LeBoiteux

The main issue with giving all nations some ports in the PvE zones is actually the size of the PvE zone. As there are very few islands in the Gulf, main PvE activity will be along the coast. And that coast is IMO too small to be divided into 8 nations. There are only about 50 ports there, that would make 50/8 = 6-7 ports per nations. One solution might be to add (imaginary) islands with ports in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. However, 8 nations in such a small area seem too much. Adding some free towns in the PvE zone where anybody could build and craft seem sufficient.

AI was agressive before Dec. 2015 but needed to be redesigned.

Admin posted that on 19 January 2017.

One thing is, should be like before where we got nailed at every corner, for those who want it (PvE-ers mainly), that's the purpose of my previous post (see below), as aggressive bots in PvE are the counterpart of aggressive players in PvP and it's pretty silly for PvE-ers to see enemy bots passing by without attacking.

Devs meant January 2017. Hethwill meant that development takes time and there are inherent delays. That why AI aggressiveness haven't already implemented.

Thx. I know that AI aggressiveness will be implemented. But I guess it does not prevent us from discussing about how AI aggressiveness will be implemented, does it ?

Ways to re-implement AI aggressivness AI aggressiveness (bots tagging PvE-ers) was disabled in Dec 2015, especially for PvP-ers' convenience and are meant to be re-implement after re-design : I guess there are several ways to do it without hurting anybody, especially PvP-ers who rightfully don't want to be attacked by bots : 1) You could give all warship bots rules to attack players only in the PvE zones in the same exact opposite way as players will be unable to tag other players in the PvE zones. That way there would be warship bots all over the map, some aggressive, in the PvE zones ; others non aggressive, in the PvP zones. 2) You could make all warship bots aggressive and pen up all of them in the PvE zones. The only bots staying in the PvP zones would be some AI traders. Add some AI traders in the PvE zones too. 3) You can mix those two first options with a perk or only create it alone. That perk would enable or disable AI aggressive on the whole map of the server. You could be attacked by bots or protected from them on the whole map or on the zone they are on. 4) Only some PvE zones (and why not also some PvP zones) could be filled with aggressive warship bots and other zones with non-aggressive warship bots. That is zoning AI aggressiveness. There are certainly other ways to satisfy everybody that I can't figure out right now. The only thing I can say is I do miss AI aggressiveness in NA. It seems to me that it is a basis of PvE.

You know when you'll be along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the PvE zone on the PvP server, you'll be far, far away from any PvP-ers . Actually maybe too far away... But we'll see how devs implement the PvE zones and link the PvE and PvP zones together.

When speaking of interaction between the PvE zone and the PvP zone, there are lots of contraints : - Pure PvE-ers will want to self-sufficiency craft and trade everything in their zone. That's the meaning of PvE. - If so, there's no point in trading by sailing in the OW in the PvP zone. But crafting ships in the PvP zone remains essential to fight in the PvP zone, unless you can TP warships from the PvE zone - The PvE-ers will stay along the west coast of the Gulf of Mexico as there are no island in the Gulf and as every ports and bots in the PvE zone will be near that coast. So OW travel time between the PvE zone and the PvP zone will be tedious and the middle of Gulf will be empty. So there won't be much OW trading between the zones and not much interception of trade convoys to do fo PvPers. One solution would be to fill in the Gulf of Mexico with imaginary islands and ports. OW travel time between the islands of the PvP zone and those of the PvE zone would be shorter. But it'd cost much devs' ressources. Interactions between the PvP zone and the PvE zone would have also been easier, if PvE lands and PvP lands were closer to each other. Imagine a PvE zone say in the eastern Caribbean including some of the islands. Traders could sail from one area to another creating more potential PvP fights, especially if the PvE zone had some interesting (or essential) ressources. Moreover, PvE-ers might have been more tempted to try PvP. - One way to encourage trading in the PvP zone would be to make it more profitable than in the PvE zone. But it won't dissuade those who have much game time to stay in the PvE zone to slowly earn their risk-free money. So that measure might only disadvantage casual gamers... - How to encourage PvE-ers to try PvP as their outposts and thus their ships are in the PvE zone, far away from the PvP hotspots ? What about letting them TP a few ships located in the PvE zone to an outpost in the PvP zone at the risk of making the PvP economy suffer but with the benefit of favouring PvP fights ? - The presence of a PvE zone on the PvP server theoretically allows : a 100% PVE gameplay in the PvE zone (with 100% of the warbots of the server in that zone and an aggressive AI) and a 100% PvP gameplay in the PvP zone (with no warbots in it) as long as one can quickly travel from one area to another to play both styles. That would require TP of one's warship from one zone to another. - If warship bots are to be in both zones, one can imagine aggressive bots (ie bots tagging players) in the PvE zone (to make it more appealing) and non-agressive bots in the PvP zone (to let PvPers farm whenever they want) in the same way as players will be able to tag other players in the PvP zone but not in the PvE zone. In conclusion, the OW distance between PvE hotspots (the coast of the GoM) and PvP hotspots might be the main brake to interactions between the PvE zone and the PvP zone.

Ça va être le cas pour les joueurs qui pourront attaquer d'autres joueurs dans les zones de PvP mais pas dans celles de PvE. donc, effectivement, pourquoi pas le même mécanisme pour les bots ? Si le passage entre les deux zones (PvE et PvP) est facilité et ne nécessite pas de naviguer AFK pendant des heures, par exemple par un système de TP, on pourrait même imaginer : - une zone PvP avec 0 bot et seulement des joueurs - une zone de PvE avec tous les bots Cette solution aurait l'avantage d'être le rêve de tout le monde (PvP-ers et PvE-ers). Il suffit de trouver un moyen pour faire passer des navires de guerre d'une zone à l'autre sans exploiter les mécanismes mais sans perdre non plus des heures de transit.

1) Question difficile parce qu'on va mélanger deux populations qui ont deux visions du jeu : - les PvPers qui peuvent toujours faire du PvE pour grinder de l'XP ou capturer des bots. Pour leur expérience de jeu, une zone de PvE risque toujours d'être une zone dans laquelle on peut exploiter les mécaniques de leur point de vue. Et là je suis pas spécialiste. - les PvEers qui veulent juste jouer en autarcie sans se faire emm... et qui vont donc vouloir tout pouvoir faire dans leur zone : crafter tous les navires, trade, fight. L'idée "d'exploit" est loin d'eux. sans parler des PvP/E-ers. EvE semble fonctionner avec des zones. A voir. Je ne connais pas. 2) Sinon : J'imagine que toutes les nations doivent pouvoir construire des outposts dans la zone PvE pour crafter et commercer. Difficile de voir l'articulation entre les zones de PvE et PvP, à part le craft des navires dans la zone de PvE et leur transfert dans la zone de PvP à destination des PvPers. 3) Et puis un problème : Si on veut qu'un joueur de PvE tente le PvP de temps en temps, on ne peut pas lui demander de traverser l'OW à chaque fois et de perdre son temps. Il faut réduire les distances entre la côte du Golf du Mexique et les hotspots de PvP. Il faudrait peut-être donner 2 outposts principaux à chaque joueurs, un dans la zone de PvP, un autre dans la zone de PvE, avec TP des navires sans leur cargo entre les deux. Ça faciliterait le passage du jeu PvP au PvE et inversement et le transfert des navires de la zone PvE vers celle de PvP. Les PvP-ers ont peut-être des objections. 4) Peut-être que la réponse à ces questions se résume à une question : la zone de PvE sur le server PvP est-elle faite pour les joueurs de PvE purs ou pour ceux de PvP/E ?

1) Les bots pourraient n'attaquer que dans les zones PvE du server PvP. En d'autres termes : - tu mets les AI warships uniquement dans la zone PvE et tu les rends agressifs (+ des AI traders) et dans la zone PvP tu mets des AI traders. Pas compliqué, vu de loin. - ou alors tu donnes des instructions d'attaques différentes aux AI warships de la zone PvE et à ceux de la zone PvP du même server. - ou alors tu crées un perk qui rend les bots agressifs ou inoffensifs qui permet d'être attaqué ou immunisé sur tout le serveur (zones PvE + PvP). 2) "Le golf est vide" au sens où il n'y a pas d'îles au milieu (je ne parlais pas de la population). Aucune raison d'aller au milieu du Golf donc. Tout le monde restera sur la côte, surtout si les bots sont là. Ça limite les déplacement dans l'OW pour les PvE-ers (et son intérêt). 3) Barb', tu confirmes donc que l'attaque de joueurs par des bots n'est pas prévu pour l'instant, malgré l'annonce : C'est bien ce que je dis : dommage que les devs ne passent pas un tout petit peu de temps sur le PvE.

Dommage que les devs ne passent pas un tout petit peu de temps sur le PvE pour lui laisser une chance : ça fait bientôt un an et demi que les bots n'attaquent plus les joueurs de PvE (déc. 2015). Ça me paraît pourtant la base du PvE. le Golf du Mexique est vide. Ça ne rend pas la zone très attractive pour du PvE. L'ajout de quelques iles imaginaires et de convois de bots entre ces îles et les ports de la côte, ça pourrait ajouter une motivation à naviguer dans le Golf et pas seulement le long des côtes. et je ne parle évidemment pas de l'absence d'explo. NB : on voit ça et là sur le forum la rumeur que le serveur PvE ne serait pas fermé définitivement mais seulement jusqu'à la release et que les devs ont promis un serveur PvE. Moi, je n'ai rien lu de tel. Ça ressemble à une fake news. Barb' confirmera ou infirmera sans doute.

Neutrals have already been implemented in early testing phase. Very few players enrolled in it. I guess it's because PvE-ers would rather be nationals than neutrals, maybe a matter of immersion...

Some testers have already gone through 3 XP grinds : Sea trials, introduction of OW, Early Access. Am I forgetting one ? Whatever his rank, a veteran would "destroy the newbies" as it is a matter of skills. XP conservation only gives faster access to bigger ships. Plus, there'll be PvE and newcomers zones. Think of casual testers too.

+ 1 for HMS Pandora. 20-24 gun ships (corvettes and light frigates) are a very interesting group of ships to play with in NA. Many thx. I really hope full asset wipe will show us that Economy and Dura changes are adapted to casual gamers' (time) constraints who also merit attention.

I for one won't speak for the others. I'd like AI aggressiveness. The only thing I know is that, when AI agressive was on, the only players I know who complained were PvP-ers who didn't want to be tagged by bots, which is understandable. See e. g. : AI aggressiveness in PvE zones would make it more realistic, more fun and would add a small danger while trading. If you want to avoid them, just sail away.

PcE zones on PvP/E servers are a good thing. It allows switching gameplay (PvE---> PvP --> PvP/E). Pure PvP fighters should be happy to get more potential opponents on the server (PvE-ers tempted to try PvP). Being on the same server favour PvE-PvP switching : no need to earn gold and craft or buy ships again. That's good. Being able to play faster and more easily favours gameplay and game experience. Just make the PvE zones in the Gulf of Mexico more appealing with AI aggressiveness (bots attacking PvE-ers) and more (imaginary) islands and it'd be perfect.

You're talking about PvP in PvE zone, right ? I guess tagging players will simply be disabled in the PvE zone (except probably for smugglers).

The major issue with the Gulf of Mexico as a PvE area is its emptiness, the lack of islands. I guess that's why there are so few people sailing there. 99% of PvE activity will be concentrated along the coast and will undoubtedly consist in boring return trips from and to home ports. Can't we imagine someday the implementation of secret islands in the Gulf of Mexico (and bot circulation from and to them) to encourage voyages across the Gulf ? (= randomly generated islands, ideally being changed from time to time)

Have they ?

Would : a PvE zone in the Pacific Coast of the PvP servers + some randomly generated islands in the Pacific that'd be changed from time to time for Exploration + TP between the Caribbean and the Pacific be a money sink ?

Because NA devs' idea is to spend as little dev time as possible on PvE and it'd be very annoying to see them working on improving their Indian Reserves PvE zones, before/instead of designing and coding more essential PvE features such as AI aggressiveness (bot being able to tag PvE-ers) or an AI overhaul (if they ever do this).

NA brainstorming session on PvE (an innocent parody ;-) Dev A : PvE is too great right now. Something has to be done ! Dev B : Let's remove AI aggressiveness. Bot tagging is too fun. Dev A : Great ! What else ? Dev B : Let's remove PvE missions. Dev A : That's even better ! PvE-ers shouldn't be able to quickly find a fight. What about disallowing bot capture ? Dev B : Nope. It's already been suggested. What about shutting down the PvE server ? Dev A : Amazing ! Dev B : PvE could be even more boring in an empty zone such as the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine : no island, just a boring coast. Dev A : Yeah ! And AI must remain dumb, right ? Dev B : Right ! Dev A : And no exploration gameplay. Dev B : Of course. Now we do have our PvE Content plan for 2017-2018.

C'est vrai que c'est trop cool : des joueurs actuels sur le server PvE vont arrêter de jouer, trop dégoûtés d'être parqués (ironie)