Forthcoming Patch 23. Hercules, Tutorial and Map teaser

[pepepotamo]

Me descojono!!! Cada vez tenéis menos gente. Esto lo hacéis a propósito o es una apuesta para ver qué absurda idea es capaz de vaciar el servidor?

Traducid un poquito así haréis algo de provecho.

[The Marinadtor]

2 minutes ago, admin said:

It wont. sorry mate. Your logic is flawed, and here is why. 
There are two sides of the medal

1. Limited missions cancellations (position decided by admiralty)
2. Unlimited missions (position decided by player)

Only one side could be right. 

You (and some others) say that limited mission will cause online to fall.
Using this logic we can infer that unlimited missions should cause online to go up. Which is definitely not true.

Everyone should understand this: this game tries to deliver a certain experience, but not everyone will like this experience. We have no desire to satisfy everyone.

Hunt in the OW, there are places where you dont even have to sail for 5 mins for constant non stop farming.
Leave capitals - there are plenty of bot chokepoints. 

But i will tell you this. Missions are not a final feature. They might not survive by release.
 

 

I don't agree with the statement that the inverse will happen if you choose an other path in a binary choice. That would mean the game soley rests on one feature which I'm sure you agree is not true, this game is a system of features each interacting with other features and the games current lack of retention is down to many things(some more valid than others). As it stands now because missions are the only reliable way for most PVE players to get their fix out of the game, limiting it will limit the rentention of these players. If you limited missions but added something else to do for PVE'ers then that would be a different argument(maybe just increased the density of NPC fleets on the PVE server and not PVP server). Just taking away wont do anything for rentantion of players, but that might not be your goal I guess.

[Project Pluto]

5 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I agree with you in principle, but PUBG is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.  I don't have to sail for 2 hours to find a 1.5 hour fight in PUBG.  When I go out and kill off a bunch of new players who can't even manual sail and probably don't have the money to replace even the storebought ships + cannons + repairs they're in without a few full days of grinding... this isn't the same as dying and clicking respawn with exactly the same loadout and an even playing field with everyone else.

Be honest when you assess the changes you're making and the players you're catering to.

that game even got cars to get faster into the action, what NA has? you have to sail for hours to get action. Another huge population killer. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Project Pluto

[victor]

 

12 minutes ago, admin said:

It wont. sorry mate. Your logic is flawed, and here is why. 
There are two sides of the medal

1. Limited missions cancellations (position decided by admiralty)
2. Unlimited missions (position decided by player)

Only one side could be right. 

You (and some others) say that limited mission will cause online to fall.
Using this logic we can infer that unlimited missions should cause online to go up. Which is definitely not true.
 

If you do not take this as a personal offence of disrespect, this statement contains a clear logic error:  from the fact that cause [A] has consequence (B) you cannot infere that cause [opposite to A] has necessarily the consequence [opposite to B].

Edited April 17, 2018 by victor

[RedNeckMilkMan]

Just now, Project Pluto said:

that game even got cars to get faster into the action, what NA has?

Tows and Teleports to outposts. A PVP cricle filled with players most of the time.

[z4ys]

6 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I agree with you in principle, but PUBG is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.  I don't have to sail for 2 hours to find a 1.5 hour fight in PUBG.  When I go out and kill off a bunch of new players who can't even manual sail and probably don't have the money to replace even the storebought ships + cannons + repairs they're in without a few full days of grinding... this isn't the same as dying and clicking respawn with exactly the same loadout and an even playing field with everyone else.

Be honest when you assess the changes you're making and the players you're catering to.

Tell me were is the difference between patrol and pubg. In my opinion there is none. It's last man standing with shrinking circle. Even the sail can be done in 5mins from a close Freetown. Difference is only OW hunting but people don't have to. There is an easy option if they would actually look for pvp (fighting) but most people look for easy winning so they rather sail hours then just a few mins. Not game fault. Players fault.

Edited April 17, 2018 by z4ys

[Vernon Merrill]

1 minute ago, z4ys said:

Tell me were is the difference between patrol and pubg. In my opinion there is none. It's last man standing with shrinking circle. Even the sail can be done in 5mins from a close Freetown. Difference is only OW hunting but people don't have to. There is an easy option if they would actually look for pvp (fighting) but most people look for easy winning so they rather sail hours then just a few mins. Not game fault. Players fault.

This.  Exactly.   

I however, enjoy the slower pace of OW hunting....   seems there is "choice" in this game after all....

 

[Project Pluto]

12 minutes ago, z4ys said:

Tell me were is the difference between patrol and pubg. In my opinion there is none. It's last man standing with shrinking circle. Even the sail can be done in 5mins from a close Freetown. Difference is only OW hunting but people don't have to there is an easy option if they would actually look for pvp (fighting) but most people look for easy winning so they rather sail hours then just a few mins. Not game fault. Players fault.

It's not about people want to fight, it's more about why they would invest so much time with high risk into the action without any reward or fun? I did post comparison why other games are so catchy and people sail all the time. 

Casuals like to fleet and get random loot and rare drops, fill achievements, daily missions and work towards final rewards. Casuals then try to pvp, but they are not forced to do so compared to NA where they must risk it all. every 2nd killed will quit imho. That is because time required to do things is insane. 

Not providing these conditions NA will  remain pvp only game with weak population before it dies out. Just my thoughts. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Project Pluto

[RedNeckMilkMan]

2 minutes ago, The Marinadtor said:

I don't agree with the statement that the inverse will happen if you choose an other path in a binary choice. That would mean the game soley rests on one feature which I'm sure you agree is not true, this game is a system of features each interacting with other features and the games current lack of retention is down to many things(some more valid than others). As it stands now because missions are the only reliable way for most PVE players to get their fix out of the game, limiting it will limit the rentention of these players. If you limited missions but added something else to do for PVE'ers then that would be a different argument(maybe just increased the density of NPC fleets on the PVE server and not PVP server). Just taking away wont do anything for rentantion of players, but that might not be your goal I guess.

Leave the capital area and I guarantee you that you will never not be able to find an AI fleet. If you sit in the capital area and look for fleets with the other 90% of players then you are not going to be very successful are you?

[RedNeckMilkMan]

1 minute ago, Project Pluto said:

It's not about people want to fight, it's more about why they would invest so much time with high risk into the action without any reward of fun? I did post comparison why other games are so catchy and people sail all the time. 

If you don't find the game enjoyable then that's on you. I personally find risking my ship to fight very enjoyable. There is 0 risk in Pubg and that game gets quite repetitive. NA combat has a lot of variety stemming from the build of you ship to the type of engagement you are in. And I can only assume this will become more complex as the game develops.

[The Marinadtor]

16 minutes ago, admin said:

It wont. sorry mate. Your logic is flawed, and here is why. 
There are two sides of the medal

1. Limited missions cancellations (position decided by admiralty)
2. Unlimited missions (position decided by player)

Only one side could be right. 

You (and some others) say that limited mission will cause online to fall.
Using this logic we can infer that unlimited missions should cause online to go up. Which is definitely not true.

Everyone should understand this: this game tries to deliver a certain experience, but not everyone will like this experience. We have no desire to satisfy everyone.

Hunt in the OW, there are places where you dont even have to sail for 5 mins for constant non stop farming.
Leave capitals - there are plenty of bot chokepoints. 

But i will tell you this. Missions are not a final feature. They might not survive by release.
 

 

Just to make it clear: all I am saying is that I believe that limiting the cancellation of missions will INCREASE the bleed of PVE server players, not that the game will gain millions of players simply by not doing anything.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

Just now, Wraith said:

And yet we still see people farming newbs outside Charleston and KPR... that's strange, since your assertion is that PvP'ers only are really looking for good, high quality and consensual PvP?

Evidence says otherwise.

When did I state that?

[Project Pluto]

4 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

If you don't find the game enjoyable then that's on you. I personally find risking my ship to fight very enjoyable. There is 0 risk in Pubg and that game gets quite repetitive. NA combat has a lot of variety stemming from the build of you ship to the type of engagement you are in. And I can only assume this will become more complex as the game develops.

I do and you do , but others don't and NA remains empty. 2 guys opinions will not change much. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Project Pluto

[Hethwill]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

 

Absolutely agree with you. I think there's a big mix up between QoL and "let me do my own thing without interference". I might be prone to misinterpretations but one doesn't necessarily mean the other.  Unless we specify the PvE server, in which there's no PvP whatsoever.

In sum, when you want pvp only when you want pvp you are blocking the game to the other 99,9999999% of captains. Think about that.

 

[RedNeckMilkMan]

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

Come on, really? The difference is that NA is not free for all.  In NA it's Red vs. Green and it boils down to who has the biggest gank fleet in the best, tankiest ships. It's not who is the best individual player.  

Really? You US boys need to get some better ships then and you will win 100%.

[Project Pluto]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Absolutely agree with you. I think there's a big mix up between QoL and "let me do my own thing without interference". I might be prone to misinterpretations but one doesn't necessarily mean the other.  Unless we specify the PvE server, in which there's no PvP whatsoever.

In sum, when you want pvp only when you want pvp you are blocking the game to the other 99,9999999% of captains. Think about that.

 

Spliting servers was a bad idea. Pve/PvP is a way to go. Players see players, they see life and they do not complain. Yes, you have to give new guys safety at the start, but it will pay off in the end. Guarantee. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Project Pluto

[z4ys]

Just now, Project Pluto said:

It's not about people want to fight, it's more about why they would invest so much time with high risk into the action without any reward of fun? I did post comparison why other games are so catchy and people sail all the time. 

I don't agree. As I said you don't have to invest much time to actually get into a fight. Fights are easy to get. But I tend to agree fights on my terms are much harder to get. So my fun gets spoiled by other people that don't want to get slapped but not by the game. Blame other people for not sailing towards you and die under your guns but not the game. Tools are their but we don't use them because result are not in our favor. Don't complain about time when there are so many easy ways.

Games like pubg are catching because you fail and you try over and over again. That are games that make you rage so you wanna do better next time.

 

[Retrin]

23 minutes ago, admin said:

millions of rookies are farmed in PUBG mercilessly
All games die. all people die and all ships sink.

the sooner players realize that ship loss is nothing to worry about - the better.
 

WHAT?? .. 'all people die'..? .. am going to die!!

 

and I haven't even completed all my books!

[The Marinadtor]

6 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

Leave the capital area and I guarantee you that you will never not be able to find an AI fleet. If you sit in the capital area and look for fleets with the other 90% of players then you are not going to be very successful are you?

I have left the Capital area, but I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the general population and especially the new players on PVE who are not part of a clan, who do not intend to play with people but just want to come on a couple of houres every other day to do some fighting. They will probably not stay in the game if they can't easily get their battles, and limiting the cancellation will make it harder for them to get their battles without adding something to fill that need.

[Project Pluto]

14 minutes ago, z4ys said:

I don't agree. As I said you don't have to invest much time to actually get into a fight. Fights are easy to get. But I tend to agree fights on my terms are much harder to get. So my fun gets spoiled by other people that don't want to get slapped but not by the game. Blame other people for not sailing towards you and die under your guns but not the game. Tools are their but we don't use them because result are not in our favor. Don't complain about time when there are so many easy ways.

Games like pubg are catching because you fail and you try over and over again. That are games that make you rage so you wanna do better next time.

 

I will not complain, but if NA want to be healthy developers must protect new guys until they mature. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Project Pluto

[Michael Corvinus]

21 minutes ago, admin said:

It wont. sorry mate. Your logic is flawed, and here is why. 
There are two sides of the medal

1. Limited missions cancellations (position decided by admiralty)
2. Unlimited missions (position decided by player)

Only one side could be right. 

You (and some others) say that limited mission will cause online to fall.
Using this logic we can infer that unlimited missions should cause online to go up. Which is definitely not true.

Everyone should understand this: this game tries to deliver a certain experience, but not everyone will like this experience. We have no desire to satisfy everyone.

Hunt in the OW, there are places where you dont even have to sail for 5 mins for constant non stop farming.
Leave capitals - there are plenty of bot chokepoints. 

But i will tell you this. Missions are not a final feature. They might not survive by release.
 

 

Do you actually want this game to develop and have a great vibrant player base or just keep it a low base niche game? If so just state that and be done with it.

 

I used to work in mainstream leisure centers and gyms. Their membership model is to enroll as many new members as they could each week and get their money. They actually did not care or want member retention as long as they could get new members each week. If everyone turned up they simply would not all fit in the gym. One study worked out that for mainstream gyms over 60% of their income was from members who did not go to the gym for various reasons.

Reading what you say makes me think  that you don't care if people leave or not. You are happy to get their initial buying in fee and that's it. You could make so much more money buy encouraging a higher player base and introducing micro-transactions on cosmetics for ships for the large amount of player that you would have. Players could decorate their sails and ships, have various historical decals/crests etc. Elite Dangerous is a very good example of pay to decorate and not pay to win.

[RedNeckMilkMan]

1 minute ago, The Marinadtor said:

I have left the Capital area, but I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the general population and especially the new players on PVE who are not part of a clan, who do not intend to play with people but just want to come on a couple of houres every other day to do some fighting. They will probably not stay in the game if they can't easily get their battles, and limiting the cancellation will make it harder for them to get their battles without adding something to fill that need.

This is not a casual game though. It's not a game like CoD or BF where you hop on and play for 20 mins. It requires a large time commitment to accomplish stuff. Perhaps in the future this will change but as of now it is not so.

[Sir Texas Sir]

6 hours ago, admin said:

Towns set Free for All by clans now provide teleport option for all nations

@admin Does this mean you have the option to say if they can or can't telport in?  Like I can set a FFA town but than set the option to allow folks to teleport in or not?  I would prefer to have the option as I might not want folks to teleport into a port to keep ships there, but don't mind them showing up to trade.  Can we get a clarification on this?

[RedNeckMilkMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Corvinus said:

Do you actually want this game to develop and have a great vibrant player base or just keep it a low base niche game? If so just state that and be done with it.

 

I used to work in mainstream leisure centers and gyms. Their membership model is to enroll as many new members as they could each week and get their money. They actually did not care or want member retention as long as they could get new members each week. If everyone turned up they simply would not all fit in the gym. One study worked out that for mainstream gyms over 60% of their income was from members who did not go to the gym for various reasons.

Reading what you say makes me think  that you don't care if people leave or not. You are happy to get their initial buying in fee and that's it. You could make so much more money buy encouraging a higher player base and introducing micro-transactions on cosmetics for ships for the large amount of player that you would have. Players could decorate their sails and ships, have various historical decals/crests etc. Elite Dangerous is a very good example of pay to decorate and not pay to win.

So you have somehow extrapolated from "Missions can only be renewed three times" to "The Devs are money whores"... Yikes

[Cecil Selous]

Can we not just disable joining missions of other players. I don't need that to be honest. Groups should still be able to join them together but we would have less griefing and ganking of new players in missions if the enemy can't. And people can also do missions outside the zones risk free (well, ok the way to the mission can be risky).