Bach

set the ping argument off to the side for a minute. We need about 300+ population around the 24hour clock to make an 8 nation map the size of the Carribean work well enough to fully utilize most of the game function in average sand box game play. Pvp2 last night was running 114 prime time pct. at the same time pvp1 was running 144. During euro time pvp1 runs >500 weekdays and near 1000 on weekends. Pvp2 runs about 64 euro time and probably about 200-300 weekends. The factors are population. Size of play area and number of nations. If pvp2 were shrunk down to the comparable size of either the Baltic or Persian seas and reduced to x4 nations it would work just fine with 114 players prime time. Similarly if we tried to do a Medteranian map of the same scale we would want about 600 players around he clock and could even increase the number of nations. So if ping can not be resolved to the satisfaction of all the Devs could theoretically just change to US time zone map to a smaller sea. Probably not as practical as just getting a better overall average ping and merging the player base into the one Carribean map. I don't have a ping problem on either server. But on pvp2 I can sail for two straight hours in the eastern Antilles and only saw two other players. Both were allies. Meaning if I stay on pvp2 for OW PvP it's far better to play pirate vs. national. Might also be part of the reason more ratio of players want to be pirates there.

Now first some background. I play on both pvp1 and pvp2. I play both with Australian players so at least some Aussies can now use PvP1. I think it is better game when US time zone players > 300. With the size of the map this seems to work better. When Pvp1 has this number or greater the possibilities of game play are enough to utilize it to the intent. Playing pvp2 this past week has shown population issues are stifling play there and it seems poor connection to pvp1 is holding the players back. Currently the nations are polarized. Many complaints in global of undefended port battles. Almost the entire eastern Antilles ports are set to Euro port battle times making the area useless to French and swede player base for conquest play. More than one nation has less than 4 ports and the two polarized power teams seem to be zergs by percentage of active players. Having played both servers I can't see pvp2 comparing to peak time pvp1 play. These players deserve better. There must be a way to get a server we can all play on with good connections world wide.

Like any poll it's just a random sample. Since its been up for days it's reasonably a sample of what we would see from those actually concerned. There are bound to be many that just don't care to even follow the threads. I'm not sure you would want a total population vote since over 80% is currently on pvp1 and would most likely just vote to merge everything into pvp1 if pushed for a definite answer. Merging pvp1 into pvp2 certainly wouldn't bother me any. I play from California and play on pvp1 now. I still think that from a bussiness perspective there is probably no reason to force a merge until the server lease is up. About the only thing left out would be a true test of US vs. Euro trends on one big server when the US actually has a substantial population. I'm not sure if that would even be valuable but I could see where it might effect the port battle time determination mechanics being developed.

Poll stand at 37 to merge vs. 15 for no merge and 2 voting other. So >66% of the players that bothered to answer this poll would prefer something other than what we have now. Do we merge, do we not merge that isn't really a question for the devs. The devs aren't stopping us from merging ourselves anytime we want to. I would suggest some of us give a serious attempt to playing on the other server. If you don't have a terrible connection there are a lot of advantages to PvP play on pvp1. If you have a bad connection or like to play with low population or solo then there are advantages to Pvp2. About the only reason I can think of for forcing a merge would be to increase large port battles in us time zones. With the new conquest system coming along I'm not even sure that matters anymore. I suspect the US server has a yearly lease so there really is no reason to merge until the lease is up.

I have to admit I am not entirely sure I like the mechanic where players can just take all their stuff and go to the pirate team. It's a bit too easy and seems to breed national minded entire pirate clans instead of pirate raider clans.

Many have discovered that leveling crafting is easier on pvp2 as there is less competition for resources and many unused ports.Basically you just need to run one Rear admiral mission a day for funding, pickup all the mats cheap at the unused ports and slap ships together. The crafting xp follows you into pvp1 and it is far far cheaper to produce ships in bulk on pvp2.

There is a built in fix coming. As Hodo mentions above it is harder to play pirate or a Zerg on pvp1 due to the population. Once the map goes regional and the port timers go away it will be even harder for pirates to take and hold ports. Not that it will be a bad thing. Just more challenging. I believe you don't see this effect yet on pvp2 because your population is so small around the entire 24hr clock that the full potential of the allies in the political system is not achieved. So it won't be as likely that the huge swath of black dots decorating PvP2 will ever be seen on pvp1 in the future.Basically, national allies can team up while the pirate republic is solo. Example: So even in USA time zones on pvp1 it is possible for the USA to defend a Brit port. If the Brit population drops they can bring USA and Dutch players into their PB's and groups to fill out 25 ships. Pirates have to find 25 ready pirates to compete. Not impossible just harder. In the future when hostility is built up allies can port their ships directly in the allies port for defense ahead of time as they see the attack coming in more advanced notice. The Pirate Republic will be able to stage rebellions and take ports but once national allies band together they should be able to put the pirate rebellions down. Or at least have an advantage doing it.

Pvp2 could never offer the weekend 1000 man action we get on pvp1. I'm not ready to give that up yet. Sorry to hear about your ping issues. I have not had any troubles yet.

Wasting your time Tarranis. It's not about logic anymore. It's about hard headedness and egos. The facts as of today. I have played both servers for months at a time. I have full gear and bps on both servers. I can easily play either I want to. The population in US time zones essentially matches so by population there is no difference between the two servers. So what real difference is there? Access to the EU player base stabilizes the map more. Open up both maps and just look at the dispersion of nations. Doesn't take long to notice how lop sided pvp2 is compared to pvp1. EU players can result in 1000 pop weekends for occasion grand scale play. It really livens up the weekends. EU players result in port battle time shift to off hours. This is NOT good for US time players and is a negative to pvp1 use. However the conquest system is about to change so not sure of how this will be in the future. ECON game in pvp1 is more real as you compete with over a thousand other merchants across the 24 hour clock. Pvp2 is more just crafting without competition for resources. Other than that the two servers are mostly the same. Pvp1 offers more variety and options of game play in all nations. Pvp2 offers more port battle contests in limited nations as long as players set port timers in play times. In the end if the servers merge US players can still do everything they are now doing in pvp1 and pvp2 but with less crafting abilities. Not much change otherwise. For those in this forum complaining about Tarranis bringing this up again? Look at the vote. Currently it's 26 votes for merge to 11 votes for no merge. Even amoung the small crowd that even cares about this issue it 2-1 FOR MERGING. No one has ever agreed in the previous threads in majority that NOT merging was better. You just wore us down with the drama and we stopped talking about.

Ok, let me see if I'm following you on this. You want even BR battles, You want these even battles done with specifically the team you chose hoping the enemy happens to have a matching team, You don't want any NPCs involved to even out the BR. AND your hoping all these hurdles are matched specifically for you in the open world where ever you happen to decide to sail. I think I see the problem.

Pvp1 goes to pvp2 or the other way around it doesn't matter so much. The only ones losing out are North American players that are keeping themselves divided over what is most likely just ego issues. EST weekdays pvp1 is about 200 players at 10pm. Pvp2 is also about 200 players at the same time frame. Either could be 400 players. About the only real advantage of pvp1 is that pvp1 is nearly a thousand players on the weekends at most times and we all get to join up in that. Pvp2 might see a bit of weekend spike but it's not that much. It also adds to the game that the map is still changing in the off hours making it less predictable and more dynamic. So I like playing alongside the euro players. Pvp1 goes to pvp2 or the other way around it doesn't matter so much. The only ones losing out are North American players that are keeping themselves divided. EST weekdays pvp1 is about 200 players at 10pm. Pvp2 is also about 200 players at the same time frame. Either could be 400 players. About the only real advantage of pvp1 is that pvp1 is nearly a thousand players on the weekends at most times and we all get to join up in that. Pvp2 might see a bit of weekend spike but it's not that much. It also adds to the game that the map is still changing in the off hours making it less predictable and more dynamic. So I like playing alongside the euro players.

It sounds good but it is also the deterant for players to not just gift rate ships to their nations enemies by purposely losing a dura to them. Example: Currently a 1 dura ship is of reduced value due to players not wanting to put gold mods on them. So player made ships arE more valuable than player captured ships and Econ centers on building new ships. After this proposal a 1 dura ship would likely have full gold perma mods and arguably be about as valuable as a brand new ship. Further a 1st rate lost purposely or otherwise to the enemy is 100% as good as a new player made one. Further yet, if the same ship is subsequently recaptured it holds its new ship value for ever an need never be replaced unless actually sunk. Meaning there will be less need for players to ever build first rate ships as they can just be passed around the game. So if a nation becomes a Zerg they can theoretically stop making ships and still have an endless battle supply as long as they are a Zerg. They become immune to Econ warfare. So from a combat stand point I think this idea makes sense. But from the Econ stand point it would completely change the markets on rate ships and also sway it on frigates.

This would work as long as the game doesn't go F2P. It is, however, negative reinforcement. I was hoping for a more positive factor of encouragement. Besides, the game will occasionally come to situations where a dying nation needs a clan or two to switch to them. When that day comes we may not want to be as restrictive as to force re-leveling. So positive encouragement may be more flexible in the long run.

I considered this greatly when I first starting pondering this idea. On one hand the building of the port defenses could just as easily be left up to the nation as a whole. It would essentially work the same with each player making donations. On the other hand, we want players to gravitate to being members of clans more so than freelance players. So the game needs things to promote clan unity and some long term benefit to clans sticking with one nation. We saw late in POTBS how entire clans would often switch nations at map resets. Individual players switching nations seldom had much effect. But when whole clans defected the entire RvR game shifted drastically in short periods of time. This became known as nation hopping and it drove a fair number of players crazy. NA should strive to put in advantages to clans that specifically promote them to want to stay in the same nation.

Allow clans to declare a home port in nationally owned non-regional capital ports. In that port declared clans get an option to deliver materials and labor hours to build up the fort defenses. Basically, they bring in stone block, gun carriages, furnishings etc... And donate them to the port along with labor hours. The port then uses these mats and hours to build the next larger fort defenses. They may also use them to build "reinforcement ships" to defend surrounding waters. Players of the clan making these donations receive extra warehouse space and material production from factories there. Based on level of clan donations. This will promote clans to capture, defend and utilize home ports that they claim in the game as well as improve Econ and cargo shipment in a meaningful way in game.

The flaw in the two minute timer is that the battle join timer is also two minutes. This allows players in ports or battle screens a 20second window to do pop out attacks. All that needs to be done to fix it is to extend the exit port/battle timer to 2min 30sec and leave the join battle that met at 2min. Or something similar. This past weekend I've watched players of different nations use both methods to gain Suprise attacks.

Basically near the end POTBS opened up a lot of ship classes for everyone and implemented a 1.5 BR max rule for battles. The battle would stay open until 1.5 BR was reached or passed. So what evolved was 2v1 ganks based around gaming the BR factor. Doing math quick in your head became a PvP skill.Rough Example: Vengence 95 BR vs. Hercules 105BR. So in any battle both the Vengy will be able to double team the Hercules. But the Hercules could only be assisted by a ship of 85 BR or less. Which was highly unlikely, they don't have ships in this class but really tiny ones and cargo ships, so no help for him. So hunting players learned to travel in pairs of low BR powerful ships to create computer restricted double team situations. It didn't matter how many rescue ships might be sitting outside Port Royale as none of them could help. Further, rescuing any ship became impractical as the rescuer would be trapped into a 2v2 with his partner being a merchant ship or new player that's likely just running away. So a 2v1 penalty for the rescuer. So nobody rescued anymore. So in the end getting ganked by x2 players geared to kill your one ship isn't much better than getting ganked by 6 ships. Same end result and the ability to rescue went away. It was a one sided hunters paradise. The few really good 1v1s were pre-arranged for the most part by players. It sometimes boggles my mind that we went through years of this in POTBS only to come to the same flawed ideas here. I suppose there was a following that liked it that way but the shrinking game pop was evidence it wasn't main stream.

A Snow is a brig in NA that only has a 50BR. A Privateer generally can't catch a Snow downwind. You may want to consider using a pair of Pickles.

What does any of the above have to do with creating a 1v1 noob zone and calling THAT the tutorial. Which is what we're talking about here.

Solo player LT. has a live oak snow he is using for missions. 50BR. He meets a group of enemies sailing a Merc, Rattler and Snow. They attack him. Only one ship gets in. The only way this battle grows is if the Merc or Rattler does the tag AND the Lt. In the Snow happens to have someone else with him willing to jump in. For the last few years we pretty much played this exact system in dying POTBS. I'm pretty familiar with how it works. What happens is players quickly learn to sail the most powerful ship with the lowest BR and generally never more than two man groups. In POTBS the ship was called the Vengences and it was nearly all you ever saw on the Open sea. Why? Because two Snows can Jump one Mercury but no more than one Mercury can ever jump a Snow. It became a game of calculating BRs rather than sailing around simulating a war. Anyway, I'm not heavily against this and as I mentioned it is still worth testing. My feeling is that it isn't a perfect solution and it may create some other bad aspects.

No I am not. Tutorials are good. I am arguing against putting new players in an artificial 1v1 matched BR world vs. the regular world. That isn't a tutorial of OW NA. It's an illusion of something it is not. Tutorials are good if they actually prepare the player for the game. It will also promote some to lobby that the main world eventually be changed to the same rule set that they trained on. There by slowly eroding the RvR war simulation.THE most important thing I ever teach new players is pre-planning. Mostly how to set up outposts, where and why. This goes leaps and bounds further towards keeping them in the game than teaching them where on the hull to hit a Belle Poule. Obviously we teach them both. But learning to succeed in a game with long distances, travel time and uncontrollable battle numbers is more important.

A new player would learn more about succeeding in OW from you in one day patrolling Jamaica in Privateers than in a month spent in a tanked out brig in the new zone.

I think your reading the wrong thing into what I was saying. The game will always have soloists in conflict with team style players. An RvR war is rarely is fought by a collection of soloists. This new zone is set to train up soloists. I'm not sure how you came up with me saying players were either asking for or needed handouts. Like I said, I've trained a number of new players and almost all are successful players now. All they need is someone to show them how the game plays and explain some of the mechanics. I myself PVP'd from Lt. To Commodore exclusively. One of the best features of this game is that players are PvP viable from nearly day one. There really isn't any need for a rookie zone to show anyone how to play it. Taking what I'm says to an extreme conclusion would be the definition of "far fetched".

We share some views on this but not others. I see no reason not to try it for the sake of players that want a 1v1 zone. Which is what I think this is really about but being sold as helping new players. I've trained a number of new players. I usually just set them up in an out of the way free city in the corner of the map to level in peace when not PvP with the clan. There never has been a problem for new players in solid helpful clans. Only problems for solo new players. Consider what this new zone actually offers a real new player. The false idea that ports and actions are relatively close together requiring little pre-planning. The false expectation of fast paced action everywhere. The false idea that tanked out turning geared 1v1 ships are a good idea for OW. The false idea that you don't need teamwork or a clan to be successful. When these over coddled new players get into the real OW and discover the truth? Most likely when they sail for an hour to an enemy zone solo, without setting up proper outposts ahead of time and a speed rigged enemy patrol group goes through them like butter. The forum bitching insisting the devs convert the rest of the game into the comfortable noob zone they were used to will be epic.

I think it is worth a test. It will be good that the 1v1 equal BR forum crusaders will get a chunk of the OW to do their arena style combats in without wrecking the rest of it for the war simulation players. Poetic justice calling it the "rookie zone". Dueling clans will probably move into these zones and stay there even at max level. For true new players I don't think this zone is going to make much difference. Most players don't actually attack second lieutenants and such near home ports. Seal clubbing tends to be more exaggerated than prevalent. That and many of us clans will take the new player live fire PvP as soon as they can sail a rattlesnake. No point in training them to fight 1v1s in duel geared boats when the real war isn't actually fought with those tactics. I suspect war clans will just end up having to retrain any players that stay in this zone for any length of time.