Merge PVE and PVP Server?

[BallsOfSteel]

We currently have a situation where players wanting to PVE only and wanting a change have to start over. Same for PVP players wanting a break. 

[Slim McSauce]

not sure if serious...

big if but if done right it would work. How often do PvErs use the entire map anyway? Nearly all ports on that server are neutral.

Give them the safezone in it's entirety, completely safe from any tagging, give them a PvE only nation. The PvE server is the same problem global had. You can't develop for pvp AND pve server and pve server playerbase is small anyway. Make them completely at home at pvp, we'll be happy to take them if in return pvp gets it's own OW mechanics to fight in contested territory that is not the capital. 

make it impossible to tag in ANY nations safezone. Then what. Well devs better have some new OW pvp mechanics by then or both pvpers and pvers will piss off. OW mechanics as in anything that facilitates, hosts, promotes pvp strickly from OW/map perspective, not general pvp meta which relying on wholly brought pvp to capitals in the first place.

point is the game feels like a PvE server anyway because no care is put in for ow pvp mechanics.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Guest]

i could only vote yes if the devs make it so you cant play the full content of the game from the reinforcement zone alone, for example the most vital resources are outside the zone and not easy to obtain. I would still go for some kind of leveling pattern as WoW where you have certain areas for certain ranks, could be hard to program with the change of nation ports, but then again make the missions more flexible not just a search and destroy mission.

[Aquillas]

If this is done, including above mentioned modification of reinforced areas, some PVE players will come on PVP server. Then, our PvP players will complain as usual about safe zones are too big and about obliging players to go out safe areas and make PvP. Then developpers will modify again safe areas and PVE players will go and play another game.

[Grundgemunkey]

limited vote choices

would want to vote yes for character rank and cradt xp been able to move ........ but no for assets

[Sinu]

On PvP Server a PvE Nation is a good idea

 

[Archaos]

Bad idea. All that would happen is that once servers were merged then there would start a constant campaign to reduce the dedicated safe zone till all the protections were gone.

[Percival Merewether]

A merge is a very bad idea, it is not going to fix the current player numbers. I'd gladly let them move their character over to 'PvP One' with experience + skill books though, but let's not force them to switch.

[Palatinose]

Puh i don't know if that's a good idea. Let's say we get a dedicaded PvE zone (gulf of mexico?) created. How do you separate it? I mean, yeah RoE could be taggin players is impossible, all AI is neutral and therefore one can only join on national side. Should people be able to tow ships there and generate upgrades - aka all the stuff that others have to pvp or rvr for? I mean PvE players should also have the right for the fine stuff. But imo this isn't combinable with the pvp servers understanding of fighting for ressources.

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

Puh i don't know if that's a good idea. Let's say we get a dedicaded PvE zone (gulf of mexico?) created. How do you separate it? I mean, yeah RoE could be taggin players is impossible, all AI is neutral and therefore one can only join on national side. Should people be able to tow ships there and generate upgrades - aka all the stuff that others have to pvp or rvr for? I mean PvE players should also have the right for the fine stuff. But imo this isn't combinable with the pvp servers understanding of fighting for ressources.

thought about this same thing a year ago. It would take too much coding to do that. 

If we had a reason to fight on borders of territory and push that way and not cut the butter straight into capitals then it would work. The only reason we complain about safezones is because pvp left to itself goes to the the most pupulated area,  not the area with the most willing participants.

Which is why I mentioned that new ow pvp mechanics need to be introduced or the two sides would eat into each other sharing the same space. (Which they shouldnt be in the first place)

Edited April 11, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Jean Ribault]

This vote is not valid here on this forum.  Anyone can answer, even those who don't even have a character on PVE server or never play the one they might have.  Therefore the integrity of the vote is in question.  The only way to get an accurate answer is to poll people within the PVE server during game and after a certain amount of hours of gameplay there.  I voted anyway but I do play both servers.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 hours ago, Grundgemunkey said:

limited vote choices

would want to vote yes for character rank and cradt xp been able to move ........ but no for assets

Yah they can freely collect a lot of stuff over there including capture of any ships up to 1st rates.

They can't merge the servers cause they made promise they will keep them open 18+ months or something.  Other wise I think they would of all ready done so and just released a PvE server when the game is released.  Honestly I have never seen more than 125 players on there and most the time it's like 20-40.  

[Jean Ribault]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Yah they can freely collect a lot of stuff over there including capture of any ships up to 1st rates.

They can't merge the servers cause they made promise they will keep them open 18+ months or something.  Other wise I think they would of all ready done so and just released a PvE server when the game is released.  Honestly I have never seen more than 125 players on there and most the time it's like 20-40.  

The rise and fall of player numbers on PVE server during EST (when I play) seems to match the curve on the Carribean server, just lower numbers overall by comparison.  The number of overall players on PVE it seems has also declined consistently with the declining numbers on Carribean.

In other words, player numbers are a game issue, not a server issue.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[John Jacob Astor]

18 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

The rise and fall of player numbers on PVE server during EST (when I play) seems to match the curve on the Carribean server, just lower numbers overall by comparison.  The number of overall players on PVE it seems has also declined consistently with the declining numbers on Carribean.

In other words, player numbers are a game issue, not a server issue.

Having played PvE until about six weeks ago I would have to agree.  PvE was the best way to learn game mechanics.  It also provided an up close view of the economy and other issues that affect playability.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

On 11.4.2018 at 8:01 AM, Slim McSauce said:

How often do PvErs use the entire map anyway? Nearly all ports on that server are neutral.

Seems you never played on PvE. Yes, I sail from the Gulf of Mexico to the Antilles and back. Neutral ports are no reason for not sailing, they are the reason FOR sailing much around. As you can look and discover what they have to offer without getting harassed by those... those... you know whom I mean...

Edited April 16, 2018 by Cetric de Cornusiac

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

On 11.4.2018 at 4:52 PM, Marcus Corvus said:

Having played PvE until about six weeks ago I would have to agree.  PvE was the best way to learn game mechanics.  It also provided an up close view of the economy and other issues that affect playability.

And there you can try out many upgrades which you would get only much, much later on PvP, given the enormous prices asked.

[AngryPanCake]

Statistically, the forum polls have a very limited validity at best. The sample number is too small to be representative. But the issue as most people know is not with the low population...well, it kinda is. But, the real question is why are the numbers so low?

You feel the problem is 2 different severs, the population is divided between the two? I you really think it's the case, then you think adding the 50-100 players from PVE to the merged servers will definitely fix the problem? come on, you are are smarter than that.

There have been multiple posts and whole threads about this issue, some more passionate (or vitriolic) than others. The main sentiment is that the vast majority of the PVE'ers do not want to play alongside PvP'ers, at the same time there are many PvP'ers who do not want to play with PvE'ers either. The reason is that we are dealing with completely different play styles.

And yes, sailing around in complete safety is appealing to some players (I'm one of them), even if others do not understand the risk aversion some players enjoy. It's just the way it is. Some like action, some like what may appear to others as utter boredom.

Anyway, I hope we continue to have a constructive discussion about what would keep this game going and how to keep improving it.

 

[Slim McSauce]

If PVE was merged into pvp that would pretty much force devs to develope for the pve side. Right now treating pve and pvp like two different games has left pve in the dark

[Cmdr RideZ]

15 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

And there you can try out many upgrades which you would get only much, much later on PvP, given the enormous prices asked.

This is a terrible issue on PvP server.

...

PvE area is ok. It does not matter if players can craft their ships there for PvP. PvP area has RvR and OW PvP, rewards defined by these as well. It could be so that you cannot tow ships from PvE area to PvP area, but even this is not mandatory.

I think that going server specific XP was a mistake. Would be better if PvE players could join freely PvP servers. They would not have ships but they would have their rank. We have plenty of clans that can provide ships. I would also remove or radically decrease ship knowledge XP requirements.  Ship knowledge is offering no improvements to gameplay.