Too much room to hide: narrowing down mission ports

[Slamz]

The devs recently made it so that ports only spawn ships of their nation, so an area with nothing but Spanish ports will have nothing but Spanish ships -- this is good. It should mean that people have to go into each other's territory to find good fleeting (giving rise to more PvP).

 

But missions currently undermine this. Especially now that missions are improved, there is little reason to engage in fleeting. You can get missions out of literally any port and bore everyone out of the game because we aren't going to find each other.

 

 

I propose missions be restricted somehow.

 

Proposal #1:

Missions can only come out of capitals and regional capitals. This narrows down the areas to hunt.

 

Proposal #2:

Missions can only come out of cities that have enemy ships running to them. This narrows it down to "border cities" that still have NPC connections to other ports.

 

 

The idea is that by containing missions to known hotspots, we can generate more PvP.

 

Missions are supposed to be something to do when players aren't around (I believe admin himself said this). They are not supposed to be something you sneak off to do in a corner of the map to avoid PvP.

 

[xAzDKr]

Will make the majority of the map useless to anybody except maybe traders, no.

[Slamz]

Will make the majority of the map useless to anybody except maybe traders, no.

 

Yes. Good. Needs to happen.

 

Frankly the map is too big and if we don't find ways to concentrate the players, you will soon find servers empty.

 

North America prime time population has crashed on both PvP2 and PvP1 now, mainly for lack of ability to find people to fight.

[maturin]

So the intent here is to coral players seeking PvE into areas where PvP players can hunt them and jump into their missions?

[Slamz]

So the intent here is to coral players seeking PvE into areas where PvP players can hunt them and jump into their missions?

 

This is a PvP game.

 

The only reason PvE exists as an option is so there is something to do while waiting for people to fight. I will dig up admin quotes about this if you want me to.

[Hethwill]

Have to think about this carefully before voting or adding a proper comment. I do not mind a more complete Admiralty / Navy Board system focusing missions in places where Naval Bases exist. *wink* First capital and then...wherever the nation focus building them.

[SuperCookie]

Speaking only for myself, it's not that hard to find where players from other nations are running their missions. National capitals are popular of course, but if you just follow enemy players around, especially in an area they consider "safe," they will lead you right to a mission and not even see you stalking them. Then just jump in on the other team and go to work.

[Slamz]

Speaking only for myself, it's not that hard to find where players from other nations are running their missions. National capitals are popular of course, but if you just follow enemy players around, especially in an area they consider "safe," they will lead you right to a mission and not even see you stalking them. Then just jump in on the other team and go to work.

 

I do that some too but:

 

It's a very, very big map.

Some teams have many, many ports to choose from.

Once found, some people simply move.

 

My entire Naval Action career has basically consisted of moving into an area, finding fights and then everyone leaves and I have to move again so I can find fights again. I actually think the lure of "easy PvE far from the action" is killing the game -- people can't seem to resist taking that option even though it ultimately bores everyone, including themselves, out of the game.

 

 

Giving Naval Action players access to safe PvE is like giving a baby a plastic bag to play with. It's fun and they love it until they choke to death on it.

 

Admin, take the plastic bag away from the baby! I know he wants it, but it's bad for him.

[Slamz]

As a footnote, I wish everyone could have experienced the glorious French-Pirate war of PvP2.

 

There was a period of several weeks where our teams were overlapped with nowhere else to go. We had to mission and fleet and econ in each other's areas, while being in a bitter war. It was nonstop PvP from the time I logged in until I logged out. We jumped their missions and fleets, they jumped our missions and fleets, we jumped their jumpers and got jumped while jumping.

 

It was amazing.

 

I have not had as much fun anywhere else in the game, even after moving to PvP1. The game does not do enough to pit players against each other and I'm afraid the dense PvP fun of that war won't be easy to find again with the current ruleset.

[WilsonMG]

How about I see your point as raise you this...  The closer a port is to an enemy nation's ports, the greater the XP and gold to be gained from missions, while the farther away, the less?  Obviously the system would need a fair amount of balance to ensure the island nations that are clustered aren't at any more of an advantage than the spread out nations.

 

It would give people seeking to PvE in relative peace a place to do so but reward those willing to do their PvE in more dangerous areas.

[Justme]

What is U.S prime time anyways, given there are several time zones?

I'm all for encouraging PVP, have to think on OP's suggestion before I really comment.

[Carljcharles]

I understand your point Slamz. You make an excellent case when you describe the Pirate vs French encounters. I can relate to this as the best fun I've had so far has been Two large'ish PvP battles against the Spanish when they Port Defended and by chance we then had to port defend one of our ports.

 

However, I do take issue with your PvE stance. I've have had some very enjoyable close PvE fights and the Fleet missions are excellent fun with friends. The PvE part of NA just keeps the game going when you want something different for a certain amount of their available time. A Port Battle takes up a HUGE amount of time in the prep - and co-ordination before the fight ever gets of the ground and then you hope its defended otherwise its pretty dull after all that those hours prep before hand.

 

But, fundamentally, there does need to be an improvement on the PvP side. I agree with that, but trying to restrict PvE in the way you suggested I'm not in favour of. I do like the XP/Gold bonus for more 'dangerous missions' near enemy water though.

 

Perhaps a mutual 'Kill this player' type mission is generated. Or hunt this player - could encourage more PvP without the need to reduce other aspects of the game. That would be a far more interesting option. Lets get imaginative to solve this.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Carljcharles

[Slamz]

A Port Battle takes up a HUGE amount of time in the prep - and co-ordination before the fight ever gets of the ground and then you hope its defended otherwise its pretty dull after all that those hours prep before hand.

 

The current implementation of PvE is also why so many port battles go undefended:

 

The defenders are 200 miles away, either doing missions out of safe ports or sailing all over the map looking for someone to fight, nowhere near the ports they should be defending. They used their teleport already and that's that. If missions were primarily available out of these more threatened ports, you would get more real port battles because people would already be there.

 

But also, the best PvP is meaningful PvP. Running around the ocean hoping to bumble into another PvPer is basically just slow motion CounterStrike with lots of downtime: fun but pointless. It doesn't matter if you sink them. Neither of you is disrupting anything of importance.

 

But winning PvP fights in an area where people are doing PvE means your team is safe to grind out money and XP and their team isn't. PvP based around PvE is more important.

 

 

This is what we're giving up by allowing people to spread all over the map and PvE in total safety.

 

The game will be a lot more meaningful if we tie PvP and PvE closer together.

[Anne Wildcat]

What would be nice is to have the same 3/4 hour cooldown timer for teleporting to capital but no cooldown for teleporting between outposts.

[Slamz]

What would be nice is to have the same 3/4 hour cooldown timer for teleporting to capital but no cooldown for teleporting between outposts.

 

I think that would result in large teams dominating (even more than they already do).

 

You can push back a large team that's gotten "too big for their britches" by hitting them in multiple places at once. An oversized British team could be hit by the Danes on one side, the Spanish on the other and the Pirates from the north and unless they have 3x the population of every other team, they'll have to pick which front they want to defend.

 

No cooldown teleports would let their entire team pop to the Danish front, squash them, then teleport to the Spanish front and squash them and teleport to the Pirate front and squash them -- there would be no dividing up the big teams.

 

 

This mission change would still force teams to divide their attention (like now) but the areas of action could be near where the port battles actually occur instead of deep in the interior.

[GrapeShot]

How about a 'missions are OK the way ther are' option?

[Anne Wildcat]

How about a 'missions are OK the way ther are' option?

That's #3

[Galileus]

Question - if someone wants to log in and do PvE for chills, yet he has to go to the frontline, take a mission there (just one, because sail time), sail around to shake off a PvP ganker, then get ganked anyway, log off bitter...

 

Is this really going to increase amount of quality PvP in the long run? I have my doubts.

[maturin]

Question - if someone wants to log in and do PvE for chills, yet he has to go to the frontline, take a mission there (just one, because sail time), sail around to shake off a PvP ganker, then get ganked anyway, log off bitter...

 

Is this really going to increase amount of quality PvP in the long run? I have my doubts.

It increases the quality for the seventeen people that PvP him simultaneously.  

[Slamz]

Question - if someone wants to log in and do PvE for chills, yet he has to go to the frontline, take a mission there (just one, because sail time), sail around to shake off a PvP ganker, then get ganked anyway, log off bitter...

 

Is this really going to increase amount of quality PvP in the long run? I have my doubts.

 

There is an entire other server for people like that.

 

It's mostly empty. Which just goes to show.

 

Plus, he wouldn't be out there by himself. It has concentrated his own team as much as the enemy. Why not group up with some of his teammates that are around him? If we continue to base this game around anti-social PvE behavior, we will end up with an anti-social PvE playerbase.

[Galileus]

There is an entire other server for people like that.

 

It's mostly empty. Which just goes to show.

 

Plus, he wouldn't be out there by himself. It has concentrated his own team as much as the enemy. Why not group up with some of his teammates that are around him? If we continue to base this game around anti-social PvE behavior, we will end up with an anti-social PvE playerbase.

 

So why don't you propose to remove missions altogether?

 

If a PvP server player is forbidden from ever doing PvE missions for chill - in other words you propose anyone daring to do the degrading PvE missions needs to be humiliated by ganks?

 

If PvE server is empty - and it somehow "goes to show" - why even care about the PvE?

 

Why not allow for solo play? Why base anything on being forced to group up? If we don't allow single player to play, he will never become social, because he will never have time to meet and join a group.

 

 

From a completely different barrel:

 

 

There is another game for people like you. It is called CoD/WoT/Whatever. You should go there and not post here because I am smart and I thought of an argumentation like that all by myself! And seriously? Never, ever use that kind of "argumentation". Racial segregation by a Pv type of a player? Are we really at that point yet? I don't think so. At least try to be fashionably racist or sexist, maybe?

[LeBoiteux]

All the arguments above against OP's idea are right.

Let's players play as they wish. PvEers who wish it are already at the border of their faction for missions.

 

Moreover, missions are not designed for PvEers/PvPers engagements.

They are for relaxing casual gamers and grinders who want duels against AI, easy and fast to set-up.

 

OW PvPers need to meet and fight players who agree with meeting them in the OW :

1) other PvPers,

2) harmless operating player preys (traders or "explorers") with or without escorts

 

I really hope to see OW populated with those player traders/explorers sailing across the map because of missions (such as ressources / delivery one) or economical incentives (for traders).

An OW animated with their encounters with PvPers.

 

PS : No need to speculate about NA playerbase : we're in EA.

[Anne Wildcat]

You have to realize some players like playing solo.

[Slamz]

So why don't you propose to remove missions altogether?

 

That's not a terrible idea. I wonder if the developers would agree? They might. Missions were originally just meant to be something to do because it was hard to find people. Is that still a problem, I wonder? Do we still need this fix? Is there a better way to address the issue?

 

I think it was the wrong solution. You don't solve a PvP problem by giving players access to instanced PvE -- you solve it by coming up with ways to throw people together so that they can find each other easier. You do this through map mechanics.

 

I do think there may be some room for PvE missions in this game but the current level of "instanced PvE everywhere" is doing more harm than good now.

 

Now there can be 1000 people online and you still can't find them because they are scattered all over the map in private instances.

 

Racial segregation by a Pv type of a player? Are we really at that point yet? I don't think so. At least try to be fashionably racist or sexist, maybe?

 

It's really a question of what type of focus this game is supposed to have. Is this supposed to be more of a PvE game or more of a PvP game? It is possible to have both (missions work to help generate PvP around particular areas, and people PvP over the right to good mission spots) but one objective can undermine the other if done wrong. That's the problem we have today: PvE is undermining PvP. The map is full of people but how many of them are really available for battle and how many are hidden inside private instances in distant parts of the map? It's a self-perpetuating problem, too: I even find myself doing a mission because I can't find anyone to fight, because they were all in missions because they couldn't find anyone to fight.

 

And I really expect more from people with a "Tester" flag than trying to turn a PvP discussion into an issue of racism. You know better than that. You're trolling at a level of 9 when we really need you to be more like a 3.

 

You have to realize some players like playing solo.

 

Designing a multiplayer online PvP game around player who like to solo would be silly.

 

Admin could have made this be a single player game and he'd be done by now, if that was the goal.

[Galileus]

 

 

It's really a question of what type of focus this game is supposed to have. Is this supposed to be more of a PvE game or more of a PvP game? It is possible to have both (missions work to help generate PvP around particular areas, and people PvP over the right to good mission spots) but one objective can undermine the other if done wrong. That's the problem we have today: PvE is undermining PvP. The map is full of people but how many of them are really available for battle and how many are hidden inside private instances in distant parts of the map? It's a self-perpetuating problem, too: I even find myself doing a mission because I can't find anyone to fight, because they were all in missions because they couldn't find anyone to fight.

 

But you're doing nothing to fix that problem.

 

Forcing people to engage in frustration is not going to make them PvP players. Making PvE irritating and unwieldly is not going to make people go PvP.

 

You are literally just trying to punish PvE players with no-one to gain nothing at all. And comments like "It's a PvP server, go PvE if you are too weak to play!" are not helping at all. Trolling I might be, but only because I like to make fun off of ridiculous statements like the ones mentioned. You are not going to get more PvP players by making PvE painfully masochistic. You are not going to force anyone into PvP. Convince instead of forcing.

 

I'm all for fixing PvE / PvP problems. But what you propose is really looking like a ill conceived attempt at "revenge" at PvE players not playing PvP.