Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

[Nelsons Barrel]

Just now, Intrepido said:

i dont need action happening when Im sleeping. Thanks.

And your world ends at the horizon.

[Grundal]

yaaaarrrrrrr!

No action while sleeping.  No action while awake.

yaaarrrrrr!

[hoarmurath]

4 hours ago, admin said:

Update

As usual community brain in general provided interesting edge cases that required some additional design rework of the initial proposal.

 

As a result
Here is the updated version of the preliminary proposal

Alts
As we only need to solve problem of alts interfering in OW and PBs we needed a simple and quick fix. We do not need a convoluted and complicated system of war companies and such. 

• As a result. 
• Clans will be able to set friendly status for other clans in their nation (up to 15 clans). Current clans and their historical names will remain intact. 
• Diplomat role will be added and clan founder and diplomats will be able to set this friendly status. 
• Only clans listed as friendly will be able to enter port battles initiated by the clan.
• Friendly status + battlegroups will keep alts from battles and port battles.

New player experience, seal clubbing and inability to progress
Once the average player have passed the initial hurdles of the UI and started building ships it is getting very hard to progress because he has no place to safely rebuild and survive. 

Initial solution was to move un capturable ports to coasts

• Moving un capturable ports to the coasts and moving very profitable resources to the center will actually increase sailing times for many (who wish to venture into dangerous waters for profit or pvp)
• In addition to that repositioning of ports will drastically change existing gameplay and reposition resources and having done this before we believe that this might have a drastic adverse effect on play

As a result we would like to discuss the alternative solution for discussion

• Change naming of servers to properly identify the style of play 
  • Easy (PvE only)
  • Hardcore Global
  • Hardcore EU
• Capitals will remain in their current places
• Un-capturable ports will be set in the areas around the capitals (with the exception of sweden and denmark which will be set as very hard again during selection of the nation).
• Un-capturable ports will not be counted in the national leaderboards for victory marks
• Important. Within the zone of influence around the waters will be made extremely safe, by use of national reinforcements (a-la CONCORD) which will arrive to battles and defend the player in case he is attacked. The bigger the distance from capital the weaker reinforcements would be. Extremely skilled captains will still be able to sink the defender despite all odds, but it will give some breathing room to players to rebuild in case of multiple losses.
• Extremely profitable trading resources will be removed from the un-capturable ports and placed in capturable ports to provide profitable trading, privateering and potential taxation base.

Taxation will remain the way described before. Port maintenance will be added - if the clan controls the port they will have to pay maintenance (taken from the clan warehouse). If maintenance is not paid the port will turn into a neutral port. Taxation money will be collected to clan warehouse as well. 

 

Safe(R) waters are going to be controversial for some. So lets spend some time discussing this as well. 
Predicting outcry about safe waters we would like to say. We believe some safe waters will be good for the game.

We can supply new players to game (10000 new players came to NA during last 3 months) but current system do not keep them. No-one stayed. 

Some might say - but add pve and such - we could do that and plan to do that, but the problem is that with current system you won't be able to even get to those exciting PVE events. Privateers operating from free towns near capitals, placed conveniently within 20 mins form each capital for a different reason (resource transport that was removed) completely destroy the opportunity to rebuild. You must stay in green waters otherwise you are dead. When online numbers fluctuate they increase the problem because there are less targets and the only target becomes a new player, because old players know how to avoid it. New players unfortunately do not get time to learn to avoid it, and just leave.

When online numbers were higher it was a lesser problem because of abundance of targets (some could pass through). When online fluctuates the only target is a new player.

I don't see anything here preventing sealclubbing. You are aware that the people you listened to are also those with playstyle  driving new players away?

[Hodo]

7 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

i dont need action happening when Im sleeping. Thanks.

In an MMO someone is sleeping sometime.  This is what an MMO is... MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game.  

I know the concept of an online game not having a local time is alien to some.  But online games should NOT have restrictions on when anyone can or cannot play.  

[Hodo]

5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

 

If your endless horizon is so good, why do you have a playerbase lower than ours?

One word.

Mismanagement.

If GLOBAL was placed on the top of the server list, and they had the information for each server beside the server when characters were created you would see the exact opposite situation.

[Nelsons Barrel]

5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Enjoy global server and your galactic timers, leave us in peace in our european and limited land.

If your endless horizon is so good, why do you have a playerbase lower than ours?

I'm playing on both. The playerbase is lower because they never gave the freedom to change the server properly, they simply renamed PVP1 into EU and PVP2 to global. While that you kept your clan, your playername on the server you have played on before.

[Christendom]

4 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I have played MMO games with EU and US servers.

Have the MMOs you played with multiple servers have an active population of fewer than 1000 people (being generous) daily?  This game is too small for the size of it's map and multiple severs.

[Captain Lust]

22 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

i dont need action happening when Im sleeping. Thanks.

Hahahahaha

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Have the MMOs you played with multiple servers have an active population of fewer than 1000 people (being generous) daily?  This game is too small for the size of it's map and multiple severs.

And how many of them started with several servers and have cut them in half or even down to one or two?  Many of them do that and that is finished  games.  While this game is in alpha it really only needs one server or two if you count the testbed server.   Once the game goes live they can open up as many servers as they think they will need.

[Christendom]

@admin The size and scope of this game is too large for it's current population levels.  These numbers are very similar to what you had before the wipe, this is the size of your testing base.  It's not gonna get better until drastic changes to the game take place. 

What needs to be done in the meantime:

- merge the servers.  more players = more content.
- Map is too large for so few players.  Merge in PVE and make a "Neutral area" as you discussed months ago.
- Too many nations.  this player base, split between 2 servers....cannot field enough players in all 8 of the nations to make them viable.  Some need to be cut or removed until launch.
- Raids OR something new.  We need something new to do that isn't a rehash of the same old stuff.  Desperately.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Christendom

[Hodo]

16 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I have played MMO games with EU and US servers.

They must not have been good.

I can tell you now that EVE has 1 play server and it is HUGE.   And that game never sleeps. 

Then Mortal Online, population of around 1k, and it has 1 server based in France... never sleeps.

Unless you are playing one of those themepark kids games like WoW, or one of those MOBA/Twitch shooters like WoT then you wont see many EU server, US server crap anymore.  

[Christendom]

9 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

I agree with you the port window was certainly a big problem and summer vacation in Europe too...

Not to mention that 2 nations refused to fight and ganged up on France.....and made an entire nation quit.  But yea lets blame mechanics.

[Hodo]

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

Dont dare to think your opinion about how good or bad some games are is more valid than others. The net is full of opinions.

I do dare.. and I am often right.   

But the internet is full of a lot of things also not all of them good.  

[Skully]

52 minutes ago, Eleven said:

They need to. The EU server is dying out through boredomness. No RvR, no OW fights. Only missionjumping. While that, global has a running diplo with wars and stuff but with the problem that RvR is simply to expensive and playernumbers consuming that they only do OW fights. Combine it and you get at least more action.

What's blocking you from moving to Global?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

If @admin decides to keep all 3 servers, no merge - then I DEMAND PVP EU SERVER TO BE SHUT DOWN DURING NIGHT AND MORNINGS / AFTERNOONS WHEN I SLEEP / WORK / STUDY. 

I don't want others to be trading and playing the game when I sleep, work and study. PvP EU should be only online between 17-22.

Hilarious

[Nelsons Barrel]

Just now, Skully said:

What's blocking you from moving to Global?

The grind.

[Daguse]

19 minutes ago, Hodo said:

They must not have been good.

I can tell you now that EVE has 1 play server and it is HUGE.   And that game never sleeps. 

Then Mortal Online, population of around 1k, and it has 1 server based in France... never sleeps.

Unless you are playing one of those themepark kids games like WoW, or one of those MOBA/Twitch shooters like WoT then you wont see many EU server, US server crap anymore.  

@Hodo, I hate to say it but there is no point. Those games are released, na is in early access. We are here... We should be here to test and help make the game better for all. However many players seem to think early access and paying their 40$ means they get access to tell the developers how they want the game to be made. They don't care if the game is a success or fun, they care more about winning the PBs or the PvP fight. 

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

This is very good news.

 

Im quite satisfied with all of this.

However, let me suggest 2 things:

You should get back the alliance system for all those weak or small nations. A help for the helpless.

Keep the hostility system. Use flags for raids, if finally are going to be implemented. The hostility system gives you some time to react and make decisions. Less exploits, simple rules that everyone can understand.

Keep the regions, they have a very good ressource distribution and the PBs in their capital are nicely balanced. I would only make them a bit smaller, I mean, regions should have at max. 4 ports. This way new regions and new capitals (more PBs) will be created providing a bit more varied content and strategical possibilities. There is no need to make individual ports, that will kill the quality in favour of the quantity.

 

 

 

 

What you are asking for here is things to stay basically the same as they are now, just with a few more regions. 

They have said they want to make the small nations hardmode yet you want alliances so they are no longer hardmode and they can join a big block.

Personally I think they have started to water down their original suggestions too much rather than trying to use the opportunity to bring in some serious changes to RvR. The need to remove regions from RvR and allow individual ports to make port battles more dynamic and not so critical. At the same time not keep every port battle as a 25v25 but let there be smaller battles for some ports. Make it easy to join in RvR.

[Christendom]

16 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

And you blamed the probleme of PVP1 before the wipe to the non european players... The problem is always somewhere else right?

yup.  without the US based players to burn at the stake these guys sure tore themselves apart.  1200 population down to 500, France dead....Spain dead....Good work fellas!  It's funny how global has experienced the same level of difficulty with the new changes and we didn't lose 50% of our population after 2 months.  

Edited August 9, 2017 by Christendom

[Cmdr RideZ]

4 hours ago, admin said:

• A. Friendly status + battlegroups will keep alts from battles and port battles.

• B1. Important. Within the zone of influence around the waters will be made extremely safe, by use of national reinforcements (a-la CONCORD) which will arrive to battles and defend the player in case he is attacked. The bigger the distance from capital the weaker reinforcements would be. Extremely skilled captains will still be able to sink the defender despite all odds, but it will give some breathing room to players to rebuild in case of multiple losses.
• B2. Extremely profitable trading resources will be removed from the un-capturable ports and placed in capturable ports to provide profitable trading, privateering and potential taxation base.

 

C. Safe(R) waters are going to be controversial for some. So lets spend some time discussing this as well. 
Predicting outcry about safe waters we would like to say. We believe some safe waters will be good for the game.

We can supply new players to game (10000 new players came to NA during last 3 months) but current system do not keep them. No-one stayed. 

Some might say - but add pve and such - we could do that and plan to do that, but the problem is that with current system you won't be able to even get to those exciting PVE events. Privateers operating from free towns near capitals, placed conveniently within 20 mins form each capital for a different reason (resource transport that was removed) completely destroy the opportunity to rebuild. You must stay in green waters otherwise you are dead. When online numbers fluctuate they increase the problem because there are less targets and the only target becomes a new player, because old players know how to avoid it. New players unfortunately do not get time to learn to avoid it, and just leave.

When online numbers were higher it was a lesser problem because of abundance of targets (some could pass through). When online fluctuates the only target is a new player.

This clan based system sounds better.

 

A. Friendly status, in many games these are called alliances.  You could consider alliance name and mechanism as well.

B. There has to be plenty of reasons to sail out from the safe zone.  Plenty.

C. 10k new players left.  Would be nice to know why?  I do not know exactly, but some reasons that I have been repeating here for a year+.

C.1. Can take a moment to accept GUI, it has a small shock factor.  When I started, I was told where everything is and how to get started.  Still, my first impression was wtf is this?  What do I have to do?  I have told that make at least videos to get new players forward.  Yes, it was simple then when someone told that click here and there and then check map and sail to that location etc.  You could try to decrease that initial wtf is this shit feeling.

C12. Death Penalty is high.  Now you do not even give reward for losing side.  It maybe realistic, but I am not going to lie -> It is a shitty game mechanism.

C.3. Death Penalty is high.  You get yourself some ships and you lose those all.  Now you decreased this by making ships to be captureable, which was a good thing.  Still, losing all and many will click "Quit Game.  You have to make it rapid to get back in a 5th rate.  If you first have to grind to get to a 5th rate, at least after that you have to make some mechanism to get there fast.  What ever you think would be the best.  You can even have some unlock for specific rank, which will help you to get fast back to 5th rate.

C14. Death Penalty is high.  You now want to innovate ideas how to help new players, protect them that they do not lose everything so fast and quit game.  You do understand that the main reason for this is because you have so high death penalty?  You also understand that death penalty is only high because grinding lost materials takes pretty long.  You also understand that PvP action is fun for players, and PvE grind before that is mandatory evil for many.  Making protected PvE areas so they can PvE grind, instead of making PvP action and fun easy to access?

Protected areas are a good idea, you should go with it.  The rest should get support as well.

C.5. Death Penalty, expensive to lose a ship, you are scared to do PvP and need protected areas.  Economy that makes things to be expensive, so that crafters and traders can own something expensive.  Forget traders and crafters here a bit.  Economy to support PvP, people who are not freaking scared to sail in PvP, win or lose.  Lighter economy you have, less important protected areas are.  If ships are free, who cares if we have protected areas or not, it does not matter if we sink or not, right?  We just sail to PvP ship after ship.  This would remove depth from game, so some death penalty is good to have.

My point is, heavier economy you build, more important are protected areas.  More protected areas we have, less PvP we have.

C.6. One big reason for heavy and expensive economy are expensive upgrades, materials that are needed to craft those.  Upgrades give big bonuses so every PvP player wants those.  PvP players want to be competitive so they have to do heavy grinding to open ship knowledge.  Permits are CM expensive, grind heavy.

If you for example make upgrade bonuses to be smaller, it will decrease "must have" pressure on those -> Lighter economy. ... This will also make PvP easier to access for new players.

If you make rare materials more common -> Lighter economy.

Decrease the amount of combat marks needed per permission.

...

New player loses 10 times in battles and finally he wins one, is also able to capture a ship.  He does not tell or recommend this game because he lost 10 times, he will recommend because it was so much fun to capture that one ship.

In the game you are building, he loses once, is back to basic cutter and quits the game.  Tells for his friends how shitty game this is.

I have told you many times, think about those guys who quit the game after 10 hours.  You told once that your priority is in these 10h players, but I have not seen any acts to proof that.

...

EVE was probably meant to be a huge success, but it turned out to be a niche game.

NA is meant to be a niche game, but as the target is set so low..  There is a high change that the game will die soon after its release.

I highly recommend that you turn your focus back to Naval ACTION.

[admin]

1 hour ago, hoarmurath said:

I don't see anything here preventing sealclubbing. You are aware that the people you listened to are also those with playstyle  driving new players away?

Safe regions around uncapturable ports will actually be safe, only a large organized fleet will be able to overcome the national waters defenses. 

[Nelsons Barrel]

1 minute ago, admin said:

Safe regions around uncapturable ports will actually be safe, only a large organized fleet will be able to overcome the national waters defenses. 

If the game becomes purely PvE, why exactly do you develop these kind of things? We could just close down both PvP server and all play happily on PvE-server.

[Daguse]

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

Please Chris.

Tell us about your server success in spliting your playerbase among all the nations, your fake wars, how your guys leave US and joined GB...

 

Your guys arent an example of anything. Dont you see yet?

Keep grasping at those straws man...

 

[Capt Hardy]

23 hours ago, Red Dragon 13 said:

Admin, Devs,

at almost 40 pages of comments, imho it is time to start arriving at conclusions, even provisional ones, and state which direction the game will be taking next. Thanks for the great ideas and proposals, but it looks like it is time to really move on.

something needs to be done, players are leaving the game at a steady drip. the numbers don't lie, every day the numbers drop and as we have new players all of the time how many experienced players have we lost?

[Armored_Sheep]

If I cannot move my rank from PvE server to PvP, I want protected zones in PvP server to be able to grind ranks.  PvP does not provide enough money nor XP compared to missions a.t.m.