The Devils Advocate

[Fargo]

Guys im not attacking your beloved PvP playstyle.

14 hours ago, Fargo said:

The goal is to make the game better, not to increase current PvP. We could do that in alot of stupid ways. Tradable and exchangable marks are nonesense in multiple ways.

This does not mean that PvP isnt important... But meaningful PvP and a lively OW are the result of meaningful trading and RvR. Both rely on a meaningful economy. This is the concept that has to work. You cant just fix PvP, its basically the result of everything else working.

Trying to fix PvP in any other way is messing up the game by definition. As coaster said, pure rewards just lead to an artificial environment and promote dumb tactics like ganking and sealclubbing. Without objectives people also run from everything. And rewards are only going to motivate until people are saturated.

All you see is "Oh it increased PvP over night its great" (We havent seen evidence yet btw). What you dont see is that its going to drop after a week again and that the population continues to shrink. Extreme PvPler still enjoying meaningless PvP might be happy with the current game, 80% of potential players are not. That youre still playing this game only proves that your expectations are pretty low.

If you dont agree, tell us how NA is supposed to work in your opinion. @jodgi I asked you multiple times already and got no answer. 

 

Guys please stop the PvP vs PvE BS in every topic. Thank you...

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Coaster said:

The PvE server is empty because there is little or no PvE content.

There literally can't be. There's no such thing as bosses, dungeons, level scaling or NPCs characters. It's impossible to create more PVE content than it already has.

That's exactly why trying to fit the forever stagnant PVE content into PVP nations doesn't work. It just gets in the way of what makes the NA world revolve, which is trading/crafting/PVP/RVR

Edited December 13, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Archaos]

44 minutes ago, Landsman said:

Yeah, take the PvP out of it and see where it goes... good luck. Just looking at the player numbers of the PvE server and the fact that even most PvE player rather play their PvE on the PvP server tells the whole story... 

The thing is the same argument could be used against the pure PvP environment of NAL. Here you have a game that is only PvP, you log on and within 5 minutes you can be in a battle against other players (and currently bots), yet the numbers playing are disappointing. Why is that if there are so many people interested only in PvP?

Majority of the people you say PvE on the PvP server do so because it allows them to PvP when they want, but they also enjoy trading and crafting even though these are areas that are in desperate need of a revamp.

[victor]

33 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Guys please stop the PvP vs PvE BS in every topic. Thank you...

Why? At least here in forum PVP carebears clearly outclass OS  PVPers and beat them hard!

Edited December 13, 2017 by victor

[Fargo]

31 minutes ago, victor said:

Why? At least here in forum PVP carebears clearly outclass OS  PVPers and beat them hard!

Because other people try to seriously improve the game. You, both sides, are mostly trying to fight youre believes and to defend your personal very specific playstyle.

Regarding this topic, what would you think about combat not providing relevant rewards? About especially large ships beeing hard and unprofitable to maintain? You wont like that because you like riskfree 1st rate combat 24/7 gaining you everything. You dont care that the actual game cannot work like this.

Discussions should be about improving the game, not "winning" an argument. What do you want to achieve with comments like this: 

"Sad thing is that, as it happend with server merge, Devs will listen to the vocal minorities once more.

But this one-two -  this time - will be really fatal for the game."

I dont care if you represent a majority or not, it doesnt matter if you cannot justify your position with valid arguments. "The game will die without xy bla" is getting tedious. And thats basically all ive seen from your side so far.

Basic PvE content might be necessary so you can fight something at any time. Further content would be nice to have, but its not necessary. And you should realise that serious and challenging PvE content would be lots of work, especially AI delopment. While we cant do scripted bossfights, we very much rely on good AI. It cant even handle big ships, how do you want to make it act smart in complex scenarios... that in the end are just simulating real PvP... while you get real PvP for free.

[fox2run]

1 hour ago, Fargo said:

Guys im not attacking your beloved PvP playstyle.

This does not mean that PvP isnt important... But meaningful PvP and a lively OW are the result of meaningful trading and RvR. Both rely on a meaningful economy. This is the concept that has to work. You cant just fix PvP, its basically the result of everything else working.

Trying to fix PvP in any other way is messing up the game by definition. As coaster said, pure rewards just lead to an artificial environment and promote dumb tactics like ganking and sealclubbing. Without objectives people also run from everything. And rewards are only going to motivate until people are saturated.

All you see is "Oh it increased PvP over night its great" (We havent seen evidence yet btw). What you dont see is that its going to drop after a week again and that the population continues to shrink. Extreme PvPler still enjoying meaningless PvP might be happy with the current game, 80% of potential players are not. That youre still playing this game only proves that your expectations are pretty low.

If you dont agree, tell us how NA is supposed to work in your opinion. @jodgi I asked you multiple times already and got no answer. 

 

Guys please stop the PvP vs PvE BS in every topic. Thank you...

Players are talking much about artificial environments that contradicts economy and meaningsfull pvp that is hard to find. Well. Any and all pc game IS an artificial environment. The question is how to develop rules that works.

And in this game the goal for many is to find pvp-battles. PvP IS the goal in other words. (And no. I dont want to hear another "go NAL" argument - Im not saying that traders should go play a trading game instead). In the beginning there where a line from being a captain on a cutter to build a 1st rate after some time in the game. It worked pretty well with some adjustments down the road. Gameplay-wise. But this whole thing got disturbed by players that wanted a "real world" without lineships. They wanted easy prey and hated the idea of a world with too many warships in it. Also the clan-guys hated that ordinary single players could disturb them in port battles. Hence the game moved away from a path that worked well and attracted players in numbers so big that new servers had to be established. It wasnt about hype after release. No. It was a fantastic game back then, but somehow got blurred down the road. A 8 or 9 out of a ten star game got crushed by the community and a narrow-thinking development team (narrow in its sence of scope - not narrow-minded :-) Today it would be totally annihilated in any serious review. Hence is why it may never be released. It seems to me that the dev team is using too much time in a port-battle-clan environment and too little time programming and developing. (correct me if Im wrong).

A good advice from me is to get back on track ASAP or close the server down and concentrate on titles that actually works like the Civil War-series. It seems that this task of building a world with warships in it is too big and complicated for a small company like this one. The product sits between too many chairs and dont deliver anything but a lot of time-consumption for very little in return. Ýou need to improve fast or close as a company. Its just a good advice. Jobs must be on line here....

 

 

 

 

[victor]

59 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Discussions should be about improving the game, not "winning" an argument. What do you want to achieve with comments like this: 

"Sad thing is that, as it happend with server merge, Devs will listen to the vocal minorities once more.

But this one-two -  this time - will be really fatal for the game."

I dont care if you represent a majority or not, it doesnt matter if you cannot justify your position with valid arguments. "The game will die without xy bla" is getting tedious. And thats basically all ive seen from your side so far.

 

Chill out man, take a deep breath, and read carefully.

1) A MMO game - the name itself tells it - needs a lot of players to work properly.

2) If in developing your MMO game you listen to minorities against the needs of the majority, you will end up having less players than if you do the opposite.

3) If devs go on with this attitude of listening to minorities, then a lot of players (a quota of the majority is more than a quota of the minority, that's basic arithmetics) will quit the game.

4) if a lot of players will quit the game, a MMO dies.

So my statement itself implies a logic argument, but it seems that YOU are not able to understand it. 

Then add the following considerations:

5) On EU PVP server now we have a stable base of around 500 players active in EU prime time on EU server and RvR is very lively.

6) on Global the players active in prime time were around 150 and they complain that RvR with global timers does not work

7) before the split of server, timezones created an unplayable RvR in which the only thing that made the difference was the possibility to lay down a "nightflip squad".

8) when Devs implemented the summer mega patch (other example of patch that listened to a minority of hadrcore gamers against the majority of casuals) after the initial boom of 1000ish players,  when people realized the actual content of the patch we fell in three months down to 200 player prime time.

Put those argument in the shaker of logic and mix then up ... a conclusion should sort out.

Finally, which part of YOUR blah blah post should improve the game?

Edited December 13, 2017 by victor

[jodgi]

3 hours ago, Fargo said:

 You cant just fix PvP, its basically the result of everything else working.

If "everything else is working" we end up like EVE and the atrocious pvp/pve ratio they have. Your quote is an ideal not even EVE has come close to achieving.

 

Quote

Extreme PvPler still enjoying meaningless PvP might be happy with the current game, 80% of potential players are not.

You assume too much.

A precious few "extreme pvp'ers" enjoy the game, most of them are gone.

Please keep to the same standards you expect of others: 

Quote

80% of potential players are not.

versus:

Quote

(We havent seen evidence yet btw)

___

Quote

@jodgi I asked you multiple times already and got no answer.

I have no answers for OW in general, but I'll hint towards what i think. Eco/PVE is a tremendous time sink for the devs, it seems impossible to please eco/PvE'ers, eco/PvE is a massive thorn in PvP's side and I see no positives to any eco or PVE but I've seen all the griefing, exploits, timidness and boredom eco leads to.

[Farrago]

The key to this game reaching its potential lies in the reason why in real life these nations were in this region in the first place: expansion and the access to the riches of the new world.

Crafting and trading are not developed very well. And while they are currently “PVE”, they shouldn’t be. Building a ship needs to mean something to your nation. The successful harvest and movement of materials and goods needs to mean something.  Prices need to be somewhat based on demand. Availability needs to be finite. Crafting and Trading should be complicated and challenging rather than simply tedious.

If this type of “PVE” was developed better, the two flavors of PVP will increase in frequency and importance.

1. The channels around Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Haiti wouldn’t be simple declared PVP zones, they would be target rich environments as necessary goods have to move north and south. Those goods either need protecting or attacking to deny them from your enemy.

2. Capturing and defending ports. Trade hubs and production centers are necesary as they provide our nation (the players) with what they need.

Safezones with almost all necessary resources stifle the necessary development of a richer economy BUT there needs to be some protection so that new players can get going and those with only a small amount of time have something to do. The answer probably is small safe zones with resource availability somewhere between the impossible economy of patch 10 where some nations could not access even coal and the free money of today.

[Quineloe]

On 12/10/2017 at 11:22 PM, Coaster said:

Why does the game offer rewards for PvP?

If a player wants to go out and pick a fight, for no other reason than to fight, then so be it. But the game shouldn’t be offering incentives for it. It creates an artificial environment where the strategic element of the game becomes largely superfluous because simply picking a fight is more rewarding, as well as turning the community toxic as every player is reduced to being just a virtual power up pinyata.

Combat should be an expense. An overhead that traders try to minimize. A last resort that Admiralties use. Its going to happen, that’s humanity, but at least let the RvR strategy determine the lions share of when and where.

Game's not called Maritime Trading buddy. You're playing the wrong game.

[Fargo]

1 hour ago, victor said:

2) If in developing your MMO game you listen to minorities against the needs of the majority, you will end up having less players than if you do the opposite.

Successful game development has nothing to do with listening to anyone but experts. Thats the advantage of logic: it works. Blindly developing a game trying to please everyone in the end is likely to please noone. It would require everyone to be expert for everything, to be unbiased and to have the same goal in mind. 

See the principles of NA got defined already in the very beginning. Sandbox, realistic, hardcore, crafting, trade, conquest. But not a single word in steam about PvE. What makes you think that youre allowed to ignore this? I think its ridiculous how players try to abuse the openness of devs. Ofcourse its devs fault, but i highly disrespect such players.

You even dare to call this a logical argument?! 

15 minutes ago, victor said:

8) when Devs implemented the summer mega patch (other example of patch that listened to a minority of hadrcore gamers against the majority of casuals) after the initial boom of 1000ish players,  when people realized the actual content of the patch we fell in three months down to 200 player prime time.

Youre just cherrypicking whatever you can. That might be your limited view of it, but it proves nothing. And its impossible to prove anything while several changes happend. Following patches for example totally contradicted the direction one dura was pointing and also economy. With marks, speedcap, etc. in addition i dont wonder why people left. I could argue in the same way that more people left the more easier and ceaper stuff became again, while exactly this continuously happened since steam release already. 

Those "hardcore gamers" simply provided arguments while your "It will kill the game" crowd wasnt able to do so, and devs one time did the right thing and listened to logic.

 

5 minutes ago, jodgi said:

If "everything else is working" we end up like EVE and the atrocious pvp/pve ratio they have. Your quote is an ideal not even EVE has come close to achieving.

So whats your advise, to mess it up on purpose?! Eve is able to motivate PvP and RvR with economy. Just figure out why EvE has such a bad ratio. I would guess because they decided to focus on PvE content. They are able to do so, and they have much more options to generate such content. Learning from successful economies doesnt mean copying everything else.

10 minutes ago, jodgi said:

You assume too much.

A precious few "extreme pvp'ers" enjoy the game, most of them are gone.

Please keep to the same standards you expect of others: 

All im assuming is logic. That gameplay has to be motivated somehow is not an assumption. That people expect something to work when its in the game is not an assumption. We never know why people left, but we can figure out whats likely/major problems of the game. On the other side we can easily figure out if PvP marks increased PvP by keeping track of combat news. I did this work and kept track of daily numbers before i made any statements in regard to losses/cost-income-balancing.

11 minutes ago, jodgi said:

I have no answers for OW in general, but I'll hint towards what i think. Eco/PVE is a tremendous time sink for the devs, it seems impossible to please eco/PvE'ers, eco/PvE is a massive thorn in PvP's side and I see no positives to any eco or PVE but I've seen all the griefing, exploits, timidness and boredom eco leads to.

Then we dont have to discuss. You cant criticise the most basic concept without having any better idea. 

Eco has nothing to do with PvE. And how exactly is eco a problem for PvP? A working economy has nothing to to with expensive stuff, "hardcore" or beeing forced to trade. To the contrary it allows you to get everything for gold without effort. That youre forced into PvE as a major money source to fund PvP isnt an issue of economy.

[victor]

39 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Successful game development has nothing to do with listening to anyone but experts. Thats the advantage of logic: it works. Blindly developing a game trying to please everyone in the end is likely to please noone. It would require everyone to be expert for everything, to be unbiased and to have the same goal in mind. 

See the principles of NA got defined already in the very beginning. Sandbox, realistic, hardcore, crafting, trade, conquest. But not a single word in steam about PvE. What makes you think that youre allowed to ignore this? I think its ridiculous how players try to abuse the openness of devs. Ofcourse its devs fault, but i highly disrespect such players.

You even dare to call this a logical argument?! 

 

And who is this mythical "expert" you are referring to? I never heard about a Ph.D in "game development" or in "Naval gaming". Oh wait .... maybe you are the expert (yes ... a gaming expert that says that craft and trade are PVP stuffs)

Problem is that logic - in order to work - shall be applied to reality. Or it's just metaphisic speculation and deduction on pure concepts, that is very good for philosophy but not so much for creating and launch a product.

So - please - forget about slogans and experts, and try get back to the real word.

Because in the real world a game is not the outcome of a set of "principles" set in the stone at the beginning of the development process: a game is a product. And a product shall satisfy a sufficient number of customers or it simply won't sell (and then it won't live long).

So basically ... yes ... I dare to call this a logical argument. 

Anyway time will tell (unfortunately for the game, I fear) who is right.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by victor

[jodgi]

32 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Then we dont have to discuss. You cant criticise the most basic concept without having any better idea. 

I would personally enjoy the OW game if it was filled with guys who wanted to fight, regardless. So my personal better idea, that I know won't happen, btw, is to rip out eco to get rid of fear of loss. When there is nothing to do but OW hunting and RvR then people would do it... all the time. I've played a game like this.

Fighting is the most basic concept of NA and I really can criticise the eco concept if I don't like it based on what it does to the fighting part.

44 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Eco has nothing to do with PvE.

Maybe? But I know of no eco game that is not based on PVE activities as a base for eco stuff, you could perhaps enlighten me?

46 minutes ago, Fargo said:

And how exactly is eco a problem for PvP?

Fear of loss, extreme timidness, exaggerated ganking mentality. Players have ground bots or alt-tabbed with trade goods and they'd rather not risk wasting that time by losing it doing something they actually like. I've been bitching about this for 18 months now, though I've piped down a bit after Legends was announced. 

 

53 minutes ago, Fargo said:

A working economy has nothing to to with expensive stuff, "hardcore" or beeing forced to trade. To the contrary it allows you to get everything for gold without effort. That youre forced into PvE as a major money source to fund PvP isnt an issue of economy.

This sounds fantastic! Where does it work like this? If EVE eco is based on a mountain of PvE,  who has made this work?

We thought we would have career paths early on; that people could choose to be a fighting captain sponsored by the admiralty. This never happened and I think I know why: Just consider the resistance to insta-mark ships (which I think is a great idea for my way of enjoying the game). Career captains would have been combat/pvp mark ships times ten.

I tried to make it work for me, I really did. After EA I was a few days behind some russian and baltic in the race to get to crafting level 50. I had an alt in frikkin' Mexico buying up iron during the "great iron depression" and we had some shenanigans going at bermuda during the fine-woods era. I just find all eco gameplay to be extremely inferior to NA PvP, it's little crumbs of fun in an ocean of afk-sailing, alt tabbing and general boredom. I've spent months looking for the fun, the "meaning" and the "depth" the eco pundits talk so much about. Sometimes I think you're pulling my tail and other times I suspect you're all actively self-deluded.

I'll be super-duper happy in Legends, so you need not worry. You're prolly better off without guys like me.

[Landsman]

14 hours ago, Archaos said:

The thing is the same argument could be used against the pure PvP environment of NAL. Here you have a game that is only PvP, you log on and within 5 minutes you can be in a battle against other players (and currently bots), yet the numbers playing are disappointing. Why is that if there are so many people interested only in PvP?

NAL is in open beta and people don't feel like grinding / unlocking the ships twice.... there have been more than enough testers already and most of the time it is still way easier to get a balanced fight quickly, which is almost impossible on the OW version, if you don't set it up.

Where is the PvE version of NA? Ah, yes the PvE server... and who plays there? Barely anyone. My point still stands, NA works without PvE but not without PvP ( in the long term ).

By the way, admin himself said the game is about PvP with ships, so you're basically arguing against what the devs see as a fact and it is their game... who would know better?

Who would log into the game without the possibility of PvP after only 100 hours playtime???

[Archaos]

7 hours ago, Landsman said:

NAL is in open beta and people don't feel like grinding / unlocking the ships twice.... there have been more than enough testers already and most of the time it is still way easier to get a balanced fight quickly, which is almost impossible on the OW version, if you don't set it up.

Where is the PvE version of NA? Ah, yes the PvE server... and who plays there? Barely anyone. My point still stands, NA works without PvE but not without PvP ( in the long term ).

By the way, admin himself said the game is about PvP with ships, so you're basically arguing against what the devs see as a fact and it is their game... who would know better?

Who would log into the game without the possibility of PvP after only 100 hours playtime???

And to use your logic NA is still in open Beta so many people are not logging in to grind knowing that they will have to grind it all again after reset.

The game is about PvP with ships, but the open world is about more than that. Yes I would find just PvE boring but at the same time if it is just PvP that you are looking for then NAL is where you want to be. People complain that in the OW game they have to sail for hours for the chance to find PvP and they just want to be able to log in and within a few minutes they want to be able to sail out and find PvP and if they get sunk they want to be able to return to the action asap, well they can have all that in NAL. I am not saying that all PvP'ers should go play NAL, but the people who want instant action and do not want to sail for hours for the chance to find PvP, it would seem NAL is a better choice.

As you say yourself its the possibility of PvP that makes the PvP servers more exciting than the PvE server. When I do a trade run I have to keep scanning the horizon looking for raiders, keeping an eye on combat chat and nation chat to work out if there are raiders close by. During that time I hope not to encounter any raiders and if I get to my destination safely I count that as a success in PvP, because I put my ship at risk and survived. I just wish the trade run was more meaningful in terms of the RvR, that by doing it I was helping my nation or clan in some way rather than just making money. 

When a raider goes out looking for a fight in OW there is a possibility he may not find any targets, but experienced raiders know where to go to find targets or at least increase the possibility of coming across a target. They do not expect targets to be handed to them on a plate by camping outside the nation capital. For those sorts of people they are better off going to NAL, but I guess most dont like that because in NAL the matchmaking tries to even things up (though it is very bad at it) so you should not get ganks.

The biggest problem in the OW game is the lack of people and that is why people cannot find PvP and traders are safer.

[Niagara]

8 minutes ago, Archaos said:

As you say yourself its the possibility of PvP that makes the PvP servers more exciting than the PvE server. When I do a trade run I have to keep scanning the horizon looking for raiders, keeping an eye on combat chat and nation chat to work out if there are raiders close by. During that time I hope not to encounter any raiders and if I get to my destination safely I count that as a success in PvP, because I put my ship at risk and survived. I just wish the trade run was more meaningful in terms of the RvR, that by doing it I was helping my nation or clan in some way rather than just making money.

The biggest problem in the OW game is the lack of people and that is why people cannot find PvP and traders are safer.

I agree, The game is better with more players. And the more a player feel invested into a game the more the player will play it.

If you feel as a trader that you are contributing to your nation/clan/friends with your "boring" trade runs thats great.

If you feel as a raider that you have made a contribution to your nation/clan/friends by raiding then thats great.

Same with shipbuilding and all others ways to play the game.

If there was a Button that says Press here to WIN and you just won the game after pressing it, How many would return to play if was that easy to win...

Most MMO know that the most time players will spend are in 2 phases. The grind to max level pahse and the fun you can do at max level phase with or without friends and then you lose interest unless new content is introduced to prolong either of those 2 phases.

Why do some many MMO have cosmetic features that takes forever to grind.. Its a timesink to keep the player playing more, especially if you have a pay to play setup on a montly charge

We need more timesinks

Atm there is serious issues when players are leveling. Huge gaps in levels where you skip many ships because you can crew larger ships and thus do not sail in as many different types of ships as you could.

How to fix this? Have more levels with more max crew differentials so you spend time testing more ships

You jump from 350 Max crew to 650 max crew. Why bother with big 4th rates when you can go to a 3rd rate...

[Archaos]

5 minutes ago, Niagara said:

I agree, The game is better with more players. And the more a player feel invested into a game the more the player will play it.

If you feel as a trader that you are contributing to your nation/clan/friends with your "boring" trade runs thats great.

If you feel as a raider that you have made a contribution to your nation/clan/friends by raiding then thats great.

Same with shipbuilding and all others ways to play the game.

If there was a Button that says Press here to WIN and you just won the game after pressing it, How many would return to play if was that easy to win...

Most MMO know that the most time players will spend are in 2 phases. The grind to max level pahse and the fun you can do at max level phase with or without friends and then you lose interest unless new content is introduced to prolong either of those 2 phases.

Why do some many MMO have cosmetic features that takes forever to grind.. Its a timesink to keep the player playing more, especially if you have a pay to play setup on a montly charge

We need more timesinks

Atm there is serious issues when players are leveling. Huge gaps in levels where you skip many ships because you can crew larger ships and thus do not sail in as many different types of ships as you could.

How to fix this? Have more levels with more max crew differentials so you spend time testing more ships

You jump from 350 Max crew to 650 max crew. Why bother with big 4th rates when you can go to a 3rd rate...

I think you are misquoting what I said, I said I wished that the trade run I did contributed more to my nation or clan, that somehow it affected the RvR.

I also disagree with needing more timesinks. One of the greatest complaints from people is the time taken to get to the action in OW and the grind to reach the end game. If you increase the grind you have to make it interesting or it will turn people away from the game. Look at NAL where you have to grind through each vessel before you can move onto the next and see the complaints about that.

A lot of people start playing the game and feel they have to get to a SOL as soon as possible and when they get there they suddenly realize that there is not much they can do alone in a first rate apart from missions in the safe zone. Most of the OW PvP happens in 4th and 5th rates.

[Niagara]

9 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I think you are misquoting what I said, I said I wished that the trade run I did contributed more to my nation or clan, that somehow it affected the RvR.

I also disagree with needing more timesinks. One of the greatest complaints from people is the time taken to get to the action in OW and the grind to reach the end game. If you increase the grind you have to make it interesting or it will turn people away from the game. Look at NAL where you have to grind through each vessel before you can move onto the next and see the complaints about that.

A lot of people start playing the game and feel they have to get to a SOL as soon as possible and when they get there they suddenly realize that there is not much they can do alone in a first rate apart from missions in the safe zone. Most of the OW PvP happens in 4th and 5th rates.

No, I agree with you that Traders and Crafters, Builders all need to feel that just what they do contribute to the greater effort, To make all players more included in what's happening.

Maybe I was unclear.

Ofc, Just adding Timesinks without them giving any benefits is useless, but lets be realistic. The most fun people have is chasing rewards of bigger and better toys. If you have to earn something it makes it more worth once you have it. If you get stuff by just showing up, how much do you actually value that stuff later.  And the fact that people wants the best and biggest toys as fast as possible is what it is. Give players content while grinding and they will enjoy it.

If you give a  new player a 1st rate and put that player in a 1st rate mission the odds are that the player will fail as bad as if the player was in a basic cutter. Learning how to play and using the different ships and the needed knowledge to use bigger ships is what called progress.

I am not saying that we need more ways to waste time but rather more ways to lure players to spend time in the game and doing trading/crafting/PvP etc to increase the player count.

The greatest MMO in the world is not that great if your alone in it....

 

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

People complain that in the OW game they have to sail for hours for the chance to find PvP and they just want to be able to log in and within a few minutes they want to be able to sail out and find PvP and if they get sunk they want to be able to return to the action asap

There's a middle ground between a few minutes and literal hours of searching for basic PVP.

Your telling people who just want PVP to play legends is like telling DayZ players to play COD. It's not just PVP players want, its actions leading up to it that have meaning and consequences, something you won't get in legends

Edited December 14, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

There's a middle ground between a few minutes and literal hours of searching for basic PVP.

You wont get an argument from me on that point. You should not have to spend hours searching for PvP, but at the same time camping outside a capital when there are no safe zones is hardly exciting play. Most of the complaints about lack of PvP would disappear if there were more people on the servers, I think that if the hard core PvP'ers had plenty of PvP they would not even feel that the safe zones were an issue. The big question is how to get more people into the game.

Sometimes I think hard core PvP'ers are like hunters who have decimated the local prey and then start complaining that their job is hard because they have to go further afield to find prey and sometimes they cannot find any.

[fox2run]

Yes. But No one is interested in change so only hope and recommendations is to support legends so that at least can provide a good gaming atmosphere. NA is a digital museum for hard cores. A status quo so to speak where nothing really happens.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Archaos said:

You wont get an argument from me on that point. You should not have to spend hours searching for PvP, but at the same time camping outside a capital when there are no safe zones is hardly exciting play. Most of the complaints about lack of PvP would disappear if there were more people on the servers, I think that if the hard core PvP'ers had plenty of PvP they would not even feel that the safe zones were an issue. The big question is how to get more people into the game.

Sometimes I think hard core PvP'ers are like hunters who have decimated the local prey and then start complaining that their job is hard because they have to go further afield to find prey and sometimes they cannot find any.

I agree capitals should be a safe haven, and yes PVP would less rare with more people but we won't get those players without the game working with its current base. That means relatively easy to find PVP in a single sitdown for new and old players.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need OW PVP objectives. The devs are leaving OW to human nature, human nature is going to the place where your chances are best to find PVP, which is capitals. 

Even with 2k players on the server, 80% of the map is still open ocean going unused. Utilize the map and make it a fun play space, whether PVE, PVP, Exploration or economy, make the OW fun and give us reasons to venture and things to participate in.

The game won't grow on its own, PVP won't cultivate itself. Devs need to take control and steer the player base, there's no reason players should have to go out of their way to play the game. It's simple, they wont. Global died because capitals were the only way to find OW PVP within reasonable time. As soon as that was gone, 100 players average left and combat news went from 20+ a night, to ~5. That's not the players fault, its fault of mechanics, or lack thereof.

[Hethwill]

Yep, the flock doesn't want to be content and players are content in a sandbox. Granted that if you spot a enemy ship nearby your zone you might not attack it because you are in safety, so why give up safety for a "unknown" outcome ?

So, what kind of mechanics would change this mindset ?

[Landsman]

5 hours ago, Archaos said:

And to use your logic NA is still in open Beta so many people are not logging in to grind knowing that they will have to grind it all again after reset.

Haha, sorry mate but I stopped reading here already... the OW version has been up for what now.... 3 years? Don't even try to compare it to Legends in this regard... unless you wait 3 years and compare it to the current OW NA.

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, Landsman said:

Haha, sorry mate but I stopped reading here already... the OW version has been up for what now.... 3 years? Don't even try to compare it to Legends in this regard... unless you wait 3 years and compare it to the current OW NA.

When OW started there were queues and they had to open new servers, I do not see the same with NAL.