EVE does security areas. Because you need high security, NPC nation patrolled areas where players can retreat too for whatever reason, and no security areas where anything goes PVP and the players rule the waves. Those who know EVE know what i am talking about. Its a great balance to allow every player to play to their style.

In the current game mechanics, map format the Dev's will keep going round and round in circles trying to keep everyone happy regarding this subject. What also hurts this game is players cant own any ports or land, they just take it for NPC's which snuffs much of the "ownership" and "risk reward" many PVPr's love in MMO games.

 

But good luck on this, I am hopeful the game grows no matter what they do because it is just so damn pretty :)

Edited by Rebel Witch
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebel Witch said:

Notice how there is a spread of opinions on this subject...

While I agree with almost all of your response.  No conclusions should be drawn from this until more than 30 people (as of this post's date) have answered the poll.  Many players (my guild included) are not even playing the game at the moment.  Many of them, it could be argued, have already voted with their feet and only revisit the game/forums from time to time.  It is still interesting to see the poll mature as more votes are added! 

Edited by Kiefer Cain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2017 at 7:49 PM, koltes said:

PVP2 - is a hardcore pvp testing server. When new features implemented such as less coastal defenses, easier tagging ROE, less restrictions to get into PVP, but also less hand holding features like short battle closing times, BR limits etc. PVP2 will be dedicated to design, test and balance all those hardcore PVP mechanics and if approved by the community implemented on PVP1.

Hmmm.

Less coastal defenses:
This is really part of the strategic map gameplay, making some areas of the map important to own. Uniformity = boring and I think there is some value in having some "semi-safe areas" even in a hardcore game. Hardcore needs variety too. This also gives overwhelmed teams a staging area until they feel brave enough to venture further out (what we may need, if anything, is more reason to "venture further out").

Easier tagging ROE:
Guess I'm not sure what you mean. I could go for allowing tags with more of a BR difference, but that will lead to more time griefing which is not really "hardcore PvP".

Longer battle closing timers:
What's more hand-holdey: long timers or short timers? You say short, I say long. Longer timers allows for sloppier OW gameplay and more unrealistic scenarios. Frankly I thought it was the hardcore PvPers who wanted shorter timers and I think you're on the wrong side of this one. Short timers are hardcore. Long timers are hand holdey. The hardest core would be NO timers: whatever is in range is what gets into the fight. Be sloppy and you get left out.

BR limits:
I do agree that there should probably be no BR limits. What-you-see-is-what-you-get. Anyone in range gets in. This is what short battle timers should allow. If you want long battle timers then BR limits should stay in place. Hiding a dozen people inside a port and then jumping into a battle when the other party had no way to know you were there is not "hardcore". I can think of a lot of words to call that but "hardcore" is not one of them.

In summary, I mostly frown on the idea.

I actually think the ROE has generally tried to head in the right direction in this game, which is to be as hardcore as possible while still allowing for a LITTLE leeway and a little grief prevention (single cutters dragging 1st rate fleets into battle). The timer system of a year ago was garbage and I think it was mostly us hardcore PvPers who complained about it and got it changed, as it made hunting nearly impossible -- the game became all about how to hide ships and gank or counter-gank rather than simply hunting people straight up on the open sea.

But I do agree that BR limits are also garbage. If you're close enough to get in, you should get in.

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

3 hours ago, Slamz said:

...Longer battle closing timers:

 

What's more hand-holdey: long timers or short timers? You say short, I say long. Longer timers allows for sloppier OW gameplay and more unrealistic scenarios. Frankly I thought it was the hardcore PvPers who wanted shorter timers and I think you're on the wrong side of this one. Short timers are hardcore. Long timers are hand holdey. The hardest core would be NO timers: whatever is in range is what gets into the fight. Be sloppy and you get left out.

BR limits:
I do agree that there should probably be no BR limits. What-you-see-is-what-you-get. Anyone in range gets in. This is what short battle timers should allow. If you want long battle timers then BR limits should stay in place. Hiding a dozen people inside a port and then jumping into a battle when the other party had no way to know you were there is not "hardcore". I can think of a lot of words to call that but "hardcore" is not one of them.

In summary, I mostly frown on the idea.

I actually think the ROE has generally tried to head in the right direction in this game, which is to be as hardcore as possible while still allowing for a LITTLE leeway and a little grief prevention (single cutters dragging 1st rate fleets into battle). The timer system of a year ago was garbage and I think it was mostly us hardcore PvPers who complained about it and got it changed, as it made hunting nearly impossible -- the game became all about how to hide ships and gank or counter-gank rather than simply hunting people straight up on the open sea.

But I do agree that BR limits are also garbage. If you're close enough to get in, you should get in.

If it were a choice between long timers/BR limits and short timers/no BR limits...  I would vote the latter.  The argument then be what is "in range".

Edited by Kiefer Cain
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...