pvp/pve flag and open world interaction

[Magnum]

Remove Captains name from hail in OW and have variable join timers for battles (timer countdown shown in the OW and the instance) ------ Next to a Capitol - a 1 min join timer, battle is locked with the human adversaries and the AI reinforcements very quickly, Further away (read boondocks) up to a 10 minute join timer for both human and AI reinforcements - then total lock.

 

If a PvP oriented player wants to make a run through the "boondocks" he/she better pack a lunch and be ready for human hunters wanting PvP.

 

All one "universe" is better.

[Johny Reb]

Such players wont pull anyone anywhere. 

NCO flags were discussed some time before as an alternative to a PVE shard - they are possible and without exploits. 

NCO = non commissioned officer with a timed flag (cannot take it off quickly and put back) who cannot attack National players and cannot be attacked by National players (but still has pirates who can attack him). 

If you went with something like this then a few rules should be built in.

    1. No timed flag! On Mondays a player will flag up to do a port battle and on tuesday he will remove his flag and do all his hauling. It will not be used as a way for true pve'ers to avoid pvp. It will be used out of self interest to protect their material while hauling. Make the flags permanent. Your toon is created as either a pvp toon or a pve toon and if your gonna do this then you might as well just keep the neutral nations in game.

    2. Players that roll pve can not take part in ANY pvp oriented part of the game. No flips, no port battles, nothing!

As a pvp player in Potbs, two things irritated me constantly about some pve'ers. When we would start loosing a map there was always one or two carebears that would start telling us how bad our strategy was and how we needed to think outside of the box, etc. when all that was the problem is that we would only have 10 show for the fight when the other team brought 24. The second thing that irritated me was that occasionally a carebear would want to take part in a PB so he would go do a mission and get his 2 points and then bump someone out of the fight that worked their butts off to get us to that point on the map. If someone wants to roll pve then make them do it entirely.

[SCL]

Yes, it does, because with your suggestion, all a person has to do is make a PVE ALT, go around, collect the best resources, make a ton of money practically risk free, get into crafting, make a ton of more money by selling ships practically risk free, then start making awesome pvp ships, practically risk free.

 

Sounds good. When do i get to make this PVE alt make a ton of money and get higher tier ships fast then pvp till me hearts content. Do you know? 

[TommyShelby]

Sounds good. When do i get to make this PVE alt make a ton of money and get higher tier ships fast then pvp till me hearts content. Do you know? 

Well, depending on how crafting/trading is going to work after the patch i guess you could just make a Neutral Alt. 

[Ronald Speirs]

Would my suggestion of making goods more profitable when selling if the hauler was flagged PvP when transporting (flagged from port start till port end) over a player that was only PvE giving players more incentive to want to flag and try hauling for more rewards but also bring that risk into it, or even saying their is a hauling limit so they can only load half the actual ship if just PvE (rough idea) so it take longer for them to build up money and ships, we could even make contracts for hauling PvP or players to PvP escort which is signed up in starting port for a % of goods sold or minimum cost per nautical mile and payed once arrived at port with goods, I'm just suggesting ideas to try keep both parties happy, at the rate the discussion has gone it hasn't achieved much in terms of ideas which is a shame and not constructive, use perspective and try relate to both parties and how you think you could make a system that could work rather then just saying it should be this and nothing else cause at the end of the day it wont last having a split community with different ideas on what they like about the game and how they wanna use their time.

[Johny Reb]

The only problem I see with your idea Speirs is that it sounds as if you would be taking control away from the players by dictating prices of goods instead of allowing the market to balance itself out. In a player controlled market I think you would find the opposite play itself out. A pvp hauler will inevitably be captured more often then the neutral player, and will therefore loose more profit requiring him to raise his prices to cover the loss. He also has more of an incentive to higher protection fleets which again will raise his prices. This has been my concern about neutral players from the beginning and a lot of deals will be made with pirates to curb the undercutting that a neutral will do.

 

The only idea I have thought of to prevent the undercutting and making it more profitable for the pvp hauler would be to allow us to charge a high tax on neutral shippers. The problem here is that if your enemy is willing to take their low cost goods without applying a high tax to it even though it will hurt their own haulers so that they can launch ships cheaper then your nation will most likely be forced to do the same unless you are a large rich nation.

 

Limiting the capacity of their holds may work to balance things out but I think they are about to flame over that idea. We will see.

[Magnum]

PvP or PvE is a style-o'-play choice it is not a "team". Doing anything that tends to differentiate the styles of play one from another will create issues that we don't need.

 

If one play session you want to haul lumber and fight against bots - cool.

 

If another session you want to get with your pod and try to gank newbs - OK, but please don't mind if the game mechanics make it pretty hard and costly to do so

 

Then for another session you want to sail solo and see what PvP or PvE trouble you can stir up - super.

 

There are plenty of factions without trying to adjust the game mechanics to make a "faction" out of PvE'ers - or PvP'ers (since no player is "strictly" one or the other)

 

-----

 

Isn't that what an OPEN world sandbox should be? Play whatever you want whenever you want?

[Ronald Speirs]

Amp i liked ur idea about removing names, would u also remove the fleet bit depending weather player ai fleets come back, if they dont bring them back it might still be easy to spot a player in a lone ship but it still makes it interesting, more players behaving like AI to try pass undetected, it would be actually cool if the AI fleets wernt just 1 ship with 5 others in the fleet but instead sailing in a group of single ships on OW then players could sit among them to try and use it as a tactic, new dynamic i also see the concern by the market and players dictating prices, in terms of buy and sell most people try get the best deal for the most return or savings, i would rather by cheap but then again if i dont have time or to lazy to do the sailing i will buy what i need to get something done, getting the right balance and system will take so fine tuning and testing but im liking the ideas and communication going on now, more constructive and brainstorming

And my definition of OW sandbox was Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives, so by that it seems that players are in control of what they want to do and not what others want them to do, seems a huge doh between the 2 playing styles

[Magnum]

But there are not just 2 playing styles - there is a "spectrum" and any single player might play anywhere along it --- as he/she chooses.

 

Some players might be "mostly PvP" oriented but certainly willing to sink/cap bots if that gets them through the grind.

 

Some (most?) might do either depending on the situation around them --- that's me - I swing either way

 

And some might want to just do PvE all the time, but will PvP if another player starts it (even if it is just to run).

 

-----

 

My point is we don't need to try and set up multiple servers or multiple sets of rules to accommodate different styles of play, we just need enough rules so it is "potentially" fun for all.

[admin]

Please stop fighting about PVE vs PVP players. These audiences don't mix usually.

If the game is popular there will be multiple shards anyway. The current tech can support 2000 simultaneous players online on one shard. If N.A. sells 100,000 copies we will have at least 2-3 shards.

[Ronald Speirs]

Please stop fighting about PVE vs PVP players. These audiences don't mix usually.

If the game is popular there will be multiple shards anyway. The current tech can support 2000 simultaneous players online on one shard. If N.A. sells 100,000 copies we will have at least 2-3 shards.

The 2 choices don't mix well atm, as a community we can find a way as long as it says helpful and constructive, bagging which is what quite a few do when they read something they don't like needs to stop it doesn't help and gets us no where, i was here to find a good or fun idea to work both styles together or offer choices that work both ways, Amp seems to be throwing outs some good feedback and some things we can work on, i believe that both PvE and PvP can play together we just need to find out what will make both parties happy, like i said truly put yourself in their shoes and think about how they see it and what you think they will like and how you think there is a way to make it work and then suggest ideas, if players read it and see ideas that will work or things that might be complicated or exploited then say this could cause issues and why you think it could and how you could change it or maybe see a different way of working it, i mean with that attitude we can create great things together, this game has so much potential if everyone works together to make it happen not bag players and the rest, they are just ideas and trying to help. 

[Magnum]

Please stop fighting about PVE vs PVP players. These audiences don't mix usually.

If the game is popular there will be multiple shards anyway. The current tech can support 2000 simultaneous players online on one shard. If N.A. sells 100,000 copies we will have at least 2-3 shards.

 

Will a player logging in know which shard they are logged into?

 

If my buddy Prater logs in at 6:30 PM (Eastern Time) and I log in later at 9:30 Eastern is it possible he will not be able to sink me because we are in different "shards" so that even though we are at the same map coordinates we can't play each other?