Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'population'.
@admin Dear glorious and most magnificent russian devs, your humble customer comes to you with a bended knee and suggests that instead of making a cheaper version of the game just make the game free to play. You have more than enough DLC in the game to pay for the development costs. There are currently 255$ worth of DLC. Your great and flawless game will undoubtedly make more money off of dlc if there were billions of people playing the game. after all it is the greatest age of sail game ever imagined. This will prevent you from having to revert on the 15$ decision 6months down the road. Your most humble servant KoC p.s NICE SHIRT!
With the low server population and the giant map, it has become increasingly hard to find consistent pvp. This has led to 'hard core pvpers' camping capital/reinforcement zones to find players. They end up finding and sinking new players, who then quit the game. The Devs seem to realize this is a issue and have tried to bring players together away from the capital areas first with 'rumors of sunken fleets' and then with different variations on the 'pvp zone'. Yet it seems even the allure of getting ganked in the 'pvp zone' with no escape timer, for rewards the likes of which can also be found capping ai traders, has not drawn the numbers of players away from the capital zones that the devs were probably hoping for. So, this topic is for making suggestions on how to attract players away from the capital areas, and into one place for easily attained pvp. First lets ask: Why did the previous attempts fail? How I see it, there are three types of players: the pvpers - solo or small groups, can easily replace ships, go looking for pvp (I'd guess <10% of the server population) the non-pvping rear admirals - max rank, yet stay in the relative safety of the R zones, maybe because they don't have the funding to replace ships (most of the server population) the new players - actual new players, different than noobs Under the current system, the pvpers camp the capital/reinforcement zones looking for the large portion of the server that is the non-pvping rear admiral population, because that's where the players are. The previous attempts by the devs to make 'pvp zones' only tried to attract the small 'pvpers' population, which is simply not a large enough group to sustain consistent pvp. (also low rewards from zones and 100% chance of being ganked) So, I think any new suggestions should ignore the pvpers and instead focus on trying to draw the 'non-pvping rear admiral population' into one place, and the pvpers will follow, leaving the capital areas as places for new players to level up in relative safety.
As the title implies I believe it would be advantageous to only have a single PVP server. Higher population which leads to more accurate testing Night flips will happen, but to both sides of the world equally, so who can really complain? (oh, they nightflipped us, *as they think back to the 20 times we nightflipped them*) Saves on some confusion in the forums between pvpEU & NA Smaller nations will be able to field 25 in a port battle Will support the recent economic and crafting changes more since it brings in a larger teamwork based system Can have two servers directing towards the same map for everyone, much like how Call of Duty runs. Server Ping actually isnt as bad as everyone makes it, I am in Colorado with a copper connection and get 199-300 ping on eu, which is actually very playable in this slower pace game... can of course optimize the servers more, especially if it turns out you are saving money... Perhaps higher retention rate of players since there will be more players, causing game to rise in the steam market = more players = more money Of course the last one is a bit of a theory, but i believe it will be the case if more players stick around since there will be more help readily available to play the game at a more enjoyable rate. The PVE players can of course keep their server, although, it would be cool to have them in the same server as the PVP players as well, and their safe zone could be. idk.... THAT BEAUTIFUL AREA WEST OF MEXICO IN THE PACIFIC. <--- wanted this to get seen. Which of course all players could access and leave accordingly. Perhaps trade wouldnt be as good over there, but still good enough to enjoy the trade, and enough ai on the open waters to enjoy just pve. How to balance the pve marks and pvp marks then? a zone could be made so that it excludes certain ships, somewhat like port battles do. A ship made with the lowered PVE amount of marks would only be able to combat in the west Pacific side of Mexico. For example... "Santissima" is the normal name. "Santissima" notice the italics, could be the name for a ship that can only combat in the pve region. I am sure this could be coded in, since other exclusions have been in this game. I hope these ideas are seriously considered, because I believe the main problem to be (and I have been playing for over a year and a few months now) too low of a population. On the basis that when pvpNA had 1k+ players this was the most fun game to play ever, period. When there is now 50-120 on, it sucks. A LOT. With the idea of 3 servers, this is what makes this problem, with a SINGLE unified server, it would have at the very least a few hundred players at most times, which would be fantastic! Also, the nightly maintenance thing. Id say make it noon in the middle of an ocean where nowhere plays for 1 hour, OR even Make a daily downloadable hot fix, like Gaijin does when it changes its servers' settings. Godspeed all, OneEyedSnake
------TL;DR: Have only one server. Create more open worlds (new instances) for the populace to filter into as the server reaches peak players. Close them down again daily when maintenance downtime cycles the ports.------ THE PROBLEM: The game got big (steam release), servers became over crowded, lag became an issue, log in queues were frequent, the devs split off more servers and everyone was happy for a time. Now one server is dying and we are merging them back together. The population is going to wane and wax overtime, that much we can bet on. Opening up and closing servers as the population fluxes is not a very good way to deal with the overloads or population declines. Instead, I propose the following suggestion: MY SOLUTION: One server, spawning multiple open world instances on demand. There will only be one version of any port or any battle. When you enter Charleston, you enter the same Charleston as everyone else. The same prices, same contracts, same chat. Charleston isn't likely to become "overloaded" from the servers perspective. As players filter to all the different nations and many available port cities. Also, Charleston just represents a UI essentially. The idea of 1000 people being in Charleston is like 1000 people being in a chat room. But 1000 people in the Charleston open world harbor is like having 1000 call of duty players inside the same room. The chat room is practical, the overcrowded "call of duty room" is not. This WILL require some changes to the port flag system or some special considerations for how that would work. So keep an open mind on that. Let's explore solutions together a little later. HERE ARE THE DETAILS: Let's have one or two servers. One PvP and one PvE. I honestly think we can do away with PvE servers and perhaps just have a PvE type mode available. Where people have the option to be in a safe place, like the protected areas, to do their PvE stuff. I don't see a lot of value in PvE "only"servers for this type of game. -----However, that is an entirely separate discussion that doesn't need to be addressed here.------ So let's just say ONE server. For the purposes of our discussion, everything will be in reference to only having ONE universal server. We need multiple open worlds to deal with the population spikes. When you leave your port you will be spawned into the open world like normal. When that open world hits 75% capacity, a second one will become available. The second one will mirror the first one. All the same ports, same owners, same cross sword battles, same fleets patrolling... Everything is 100% the same except it has ZERO PLAYERS inside of it. Now that two are open (one almost full and one empty), when you leave port it will bring up a dialogue window asking you which of the two you would like to enter. This is how we will keep friends and groups together, since they may all select the same version. The dialogue window could also show the populations of the worlds available. Example: "YOU ARE DEPARTING FROM CHARLESTON. WHICH INSTANCE DO YOU CHOOSE? 1) OPEN WORLD 1 (873 players) 2) OPEN WOLRD 2 (793 players) 3) OPEN WORLD 3 (176 players)" ALL battles, no matter from which world they were spawned from, will be viewable in all the instances. If there is a port battle against Nassau, the message will be broadcast to the entire server and all of the instances of the open world. All players will be able to go to Nassau and join the port battle until that port battle instance becomes full. The additional open worlds will only become available when the population density becomes too high in the preceding open worlds. They will all close when the servers come down for maintenance. When the server comes back up from maintenance, it will have only one open world that everyone will log into until it becomes almost full again, then the server begins to open more. If more players attempt to log in when the other versions have opened, it will just ask them which they prefer to go into. When an open world becomes COMPLETELY full, it becomes unavailable to log into and players must choose a different version. BENEFITS: Players can select the server that matches their goals best. Traders will go to the least populated versions for trade runs. PvE seekers will go to the least populated servers to save themselves from lag. PvP players will seek the most populated servers for more potential targets. This will also have social and economic benefits. We can combine all the players into one gigantic server with one economy and one ongoing war. Everyone will have a chance to meet and interact together. The only thing that will separate us is our nation. That will be solved, in part, by "war and peace". Also, players can switch nations with the help of their new friends to xfer things. This game is highly social, and putting up server barriers detracts from that aspect. Let's capitalize on it. THE DOWNSIDES: The biggest issue I can think of that really hurts this idea is the current flag carry system. Let's say there are two open worlds available. The flag carrier will obviously choose the least populated one to transport the flag and reduce his chances of being intercepted. Is that fair? How can it be solved if not? What about blockade tactics for the port in question? I have a few ideas of how this can be addressed but I would like to first open it up for community discussion. FEEDBACK REQUEST: Also, please, ANY other issues you can think of, absolutely do not hesitate to bring them up here. No matter how small or trivial. I would love the opportunity to address any feedback you might have. This same topic will be linked to the reddit subforum as well in case you prefer their discussion format Better (I know I do). THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION IF YOU READ THIS FAR