Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
admin

Entry to missions! Your opinion needed.

  

363 members have voted

  1. 1. Vote for mission entry options

    • Allow entry only to enemies - solving pvp exploit
      70
    • Keep entry for all (increasing the assist XP) - providing more opportunities to defend
      294


Recommended Posts

  • I absolutely believe that this would be the ideal solution. Being helped out by random sailors is a very good experience. Would hate to see that being taken away.

 

  • Allow entry for non-group members, but increase mission rewards and assist XP - providing options for friendlies to reinforce 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of completely stopping ungrouped friendlies joining battles - this is mainly because I have found many newer players very grateful for assistance and for hints and tips when I join fights. In my case, if someone doesn't want assistance and they say so I am happy to disengage.  As some players don't do this, I do think the idea of allowing the 'battle owner' the opportunity to allow friendlies to enter or not would be a far better compromise.  

 

In terms of historical realism, surely if a Captain were sailing by a battle involving his countrymen, he would be obliged to assist in the engagement. In my own mind, I like the feeling of sailing around assisting players of my own nation, rescuing them from tricky situations (or vice-versa) - it really helps my sense of immersion and I would miss it if it were not there at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of completely stopping ungrouped friendlies joining battles - this is mainly because I have found many newer players very grateful for assistance and for hints and tips when I join fights. In my case, if someone doesn't want assistance and they say so I am happy to disengage.  As some players don't do this, I do think the idea of allowing the 'battle owner' the opportunity to allow friendlies to enter or not would be a far better compromise.  

 

In terms of historical realism, surely if a Captain were sailing by a battle involving his countrymen, he would be obliged to assist in the engagement. In my own mind, I like the feeling of sailing around assisting players of my own nation, rescuing them from tricky situations (or vice-versa) - it really helps my sense of immersion and I would miss it if it were not there at all.

 

I agree 100%. That's exactly what I was doing all day yesterday - helping others in their missions. There were large co-op groups all over the place and we had *alot* of fun doing this.I saw no complaints. There were some requests however and everyone complied ( dont sink the npc etc).  It was building up a nice "fleet" atmosphere around the capital and now the missions feel like a solo offline experience. Not good.  I'd like to see a /open/not-open toggle added for missions please!

Edited by Kilo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of completely stopping ungrouped friendlies joining battles - this is mainly because I have found many newer players very grateful for assistance and for hints and tips when I join fights. In my case, if someone doesn't want assistance and they say so I am happy to disengage.  As some players don't do this, I do think the idea of allowing the 'battle owner' the opportunity to allow friendlies to enter or not would be a far better compromise.  

 

In terms of historical realism, surely if a Captain were sailing by a battle involving his countrymen, he would be obliged to assist in the engagement. In my own mind, I like the feeling of sailing around assisting players of my own nation, rescuing them from tricky situations (or vice-versa) - it really helps my sense of immersion and I would miss it if it were not there at all.

 

I agree, the "realism" of age of sail experience and huge open world (as advertised) will suffer greatly if possibilities are restricted by automatic rules that are drawn up from utterly unrealistic reasons like "He's going to steal my experience and gold, which I get for the amount of damage I inflict on the enemy". If someone really doesn't want friendlies joining a mission or battle, then give the mission initiator an option to deny entry and also friendlies in the vicinity of an initiating battle the option not to participate and sail on.

 

Enemies on the other hand, they must be allowed to enter any battle, if he can catch you on the OW map, then he must have a chance to engage you.

 

On PvP fights there would then be a choice for the participants to deny entry from friendlies on both sides, so if they want a duel, they can have one. You could make the opponents "battle open / closed" -choice visible also.

 

So, please don't automatically restrict players, instead give them the option to do so if they want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this alot last night (yeah, I'm that sad!) and think the new entry-to-mission rules are a big step backwards for the game (especially when combined with the apparent lack now of normal ai fleets/battles - I know I am struggling to find many).

 

a. Naval Action is an MMO in which surely the whole point is to get large numbers of players, playing together. To actually prevent people from playing together seems to go against the basic ethos of the genre. I know I play MMO's primarily because of the other people I encounter and play with either co-operatively or competitively and don't want to see that diluted.

 

b. It makes things much harder for newer players to get into the game. The best way for new players to pick up the basics is to jump into pre-existing battles where they are relatively safe and can ask for lots of advice etc - I know that's what I did. Missions can be difficult and overwhelming at first and new players are far less likely to have friends in the game or a clan to group up with and help them out. I think, in one stroke this may have made the initial learning-curve much steeper.

 

c. It's not historically accurate or realistic at all. Imagine actually captaining a ship (I know I am imagining this!) and seeing ships of your nation locked in furious combat, yet not assisting in any way you can. Surely you would be duty-bound to enter the fray and if you were found not to have done, subject to strong discipline by your Admiralty. Knowing I am merrily sailing by these battles because they are simply closed or an arbitary 5 minute timer is up does significantly break the immersion for me (as well as upsetting my personal code/liking for helping my fellows out in times of need).

 

d. It reduces exploration/free sailing in the world. As there are so few battles (that I can find at least) available to enter in the OW, it has reduced (my) gameplay to a simple procedure of 'get mission from port, do mission, return to port, rince-and-repeat.' It feels to me far more grindy and far less fun to be honest (though I still love NA!).

 

The primary problem with fully-open battles seems to be that players are actually penalised for playing together; ie co-operating drastically reduces the amount of gold and exp a player gets. Surely we should be aiming to reward players for interacting and playing with each other, and if we could actually do this it would resolving this issue at one stroke. The first MMO I played that I remember doing this was Guild Wars 2 in which all players who contribute to a fight earn the same exp and chance of loot. As a version of this, could we consider fixed rewards for sinking/boarding enemy ships. The way this would/could work would be that the owner of the battle/mission would receive a fixed gold and exp reward for participating in the defeat of any enemy ships in the battle. All assisting players would receive a smaller, but still fixed reward for any ships they have helped to defeat. Reward would be for defeating individual ships rather than the whole battle and a player would simply have to participate (ie cause a minimum damage level) in the defeat of any ship to receive a reward. Of course, this means that reward would no longer be tied to damage amount caused in a battle.  At the end of a battle any additional loot would be distributed randomly on a player-by player basis.  In this scenario, every player benefits from additional allies in the battle and should be happy to see players joining.

 

A secondary problem is griefing etc, for example where allied players sink a ship that the first player wants to capture.  As a potential solution to this, enemy ships could often surrender/strike their colours rather than facing certain sinking if a battle is not going well for them.  This could be more common in the case of trader ai than warship ai ships.  All ships who surrender in this manner could be automatically allocated to the battle owner at the end of the battle and unsinkable in the meantime.  Not only would this be fairer and stop a certain amount of griefing, it would also be more historically accurate as ships would usually strike their colours rather than face certain destruction.  I have already wondered why enemy ships aren't simply surrendering when outgunned and with little/no armor left - it would make more sense if they did.

 

The final problem the devs have raised is when players use existing battles as a 'safe harbour.'  I haven't observed this happening myself, but it would seem that the logical action of any captain during the Age-Of-Sail who found themselves chased by a superior enemy, upon seeing allied ships (in battle or not) would be to head for them and relative safety.  If battles had no timer at all this would allow enemies also to join these battles (potentially with greater numbers) and continue the chase.  I am not sure players should be prevented from doing something that is obviously logical and would have been equally logical historically.

 

In summary, I would like to see battles having no barriers to entry (timewise or not), but with joining of battles being beneficial to all, including the battle owner who receives help speedily dealing with enemies and no penalty to gold/exp.

 

Anyway, I simply love the game and wish the devs all the best for the future of Naval Action.

Edited by Captain Underpants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer the option to allow entry to all - just increase the Assist Exp

 

An even better option in my view would be to allow players to click a box allowing their missions to be "joinable" or not

 

As a note - if any battle isn't joinable by a player, can they please not be shown on the map. Only battles the player can join should be shown in my view.

 

 

I appreciate being asked about this in a Poll btw - TY for asking the player base, this is a good sign for the future of this game!!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, the correct solution was option one with this added : opening mission if an ennemy actually enter the battle, thus allowing reinforcements to come only if needed.

 

 

This is the right answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the assistance rewards would encourage nations to fight alongside each other more, and could lead to more grouping, and meeting new friends. I see no reason that that should not be an option. Close the battle after X time so no one can join, and it also solves the pvp exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does this screw the PVE rules again?

 

On both servers you have the problem of uninvited "guests" in your missions. For the PVE server it is more of an aggravation to game play (solo missions), but on the PVP server there is an exploit. So which takes precedent?

 

Even if option 2 is chosen you can still have your group and you can still solo mission, maybe just sail away from the capitol and set up mission in a less populated port.

Exploit, exploit.

So for every exploit you gonna try to put some rules, restrictions, etc to avoid that exploit ?

Having PVP-ers comming into a battle that is meant to be PVE is surely an exploit.

Find me a solution, I don't care.

If this game is to boring I will simply stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of you guys are experienced and knowledgeable players.

But please bear in mind that this game is not easy to understand and learn for newbies.

 

I'm new myself with 15 hours in and have spent some considerable time trying to understand the mechanics of the game from a mish mash assortment of info spread across forums, videos etc.

Most of which are written by very experienced guys who so often assume you understand some of the 'Obvious' mechanics. Then of course a lot of the guides and info out there does not apply to the latest version.

 

This lack of understanding can lead to many mistakes by newbies.

 

My very first battle started with a friendly alongside me. I promptly fired on him thinking he was the enemy. Dumb yes, but I didn't know.

I've seen a friendly come alongside boarding, but didn't realise what he was doing and continued firing until I sunk the enemy.

I'm sure I've jumped into battles where the original player probably didn't want me.

 

But all made as part of the learning curve and committed in ignorance and innocence. It doesn't take long to realise your mistakes, but the next newbie will soon be along making the same mistakes no doubt.

 

The root cause of a newbie grief is there is no definitive manual available and these mistakes are inevitable.

I'm not defending ******** who appear in every game, everywhere, intent on cheating or spoiling the game, but it seems to me a lot of the complaints sound very much like newbie errors.

 

Forcing a newbie to drift around looking for a target or joining a group is not the solution. They will leave in droves as will many solo players.

I don't know what the answer is as I don't understand the game well enough to make a sensible suggestion, but the simple idea of the battle originator being able to admit or refuse entry seems to make sense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allies should be allowed to enter the mission, even with no time limit, but shoud spawn at the horizon depending on their position when battle started. (If they join 5sec or 1 mn after the battle start they can spawn close, but if they join 4mn later, they should spawn 4mn away from the fight.

 

Same for ennemies trying to help their friends.

 

But at no point a nation player (except pirates oc) should be allowed to join pirates ai to screw an ennemy player just farming missions. This morning i was in a mission against a pirate Brig then a u.s Renomee spawned at cannonball range shooting my sails off. Game working as intended ? 

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this alot last night (yeah, I'm that sad!) and think the new entry-to-mission rules are a big step backwards for the game (especially when combined with the apparent lack now of normal ai fleets/battles - I know I am struggling to find many).

 

a. Naval Action is an MMO in which surely the whole point is to get large numbers of players, playing together. To actually prevent people from playing together seems to go against the basic ethos of the genre. I know I play MMO's primarily because of the other people I encounter and play with either co-operatively or competitively and don't want to see that diluted.

 

b. It makes things much harder for newer players to get into the game. The best way for new players to pick up the basics is to jump into pre-existing battles where they are relatively safe and can ask for lots of advice etc - I know that's what I did. Missions can be difficult and overwhelming at first and new players are far less likely to have friends in the game or a clan to group up with and help them out. I think, in one stroke this may have made the initial learning-curve much steeper.

 

c. It's not historically accurate or realistic at all. Imagine actually captaining a ship (I know I am imagining this!) and seeing ships of your nation locked in furious combat, yet not assisting in any way you can. Surely you would be duty-bound to enter the fray and if you were found not to have done, subject to strong discipline by your Admiralty. Knowing I am merrily sailing by these battles because they are simply closed or an arbitary 5 minute timer is up does significantly break the immersion for me (as well as upsetting my personal code/liking for helping my fellows out in times of need).

 

d. It reduces exploration/free sailing in the world. As there are so few battles (that I can find at least) available to enter in the OW, it has reduced (my) gameplay to a simple procedure of 'get mission from port, do mission, return to port, rince-and-repeat.' It feels to me far more grindy and far less fun to be honest (though I still love NA!).

 

The primary problem with fully-open battles seems to be that players are actually penalised for playing together; ie co-operating drastically reduces the amount of gold and exp a player gets. Surely we should be aiming to reward players for interacting and playing with each other, and if we could actually do this it would resolving this issue at one stroke. The first MMO I played that I remember doing this was Guild Wars 2 in which all players who contribute to a fight earn the same exp and chance of loot. As a version of this, could we consider fixed rewards for sinking/boarding enemy ships. The way this would/could work would be that the owner of the battle/mission would receive a fixed gold and exp reward for participating in the defeat of any enemy ships in the battle. All assisting players would receive a smaller, but still fixed reward for any ships they have helped to defeat. Reward would be for defeating individual ships rather than the whole battle and a player would simply have to participate (ie cause a minimum damage level) in the defeat of any ship to receive a reward. Of course, this means that reward would no longer be tied to damage amount caused in a battle.  At the end of a battle any additional loot would be distributed randomly on a player-by player basis.  In this scenario, every player benefits from additional allies in the battle and should be happy to see players joining.

 

A secondary problem is griefing etc, for example where allied players sink a ship that the first player wants to capture.  As a potential solution to this, enemy ships could often surrender/strike their colours rather than facing certain sinking if a battle is not going well for them.  This could be more common in the case of trader ai than warship ai ships.  All ships who surrender in this manner could be automatically allocated to the battle owner at the end of the battle and unsinkable in the meantime.  Not only would this be fairer and stop a certain amount of griefing, it would also be more historically accurate as ships would usually strike their colours rather than face certain destruction.  I have already wondered why enemy ships aren't simply surrendering when outgunned and with little/no armor left - it would make more sense if they did.

 

The final problem the devs have raised is when players use existing battles as a 'safe harbour.'  I haven't observed this happening myself, but it would seem that the logical action of any captain during the Age-Of-Sail who found themselves chased by a superior enemy, upon seeing allied ships (in battle or not) would be to head for them and relative safety.  If battles had no timer at all this would allow enemies also to join these battles (potentially with greater numbers) and continue the chase.  I am not sure players should be prevented from doing something that is obviously logical and would have been equally logical historically.

 

In summary, I would like to see battles having no barriers to entry (timewise or not), but with joining of battles being beneficial to all, including the battle owner who receives help speedily dealing with enemies and no penalty to gold/exp.

 

Anyway, I simply love the game and wish the devs all the best for the future of Naval Action.

There is a whole lot of contradictions that makes a man not want to read much further than the 1st line. You agree it is an MMO as well as understand groups playing together is good but then you go off on a tangent and say people are prevented from playing together? So stopping griefing by random players is wrong while re-iterating using public chat to form groups is preventing groups playing together?

The common attribute I am finding with negative posts about no longer being able to join missions un-invited is how no-one should have the right to invite you into something they initiated, it should only be you doing what you want (or words to that effect while trying to make it seem your just trying to be reasonable about stepping on ppls toes). If it were not as I just said it is you would be in a clan and/or nation chat forming groups and not grieving over your loss of freedom to grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a whole lot of contradictions that makes a man not want to read much further than the 1st line. You agree it is an MMO as well as understand groups playing together is good but then you go off on a tangent and say people are prevented from playing together? So stopping griefing by random players is wrong while re-iterating using public chat to form groups is preventing groups playing together?

The common attribute I am finding with negative posts about no longer being able to join missions un-invited is how no-one should have the right to invite you into something they initiated, it should only be you doing what you want (or words to that effect while trying to make it seem your just trying to be reasonable about stepping on ppls toes). If it were not as I just said it is you would be in a clan and/or nation chat forming groups and not grieving over your loss of freedom to grief.

 

I am not sure I understand quite what you are trying to say in your reply. Also, I don't know where you are seeing contradictions and/or tangents in what I said - perhaps you need to read my post again?

 

My point was that the core purpose of the MMO genre is surely to enable people to play together. By making the vast majority of battles unavailable to players, this goes against that fundamental ethos. It is of course also good to form groups etc as well - I am not sure where you get the idea that I don't think this is good, but grouping like this is not as easy especially for new players who don't know anyone in the game and makes the learning curve much steeper (as well as the other issues I mentioned with the new system).

 

As for griefing, the whole point of the suggestions in my post was to look at ways to enable players to play together freely, whilst reducing the ability of players to grief. In case you didn't read that part these were the suggestions:

 

        - Players receive exp/gold at a flat rate for any ship they contribute to defeating in battle (so exp/gold does not relate to damage done). ie a cutter is worth a set amount of gold/exp to anyone who contributes to it's defeat.

          In this system, sinking or capturing ships earns the same reward.  This stops players being upset by allies joining in and reducing their rewards earned from damage done as no reward is lost.

        - The starter of a battle/mission 'owns' the instance and any enemy ship within and, therefore, gets first refusal on any captured ships. This prevents people from 'stealing ships.' 

        - AI ships are far more likely to surrender/strike their colours before being sunk, at which point those ships can no longer be damaged or sink and are captured.  This stops players griefing by sinking ships people are trying to capture.

 

By introducing these ideas or something similar we stop penalising players for playing together and start rewarding them (in a system fairly similar to Guild Wars 2) - no longer should you be annoyed to see an ally but instead pleased as your rewards will actually increase per hour played as enemies would be defeated that much quicker with the additional help available and no loss of gold/exp for any participant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting Growler on another thread:

 

'As a new player struggling to get to grips with the game, I suddenly find I can't find anything to attack nor join in any battles.

If they keep this, there will be a lot of newbies put off with aimless sailing around or trying to join groups. After playing maybe 12 hours, concentrating on getting some experience and cash together I don't even know what a group is!

 

And if your some old sea salt with a floating gun fort, just remember if new players dont hang around, the game will die a death :huh:'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure I understand quite what you are trying to say in your reply. Also, I don't know where you are seeing contradictions and/or tangents in what I said - perhaps you need to read my post again?

 

My point was that the core purpose of the MMO genre is surely to enable people to play together. By making the vast majority of battles unavailable to players, this goes against that fundamental ethos. It is of course also good to form groups etc as well - I am not sure where you get the idea that I don't think this is good, but grouping like this is not as easy especially for new players who don't know anyone in the game and makes the learning curve much steeper (as well as the other issues I mentioned with the new system).

 

As for griefing, the whole point of the suggestions in my post was to look at ways to enable players to play together freely, whilst reducing the ability of players to grief. In case you didn't read that part these were the suggestions:

 

        - Players receive exp/gold at a flat rate for any ship they contribute to defeating in battle (so exp/gold does not relate to damage done). ie a cutter is worth a set amount of gold/exp to anyone who contributes to it's defeat.

          In this system, sinking or capturing ships earns the same reward.  This stops players being upset by allies joining in and reducing their rewards earned from damage done as no reward is lost.

        - The starter of a battle/mission 'owns' the instance and any enemy ship within and, therefore, gets first refusal on any captured ships. This prevents people from 'stealing ships.' 

        - AI ships are far more likely to surrender/strike their colours before being sunk, at which point those ships can no longer be damaged or sink and are captured.  This stops players griefing by sinking ships people are trying to capture.

 

By introducing these ideas or something similar we stop penalising players for playing together and start rewarding them (in a system fairly similar to Guild Wars 2) - no longer should you be annoyed to see an ally but instead pleased as your rewards will actually increase per hour played as enemies would be defeated that much quicker with the additional help available and no loss of gold/exp for any participant.

Seeing as how your just re-wording your contradictions, I will also re-word my reply. An MMO if full of individuals who have come together because they like the genre as well as some form of socialising while playing, this is where it seems to get complicated in some people minds: MMO does not mean every person has to interact with every other person in every aspect of the game at all times in a restricted manor, restricted by one style of play. My only gripe is about how you portray this particular MMO, you completely disregarded the fact that every single person playing is already part of the MMO, the MMO does not become or cease to become an MMO based on stopping the ability of griefing. Stopping a griefer from having any choice in what to do with anyone else's missions is a benefit to this MMO that does not stop a person from forming groups especially when you consider the previous most favored response to un-invited guests in missions was to travel further away. Now the only one traveling further is the griefer who can not find other peoples content to invade.

 

As to the ideas you wanted me to consider by the way you inserted them in your reply:

-Players currently gain xp/gold on merit not on the ability to rock up then shoot once which ties in with the skill orientation that naval action seems to foster.

-The starter of the mission already owns the mission and the right to refuse/accept is done before entry is all.

-The player who has denied people access has already stopped the griefing with no need for surrendering ships or guarding against anyone capsizing ships, this is an important consideration and it forms part of your contradictions because you assert forms of swapping their rights for ones that you want them to adopt that take their decisions away from them?! In an MMO?! Full of people?!

Edited by Valetudin Arian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting Growler on another thread:

 

'As a new player struggling to get to grips with the game, I suddenly find I can't find anything to attack nor join in any battles.

If they keep this, there will be a lot of newbies put off with aimless sailing around or trying to join groups. After playing maybe 12 hours, concentrating on getting some experience and cash together I don't even know what a group is!

 

And if your some old sea salt with a floating gun fort, just remember if new players dont hang around, the game will die a death :huh:'

Oh man, I have gripes about this games content being cut out but the content being cut out due to pvpers abuse is way different than content being restricted to disallow abusers in content that is still accessible. Also, why does the guy you quote seem to be unable to find the "accept mission" button, and why did you think that was appropriate to post when the dude seems to be making excuses for his own inabilities? The content is still there?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I can't quite make sense of what are trying to say here even with it re-worded.

My initial points regarding the various problems with the present system still stand and I don't see that you have made any argument against their validity (except for your argument about the nature of MMOs which I am struggling to comprehend as written).

My belief is that closing battles to all and sundry to prevent griefing just brings up a new set of even bigger issues in the game that I have highlighted already. My hope is that we can avoid these issues by keeping battles open, rewarding all players for playing together whilst still stopping griefing etc - thus being the best of both worlds.

Ps regarding players earning rewards for helping defeat enemy ships rather than based on damage done, my proposal would be that they would need to meet a minimum threshold contribution (like in GW2). This would prevent people doing nothing/firing a single shot during battle yet still earning rewards whilst also requiring the skilled play that I agree NA is geared towards .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the post I quoted and your reply, I still don't quite get what you are saying about restricted content/PvP abuse. Nevertheless, can't we not restrict content and stop PvP abuse at the same time.

In quoting Growler, I thought it was helpful to see a new player's experience of the current game-mechanics. If you see my first post you will find that I state that doing missions alone (before they have made contacts in-game) can be very difficult and daunting for new players, making it much harder to get to grips with the game. Growler's post simply reiterates/backed-up what I was saying about the current difficulty for new players trying to get into NA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite okay, you do not have to understand a single thing. Philosophically speaking, although I am aware every person is different, I sometimes need to be reminded some people are blind to anything that does not agree with what they are saying. Some people though will never know what they do not know.

 

Not all battles are closed to everyone, there is one situation where a mission taker gets to choose if he/she does it alone which then closes that one mission for however long it goes for. -This one situation still does not close it for all though, enemy nations get to enter...that is a half remembered bit of info though.

 

...and it is already "the best of both worlds", in this one instance at least.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the post I quoted and your reply, I still don't quite get what you are saying about restricted content/PvP abuse. Nevertheless, can't we not restrict content and stop PvP abuse at the same time.

In quoting Growler, I thought it was helpful to see a new player's experience of the current game-mechanics. If you see my first post you will find that I state that doing missions alone (before they have made contacts in-game) can be very difficult and daunting for new players, making it much harder to get to grips with the game. Growler's post simply reiterates/backed-up what I was saying about the current difficulty for new players trying to get into NA.

We used to have fleets we could hire at any rank but we no longer can c/o pvp abuse. There is a way to stop pvp abuse though with the corresponding less need to restrict content, it is called pve.

Seriously though I was recently a new player too, I went through the same experiences except I had the joy of people pushing me away from ships I was boarding in my own mission, people acting like my time is their personal time to do with as they wish. At least new players now do not have that as the only option available to them. Win win for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×